Add Section 302 IPC in case of Dowry Death : Supreme Court

We had earlier reported a Judgment of the Apex Court where the Bench had opined that Dowry Deaths fall under the category of 'rarest of rare' case and thus is liable to be punished with the death sentence.

In a significant order, passed today, the Supreme Court directed that all trial courts in the country shall add Section 302 IPC (murder) in a case of dowry death under Section 304 B so that death sentence can be given in heinous and barbaric crimes against women. 

A bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra also directed that the copy of this order be sent to Registrar Generals of all High Courts which will circulate it to all trial courts for compliance. 

The apex court disapproved the approach of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which reduced the life sentence given to the appellant Rajbir alias Raju, who killed his wife Sunita by striking her head repeatedly against the wall and finally throttling her, to ten years. 

The apex court issued notice to Rajbir, asking him to explain why life imprisonment awarded to him by the trial court should not be restored. 

The apex court, however, granted bail to his mother considering that she is about 80 years old. 

Sunita was killed within six months of her marriage for not meeting the dowry demands. 

The Supreme Court had in another case issued notice to Sukhdev Singh, asking him to explain why his life imprisonment should not be enhanced to death sentence. 

The apex court in order said, ‘We further direct all trial courts in India to ordinarily add Section 302 to the charge of Section 304 B, so that death sentence can be imposed in such heinous and barbaric crimes against women.’ Justice Katju had earlier described Indian society as sick in view of increasing incidence of murder of young married women to satisfy the lust and greed for dowry

Week 3 : 'Action Packed'

We have seen tremendous amounts of action this week in the legal fraternity. Be it the 'drama' in court by Sr. Advocate Shanti Bhushan to the guilty verdict against Justice Soumitra Sen. The last week (rather fortnight) saw the release of SPS Rathore from jail after the Supreme Court granted him bail in the Ruchika Girhotra case.

In other news, the week was dominated by the 2G scam and the antics of A.Raja and the DMK. Raja finally resigned, very reluctantly though, and Kapil Sibal has taken his place as the new Telecom Minister.

The Top News of the Week is as under;

Naik Paranjpe secures relief for Big Boss

Delhi HC issues notices to Centre and Delhi Government to prosecute Arundhati Roy

2G Spectrum Scam : SC directs Union Government to file affidavit

Government may introduce Judicial Standards and Accountability Bill, 2010

Supreme Court asks Vodafone to deposit Rs.2,500 crore

Set up Armed Forces Grievances Redressal Commission : Supreme Court

Government introduces another version of Enemy Property Amendment Bill in Lok Sabha

Delhi HC seeks reponse from the Centre on appointment of CMDs of BSNL and MTNL

Delhi High Court directs government to consult with DLSA to consider release of inmates unable to pay surety amount despite bail being granted 

SPS Rathore gets Bail from Supreme Court

Won't Say Sorry : Shanti Bhushan to Supreme Court

Ramalinga Raju & 5 others Surrender before Trial Court

Justice Soumitra Sen Guilty : Rajya Sabha Inquiry Committee

Supreme Court upholds conviction of Monica Bedi in a fake passport case

The Top Articles of the Week

Effect of Sub-Letting : Relevant Rate of Rent under Delhi Rent Control Act: The Law

Doctrine of Non Traverse : The Concept Explained

Trustworthy Evidence : The Doctrine of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus

Tenant by 'Holding Over' and 'Sufferance' : The Law explained

Trademarks and Domain Names : The Law

Descriptiveness & Registration of Trademark : The Law

New Feature

Guest Post

Foreign Direct Investment : A Comparison of the Consolidated Policies of 2010

--

The Legal Blog.in

Effect of Sub-Letting : Relevant Rate of Rent under Delhi Rent Control Act: The Law

Justice A.K. Sikri
Delhi High Court

An interesting question was raised in the instant case (M/s. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. vs M/s. Pal Properties (India) Pvt. Ltd. And Others), where the Premises in question was let out to the tenant for a rent less than Rs. 3500/- per month and the said tenant further sub-let the Premises for an amount exceeding Rs. 3500/- per month. The question that arose for the consideration of the Bench was which rate of rent would be applicable to determine the question regarding jurisdiction of the Civil Court in view of S. 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

The Bench held that once the tenant sublets the property for a rent exceeding Rs. 3500/- per month, then the relevant rent for the consideration of the Court would be the amount exceeding Rs. 3500/- per month. The Court held that once the premises fetches a rent exceeding Rs. 3500/- per month, the tenant loses the protection afforded by the Delhi Rent Control Act. The relevant Para(s) of the judgments are reproduced hereinbelow;

14. The last question which calls for determination is as to whether the tenancy of the defendants is protected under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act and the suit is not maintainable in view of Section 50 of the said Act. On this aspect facts are not in dispute. Defendants 1 to 3 are paying the rent of Rs. 1540/-. However, they have sub-let a part of the tenanted premises to defendant No. 4 and defendant No. 4 is paying the rent of Rs. 24,701.25 paise to defendants 1 to 3. Therefore, no evidence is required and legal question which calls for determination is as to whether it is a rent of Rs. 1540/- paid by tenants to the landlord or it is a rent of Rs. 24,701.75 paise paid by sub-tenant to tenants which would be a determinative factor in such proceedings. This issue is no more res integra. Identical question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.S. Jain Company Ltd. Vs. Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. & Ors. . In para-5, the question which fell for consideration was posed. It reads as under:

"The point for consideration in the appeal is: Whether a tenant who is paying a rent of Rs. 900/- p.m. Section 3(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958) can be evicted by a simple notice under Section 106 Transfer of Property Act, through the civil Court if he has lawfully sub-let there premises to two tenants, one for Rs. 40,000/- p.m. and another for Rs. 4,500/- p.m. (in each cases for more than Rs. 3,500/- p.m.)?

15. The answer to this question is found in paras 8, 9 and 12 of that judgment. After relying upon for Supreme Court judgments dealing with purposeful construction of a statute rather than adopting mechanical approach, in para-12 the Court observed as under:

"12. In our view, the intention behind Section 3(c) is that a premises which fetches a rent of Rs. 3,500/- p.m. should be exempt and that protection should be restricted to buildings fetching a rent less than Rs. 3,500/- p.m. In case a tenant paying less than Rs. 3,500/- p.m. to his landlord has sublet the very same premises may be lawfully for a rent above Rs. 3,500/- p.m., then the question naturally arises whether such a tenant can be said to belong to weaker sections of society requiring protection. By sub-letting for a rent above Rs. 3,500/- p.m., the tenant has parted with his physical possession. He is receiving from his tenant (i.e. the sub-tenant) more than Rs. 3,500/- p.m. though he is paying less than Rs. 3,500/- p.m. to his landlord. The above contrast is well illustrated by the facts of the case before us. The appellants tenant is paying only Rs. 900/- p.m. to the plaintiff, while one for Rs. 40,000/- p.m. and another for Rs. 4,500/- p.m. In regard to each of these units, the sub-tenants have no protection of the Rent Act. In our view, the purpose of Section 3(c) is not to give any protection to such a tenant.

16. Thus it is clear that the relevant rent is the one which is paid by sub-tenant to the tenant. In the instant case it is more than Rs. 3,500/- PM and, therefore, no protection under the Delhi Rent Control Act would be available to the defendants and the present suit is not hit by Section 50 of the Rent Control Act.

Doctrine of Non Traverse : The Concept Explained

Justice V.B. Gupta of the Delhi High Court has enunciated the 'Doctrine of Non-Traverse' in his judgment in Smt. Asha Kapoor v. Sh. Hari Om Sharda . The extract of the judgment is given below;

16. Order VIII Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short as Code) read as under;

"3. Denial to be specific.- It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the ground alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages.

4. Evasive denial- Where a defendant denies an allegation of fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer the point of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he received that particular amount, but he must deny that he received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with those circumstances.

5. Specific denial-[(1)] Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability; Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission.

(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the fact contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved. (3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule (1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a pleader.

(4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced.]"

17. The effect of Order 8 Rule 3 read along with rr 4 and 5 of the Code is that, defendant is bound to deal specifically with each allegation of fact not admitted by him; he must either deny or state definitely that the substance of each allegation is not admitted. The main allegations which form the foundation of the suit should be dealt with in that way and expressly denied. Facts not specifically dealt with will be taken to be admitted under Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code.

18. Order 8 Rule 5 of the Code is known as doctrine of non-traverse which means that where a material averment is passed over without specific denial, it is taken to be admitted. The rule says that any allegation of fact must either be denied specifically or by necessary implication or there should be a statement that the fact is not admitted. If the plea is not taken in that manner, then the allegation should taken to be admitted.

19. Supreme Court in M. Venkataraman Hebbar (D) By L.RS. Vs. M. Rajgopal Hebbar & Ors. 2007 (5) SCALE 598, observed;

"Thus, if a plea which was relevant for the purpose of maintaining a suit had not been specifically traversed, the Court was entitled to draw an inference that the same had been admitted. A fact admitted in terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act need not be proved."