NITIN ARORA & ANR vs UMESH KUMA TREHAN

$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: 20.11.2023
+ RC.REV. 171/2018 & CM Appls.16524/2018, 36468/2018, 25053/2020, 12628/2021, 5117/2022 and 31493/2022
NITIN ARORA & ANR ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Parinav Gupta, Adv.

versus

UMESH KUMAR TREHAN ….. Respondent
Through: Mr. N.K. Katawal, Mr. Anuj Arora, Mr. Naveen Gaur and Mr. Deepak Jain, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (ORAL)
1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/tenant impugning the order dated 20.02.2018 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by learned ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi with respect to the premises i.e., Shop No. 7 at ground floor and part of property bearing No.13/82, Geeta Colony, Delhi-110031 [hereinafter referred to as “demised premises”] wherein the Application for Leave to Defend/Contest filed by the Petitioner/tenant was dismissed and an Eviction Order was passed.
2. Learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter Mitter Sen Jain v. Shakuntala Devi, reported as (2000) 9 SCC 720 to submit that in the event a notification is not issued under the proviso to Section 1(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] making an area within the jurisdiction of the First Schedule of the Act, the Impugned order cannot be passed.
2.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant contends that the demised premises is situated in Geeta Colony, New Delhi which does not form part of the colonies within the jurisdiction of the Act.
3. Learned Counsel who appears on behalf of Respondent/landlord fairly submits that upon examination of the matter, they have found that the notification does not apply to the area where the demised premises is located, i.e., Geeta Colony. Hence, in these circumstances the Impugned Order must be set aside by this Court.
4. In view of the aforegoing, the Impugned Order dated 20.02.2018 is set aside.
5. As a consequence thereof, the Petition and all pending Applications stand closed.
6. The Respondent/landlord is, however, at liberty to take all appropriate action to seek recovery of possession of the demised premises in accordance with law before the appropriate forum.
7. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter.
8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that this Court had by its order dated 05.12.2018 directed the Petitioner/tenant to deposit use and occupation charges/mesne profits in terms of the judgment in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. reported as (2005) 1 SCC 705. It is further submitted that in view of the order passed today, the use and occupation charges must be refunded to the Petitioner/tenant.
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord submits that since this Court has not examined the matter on merits, the refund of use and occupation charges may not be applicable.
10. Learned Counsel for the parties submit that they shall examine the issue.

TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
NOVEMBER 20, 2023/r
Click here to check corrigendum, if any

RC.REV. 171/2018 Page 2 of 2