R N JAJU Vs. GOKAL CHAND KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order impugned before this Court is the order dated 17.03.2011 vide which the application filed by the petitioner namely R.N. Jaju seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the `Code') had been dismissed.

(2.) THE present eviction petition had been filed by the landlord against M/s Electric Construction and Equipment Co. Ltd.; this was a petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA); leave to defend had been granted to the defendant; written statement had been filed by the defendant i.e. M/s Electric Construction & Equipment Co. Ltd. THE petitioner R.N. Jaju is admittedly the President of the company; he had signed the written statement in this capacity. It is also not in dispute that the landlord had entered into a written rent agreement with the defendant company on 11.12.1970 which was effective from 01.12.1971. THE company was described as the tenant; there is also no dispute to the fact that a company is a distinct legal entity and has a distinct and separate persona.

(3.) RECORD shows that the tenant of the landlord was the company and as already noted supra, the company is a distinct entity; the company had taken these premises on rent and the President of the Company i.e. R.N. Jaju was residing in these premises; admittedly he has since retired in 2008. It was only in his capacity as an employee of the company that R.N. Jaju was retaining the premises; tenant was the defendant company. This is amply clear from the fact that the written statement filed by the company was signed by the petitioner R.N. Jaju in his capacity as the President of the Company; it was never the stand of R.N. Jaju ever before that he was a tenant in his individual capacity. As noted hereinabove, the eviction petition had been filed in 1983 i.e. 28 years ago; leave to defend had been filed by the company on 30.11.1983 under the signatures of the petitioner again in his capacity as President of the Company; the present application filed in the year 2011 after a gap of 26 years was nothing but one more last ditch effort to delay the proceedings. It was only in capacity as the principal officer of the company that the petitioner was occupying these premises; he had no other independent status. The dismissal of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code warrants no interference. Order suffers from no illegality. Dismissed.