HARVINDER SINGH Vs. INDER DEO SINGH THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned is the order dated 01.10.1997 which was an order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) endorsing the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 20.5.1995 wherein the eviction petition filed by the landlord Harvinder Singh Gulati under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) had been dismissed.

(2.) RECORD shows that the landlord Harvinder Singh Gulati had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA i.e. the E.P. No.248/1983 against Purshotam Jorabhai & Company which was a partnership firm (hereinafter referred to as the tenant). Contention was that the tenant was in tenancy of the premises bearing No.2744, First Floor, Qutab Road, Delhi; this was a petition initially filed under section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the DRCA; ex parte decree under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA had been obtained by the landlord on 04.11.1985. Thereafter on an application filed by one Inder Deo Thakur purported to be a Receiver appointed of the aforenoted partnership firm in Suit No.2A/81 titled as Chandrakant & Others Vs. Jayandra Bhai vide order of the Civil Judge Sagar (M.P.) dated 26.6.1981 and being a custodian of the court he had taken possession of all the properties of the said partnership firm both movable and immovable including the tenanted premises; contention being that he had appointed a chowkidar namely Bala Dutt in the aforenoted premises to look after the said premises; the chowkidar had left the premises without any intimation and it was in these circumstances that the ex parte decree had been obtained by the landlord; ex parte decree dated 04.11.1985 was set aside. The judgment of the Civil Judge, Sagar (MP) appointing Inder Deo Singh Thakur as a Receiver had been proved as Ex.OW-1/1; this judgment had evidenced the fact that the tenant firm M/s Purshottam Jorbhai & Co had been dissolved and Inder Deo Singh Thakur has been appointed as a Receiver. RECORD further evidenced that vide Ex.OW-1/4 to Ex.OW-1/6, registered A.D. letters were duly sent to the landlord informing him about the appointment of the Receiver which notice was also duly published; it had also come on record that Bala Dutt was appointed as chowkidar in the said premises. In these circumstances the eviction petition filed by the landlord against a tenant firm which had since stood dissolved and this fact having well been informed to the landlord and he having also been notified of the fact that the Receiver had been appointed of the firm and he having filed the eviction petition without taking necessary permission from the court was an illegality and in these circumstances the eviction petition has been dismissed by the impugned order i.e. by the court of the ARCT.