'Mere Assertion Of Higher Rent By Landlord Cannot Oust DRC Act': Delhi High Court Sets Aside Eviction Decree, Remands Matter Back

"Unless that jurisdictional fact is established in accordance with law, it cannot be held that the rent stood enhanced beyond Rs.3,500/- per month so as to attract Section 3(c) of the DRC Act and exclude the bar contained in Section 50 thereof." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated August 17, 2026, held that a civil court lacks jurisdiction to decree an eviction suit under the general law unless the Rent Controller first records a definitive finding on the valid service of notice enhancing rent beyond the statutory threshold of Rs. 3,500 per month.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Chaudhary and Justice Renu Bhatnagar observed that a landlord's unilateral assertion that rent has exceeded the threshold cannot automatically oust the applicability of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The dispute arose from a commercial property originally let out in October 1978 at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500, which was later enhanced to Rs. 3,328 per month. The respondent-landlords claimed a further enhancement to Rs. 3,660 via a statutory notice dated March 25, 2002, the service of which was vehemently disputed by the tenant. After multiple rounds of litigation and remands, the Rent Controller in 2010 refused to decide on the service of the notice, holding instead that the mere claim of enhanced rent ousted his jurisdiction. The landlords then approached the Single Judge of the High Court through a civil suit, where an eviction decree was granted under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC, prompting the present appeal by the tenants.

The primary question before the court was whether a civil court can assume jurisdiction and decree an eviction suit without a prior adjudication by the Rent Controller on the valid service of notice under Sections 6A and 8 of the DRC Act. The court was also called upon to determine if a landlord's mere assertion of rent exceeding Rs. 3,500 per month is sufficient to remove the statutory bar under Section 50 of the Act.

Jurisdictional Prerequisites under DRC Act

The Division Bench examined the interplay between Sections 3(c), 6A, 8, and 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The court emphasized that the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Controller can only be displaced, and that of the Civil Court can only arise, when the monthly rent lawfully exceeds Rs. 3,500. The bench noted that service of notice in accordance with Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is an absolute statutory pre-condition for a lawful rent enhancement.

"Service of notice, in accordance with law, is a statutory pre-condition for a lawful enhancement of rent. The jurisdiction to decide the same rests in Rent Controller under the DRC Act and not in Civil Court."

Rent Controller Erred in Abdicating Jurisdiction

The court pointed out that the Rent Controller had previously been directed by the High Court to record evidence and decide upon the disputed service of the March 2002 notice. Instead of complying, the Rent Controller abdicated his responsibility by holding that the assertion of higher rent by the landlord automatically ousted his jurisdiction. The bench termed this approach completely illegal, holding that without first determining if the rent was validly raised from Rs. 3,328 to Rs. 3,660, no further enhancement could legally occur.

Misapplication of Supreme Court Precedent

Addressing the landlords' reliance on the Supreme Court ruling in M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokh Singh (HUF), the Division Bench clarified that the cited judgment applies only where statutory notices under Sections 6A and 8 have been admittedly served. The bench held that Nopany Investments does not govern situations where the foundational fact of notice service itself remains deeply disputed and legally unresolved.

"Unless that jurisdictional fact is established in accordance with law, it cannot be held that the rent stood enhanced beyond Rs.3,500/- per month so as to attract Section 3(c) of the DRC Act."

Single Judge Could Not Assume Original Jurisdiction

The High Court held that the learned Single Judge committed a grave jurisdictional error by proceeding to determine the validity of the notice and decreeing the suit under Order XII Rule 6 CPC. The bench reiterated that a civil court cannot bypass the statutory mechanism and assume jurisdiction based solely on the landlord's unverified pleadings. The foundational jurisdictional fact must first be established before the specialized forum created under the statute.

Consequent to these findings, the Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated February 21, 2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CS (OS) 60 of 2019. The civil suit for eviction was held to be premature and unsustainable in the absence of a prior finding by the Rent Controller on the lawful enhancement of rent beyond the statutory ceiling.

Date of Decision: 17 August 2026