MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. INDO AMERICAN ELECTRICALS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against an order dated 12th March, 1990, paused by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dismissing objections of the Petitioner, Manmohan Singh, to withdrawal of the application that had been filed by respondent No. 1, namely, Indo American Electricals Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the Company), under Order 41 Rule 19 Civil Procedure Code . The position that emerges on a reading of this order is that the Company, had filed an appeal against the eviction order passed in favour of respondent No. 2 against respondent No. 1. That appeal appears to have been dismissed in default and it was then that the Company had moved an application for restoration of the appeal under the provisions of Order 41 Rule 19 C.P.C. While that application was pending consideration, an application was moved before the Court intimating that there was a compromise between the landlord and the tenant, and pursuant to which application under Order 41 Rule 19 Civil Procedure Code . was sought to be withdrawn. The result would be that the appeal would remain dismissed in default, and the eviction order shall become final. That application is stated to have been moved not by the tenant but by the landlord who is now respondent No. 2.

(2.) On that application being moved, the present petitioner, filed objections praying for being heard before the application for withdrawal was disposed of and it was this application which was rejected by the Court on the ground that the petitioner being not a tenant in his individual capacity and the withdrawal of the application being authorised bypower of attorney given to Mr. M.R. Jaitley, Advocate, Counsel for the Company, the petition could not be heard in opposition to the said application.

(3.) The petitioner has reiterated his objections in the present revision petition. Mr. P.B. Menon appearing for the petitioner has, at the outset, stated that the whole question was whether this withdrawal of the application was under proper authority of either the Board of Directors, or that of a director or an officer of the Company duly authorised in this behalf by a resolution of the Board of Directors. He asserts that the petitioner was in possession of the premises as having been Managing Director of the Company at the inception of the tenancy, and that he continued to be the Director throughout. Mr. Menon while conceding that Mr. Manmohan Singh may not have a right to be heard in his personal capacity, contends that it was, nevertheless, incumbent upon the Court to satisfy itself that the application for withdrawal had been made under proper authority. It is also stated at the Bar that after the petitioner filed objections to the withdrawal, the Court did not even call upon the Company to state its position on facts vis-a-vis the contentions raised by the petitioner. This fact is admitted by Mr. Jaitley that the Compay did not file any reply. He has explained, though, that this was for the reason that it was not called upon by the Court, to file any reply and the matter was disposed of only by hearing the counsel for the parties. 513