Delhi HC Upholds Rent-Control Bar On Civil-Court Eviction After Landlords’ Own Papers Showed Tenant’s Rent Was ₹242 A Month

Ved Prakash and Sukh Pal sued to recover possession of commercial premises, rent arrears and mesne profits from V.P. Tandon, who admitted being a tenant but disputed the plaintiffs’ title and asserted that the rent was Rs. 242 per month.

The Civil Judge decreed possession and awarded rent and mesne profits at Rs. 5,000 per month.

On first appeal, the Additional District Judge found the rent to be Rs. 242 per month, set aside the possession decree on the ground that Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 barred the civil suit, awarded arrears at that rate, and granted Rs. 2,00,000 as damages.

Both sides filed second appeals: the plaintiffs challenged the refusal of possession and the rent finding, while Tandon’s legal representatives challenged the damages award.

Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 bars a civil court from granting possession where the tenancy is governed by that Act; the Court treated a rent below Rs. 3,500 per month as attracting the bar in this case.

Under Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a transferee of the lessor’s interest steps into the lessor’s position; the Court relied on this principle in recognizing the plaintiffs’ landlord status following the transfer.

The Court also accepted recovery of rent arrears for the three years preceding institution of the suit.

It treated the award of damages as being, in substance, an exercise of the court’s discretion to award costs in light of the litigation’s duration and the harassment caused.

The appeals were brought under Section 100 CPC.

The Court found that Tandon had admitted his tenancy and had been informed of the transfer of the property to the plaintiffs; the title documents and the circumstances of the transfer established the plaintiffs’ position as landlords.

The rent documents admitted by the plaintiffs—including the 2002 Agreement to Sell and Possession Letter—recorded rent of Rs. 242 per month.

The plaintiff’s oral evidence about an increase to Rs. 7,000 was contradictory and unsupported by cogent evidence, so the Court upheld the first appellate finding that the rent remained Rs. 242.

Because that amount was below the applicable threshold, Section 50 barred the civil court from granting possession, notwithstanding the plaintiffs’ hardship; they had to pursue eviction under the appropriate law.

The Court upheld the arrears award and found no basis to disturb the Rs. 2,00,000 award, which it characterized as costs for the prolonged litigation and resulting harassment.

It affirmed the finding that the rent was Rs. 242 per month, the refusal of a civil-court possession decree under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the award of arrears at that rate, and the Rs. 2,00,000 award in the nature of costs.

Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.