This intra-Court appeal challenged the judgment and decree passed by a learned Single Judge, who had allowed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, decreed an eviction suit, and directed the appellants (tenants) to hand over vacant possession of the suit property. The core dispute revolved around whether the monthly rent had been lawfully enhanced beyond the statutory threshold of Rs. 3,500/—under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act), thereby ousting the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction and making a civil suit maintainable. The Division Bench held that a landlord can only cross the Rs. 3,500/- threshold through a lawful enhancement via statutory notices under Sections 6A and 8 of the DRC Act. Because the foundational question regarding the valid service of the enhancement notice was left unadjudicated by the Rent Controller, neither the Rent Controller nor the Civil Court could bypass this requirement by mere landlord assertions. Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the Single Judge’s judgment and allowed the appeal.
- Factual Background and History:
- The suit property was originally let out on 28.10.1978 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-, which was later enhanced by agreement to Rs. 3,328/- w.e.f. 01.06.1999.
- The landlords issued a notice on 25.03.2002 to further raise the rent to Rs. 3,660/- w.e.f. 01.05.2002, the service of which was vehemently disputed by the tenants.
- After traveling through appellate forums and the High Court via CM(M) No. 1341/2004, the matter was remanded back to the Rent Controller to record evidence and decide specifically on the validity and date of service of the notice.
- In the remand order dated 05.04.2010, the Rent Controller failed to record findings on the service of notice, instead holding that since the landlord asserted the rent exceeded Rs. 3,500/-, his own jurisdiction stood automatically ousted, forcing the landlord to file a civil suit.
- Proceedings Before the Single Judge:
- Acting on the assertion that the rent exceeded Rs. 3,500/-, the respondents filed a civil suit for eviction.
- The learned Single Judge decreed the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, assuming the tenancy was validly terminated and jurisdiction lay with the civil court.
- Appellants’ Submissions:
- The Rent Controller committed an error by refusing to adjudicate the service of the notice dated 25.03.2002.
- Under Section 50 of the DRC Act, a civil court’s jurisdiction is barred unless the jurisdictional fact of lawful rent enhancement beyond Rs. 3,500/- is first established by the Rent Controller upon evidence.
- Respondents’ Submissions:
- Relying on M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), the respondents argued that once notice is served under Sections 6A and 8, protection under the DRC Act ceases via Section 3(c).
- Division Bench’s Analysis and Rationale:
- Statutory Pre-condition: Service of notice in accordance with law is a mandatory statutory pre-condition for a lawful rent enhancement. Until rent lawfully exceeds Rs. 3,500/-, the Rent Controller holds exclusive jurisdiction.
- Misapplication of Precedent: The Supreme Court ruling in Nopany Investments presupposes that the statutory notice under Sections 6A and 8 had actually been served. It does not apply where the core factum of service is disputed and requires adjudication through evidence.
- Bar of Civil Court Jurisdiction: The Single Judge erred by assuming jurisdiction and determining the issue of service or rent crossing the threshold. Mere self-serving assertions by landlords cannot oust the Rent Controller or trigger civil court competence under Section 50.
- Final Outcome: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside.
2026 DHC 6701
M/s Harisons and Ors. v. S. Bhag Singh (Dead) Through LRs and Ors. (D.O.J. 17.08.2026)
