JAI KISHAN BANSAL Vs. MOHD.ISHTYAQUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard appellant(s) appears in-person and learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) Since the issues involved in all these appeals are similar, we take Civil Appeal No.7810 of 2013 as the lead case. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the High Court dtd. 15/11/2011 by which the R.C. Revision No.452/2011 filed by the appellants has been dismissed. The R.C. Revision was filed by the appellants challenging the order dtd. 21/7/2011 by which application for leave to defend, filed by the tenant under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was rejected. A review application was also rejected on 7/10/2011, challenging both the orders, the R.C. Revision was filed which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court dtd. 15/11/2011, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Late Jai Kishan Bansal (Dead), represented through legal heirs, was the tenant of premises in question. He took three shops on rent in April 1977 from one Sultana Bi. The property was Waqf property created by Waqf deed dtd. 23/12/1931 by Waqf-alal-aulad. Sultana Bi executed a sale deed dtd. 10/3/2003 in favour of present respondent of the premises in question. An application under Sec. 14(1)(e) read with Rule 25(B) of Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by the respondent for eviction against Jai Kishan Bansal claiming to be landlord of the shops by virtue of sale deed dtd. 10/3/2003. An application was filed by the tenant praying for grant of leave to contest and defend the eviction petition which was also replied by the landlord. On 7/4/2011 tenant had filed Civil Suit No.1036/2011 against Sultana Bi for declaration and permanent injunction. In Civil Suit No.1036/2011 Waqf Board has also appeared and filed a written statement and stated that sale deed executed by Sultana Bi in favour of respondent is not valid sale deed. By an order dtd. 21/7/2011, Additional Rent Controller, North District, Delhi passed an order rejecting the application for leave to defend. Order of eviction was passed which was not to be executed before expiry of six months. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller a review petition was filed by the tenant which too was dismissed on 7/10/2011. Aggrieved by both the orders, the R.C. Revision was filed before the High Court which was also dismissed on 15/11/2011. Aggrieved by which this appeal has been filed.