Rent Controller Cannot Call Upon Landlord To Carry Out Repairs Of Tenanted Premises Under Delhi Rent Control Act: High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that there is no provision in the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 whereby the Rent Controller can call upon the landlord to carry out repairs of the tenanted premises.

Justice C Hari Shankar added that the Rent Controller may permit the tenant to carry out repairs under sec. 44(3) if, after receipt of notice from the tenant in that regard, the landlord fails to repair the premises. The expenses may then be deducted from the rent payable to the landlord or be recovered from the landlord. 

The Court thus dismissed a plea challenging an order dated 26th May, 2022 passed by the Additional District Judge whereby an application under sec. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with sec. 50 and 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the petitioners (landlord), as the defendants in the civil suit, was dismissed.

The contention of the petitioners was that by operation of the said provisions, the suit was maintainable only before the Rent Controller. It was thus argued that the suit was not maintainable before the Civil Judge, but would lie, instead, before the Rent Controller. As such, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed as not maintainable.

As the application was dismissed by Trial Court, the impugned order 26th May, 2022 was challenged before the High Court.

Analyzing the relevant provisions, the Court observed thus:

"There is, therefore, no provision in Section 44 of the DRC Act, or elsewhere in the DRC Act, whereby the Rent Controller can call upon the landlord to carry out repairs of the tenanted premises. He may permit the tenant to carry out repairs under Section 44(3) if, after receipt of notice from the tenant in that regard, the landlord fails to repair the premises."

The Court was of the view that the prayers of the suit could not be granted by the Rent Controller. It is to be noted that the first prayer was for a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the respondent and against the plaintiffs, restraining the plaintiffs from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit premises by the respondent. The second prayer was for a decree of mandatory injunction to the landlord to carry out necessary repairs in the suit premises.

"As already noticed hereinabove, the DRC Act does not empower the Rent Controller to direct the landlord to repair the tenanted premises. Even, the alternative prayer B in the suit is for a direction to the landlord to allow the tenant to repair the suit premises. The Rent Controller is not empowered under the DRC Act to give any such direction to the landlord. The remaining prayers in the suit are clearly outside the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller," the Court observed.

The Court therefore concluded that the suit was not one which could be decided by the Rent Controller, so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to adjudicate and decide the lis.

"In view of the aforesaid, I do not find that the impugned order passed by the learned ADJ suffers from any jurisdictional error or is, even otherwise, legally vulnerable, so as to justify interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India," the Court observed.

The plea was accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: BABA RAHIM ALI SHAH & ANR. v. SH. ATUL KUMAR GARG

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 589

Click Here To Read Order