Subsequent Notification Under Section 1(2) DRC Act Not Required for Areas Urbanized Prior to Act’s Enactment

The Appellant (landlord) filed a civil suit for possession, damages, and injunction against the Respondent (tenant) regarding a shop in Mahavir Block, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara

The Respondent argued the suit was barred by Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, as the monthly rent was Rs. 1,300

The Appellant contended that since the area (Village Chandrawali) had not been specifically notified under Section 1(2) of the DRC Act after its urbanization, the Act did not apply

Previously, the Appellant had filed and withdrawn a civil suit and an eviction petition under the DRC Act for the same property

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, holding it barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act

1. Whether the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, apply to the suit property located in Shahdara, thereby barring a civil suit under Section 50 of the Act

2. Whether a second notification under the proviso to Section 1(2) of the DRC Act is required for areas that were already part of the Municipal Committee of Delhi-Shahdara prior to the commencement of the DRC Act

The court applied Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts for premises covered by the Act

It interpreted Section 1(2) read with Schedule 1 of the DRC Act, which extends the Act's jurisdiction to all areas that were included within the "Municipal Committee, Delhi-Shahdara" as of April 7, 1958

The court distinguished the precedent in Mitter Sen Jain v. Shakuntala Devi (2009) 9 SCC 720, noting that a supplementary notification is only required for areas urbanized after the DRC Act came into force on February 9, 1959

The Court found that the suit property in Shahdara was urbanized and included within the municipal limits via a notification dated December 8, 1954

Because this urbanization occurred before the enactment of the DRC Act in 1959, the area was automatically covered under Schedule 1, Item 4 ("Municipal Committee, Delhi-Shahdara") of the DRC Act at the time of its inception

Consequently, no further notification under the proviso to Section 1(2) was necessary

The Court also noted the Appellant’s inconsistent conduct (approbate and reprobate), as he had previously filed an eviction petition under the DRC Act, acknowledging the Act’s applicability to the same property

Therefore, the civil suit is expressly barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act [para. 40]. The court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for interference under Section 100 CPC