PREM RAJ CHAUDHRY Vs. R C OHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 26.09.2001 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) which has endorsed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 28.04.1998 by virtue of which the objections filed by the objectors under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) were accepted and the ARC held that the said objectors were not bound by the decree obtained by Prem Raj Chaudhary against them. This finding was endorsed by the RCT in his impugned judgment.

(2.) Record shows that the landlord Prem Raj Chaudhary had filed an eviction petition against two of his tenants namely R.C. Ohri and Anil Ohri (legal representatives of deceased Dr. Vimla Devi) under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the DRCA; premises are property bearing No. 172-D, Second Floor, front portion, Kamla Nagar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi; address of the two respondents in the eviction petition was described as C-177, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi; the alternate address of Shop No. 3/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. Record further shows that this eviction petition was filed on 06.05.1987. Notices were issued to the respondents returnable for 27.07.1987; summons were sent only at the shop address at 3/1, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi and not at the address at C-177, West Patel Nagar. Record further shows that earlier also, the landlord filed two eviction petitions against Vimla Devi; Vimla Devi could not be served by ordinary process; she has been served by publication in 'The Statesman' on 24.02.1986; in the course of these proceedings, the Court was informed about the death of Vimla Devi on 01.10.1984 (her death certificate was filed); it was brought to the notice of the Court that in fact Vimla Devi had died prior to the filing of the said eviction petitions which had accordingly been permitted to be withdrawn.

(3.) This present eviction petition has been filed against the legal representatives of deceased Vimla Devi namely R.C. Ohri and Vipin Ohri. This petition had been decreed in favour of the landlord on 27.7.1987. In the course of the execution proceedings objections were filed by the present objector namely Kailash Ahuja and Vinod Ahuja under Section 25 of the DRCA; their contention was that Satpal Ahuja was the tenant in the disputed premises since 1954 and after his death in 1976, they had inherited the tenancy and they were in occupation of the suit premises; he had taken these premises on rent from Gokal Chand who was the earlier tenant. After the death of Satpal Ahuja, his wife and son Smt. Kailash Ahuja and Vinod Ahuja inherited the tenancy rights; Vimla Devi never resided in the premises in question; she was a resident of the ground floor from where she was running a clinic about 35 years ago; she had left these premises in 1955. The objectors were living in these premises in their own rights independent of Vimla Devi; the decree holder had falsely stated that R.C. Ohri and Anil Ohri are the tenants in the suit property; they were not bound by the decree dated 27.7.1987; they had an independent title.