SUSHIL KUMAR SOBTI Vs. DINESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 07.04.2012 of District Judge/ARCT (West), whereby appeal against the judgment dated 07.02.2008 of Addl. Rent Controller (Rohini), was dismissed.

(2.) THIS is another case in the series of cases coming to this court, where the unscrupulous parties have manipulated the process of law in very deceitful manner to the disadvantage of lawful owners of the properties. The respondent Dinesh Chand Jain (landlord) had filed an eviction petition on 16.11.1989 on the ground of sub-letting against tenant Lavtar Singh as also the petitioner Sushil Kumar Sobti. The said petition came to be dismissed by the then Addl. Rent Controller vide his judgment dated 05.10.1996. The respondent Dinesh Chand Jain carried the matter in appeal before the Addl. Rent Controller Tribunal, who vide his order dated 07.05.2002 remanded the matter back to the Addl. Rent Controller with the permission afforded to the parties to lead additional evidence. The ARC vide her judgment dated 07.02.2008 passed the eviction order against the respondents, Lavtar Singh and Sushil Kumar Sobti (petitioner herein). The petitioner carried the matter in appeal before Addl. Rent Controller Tribunal which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 07.04.2012, which is under challenge in the instant petition.

(3.) THE case of respondent Dinesh Chand Jain, as set up in the eviction petition, was that Lavtar Singh was his tenant in the suit premises vide agreement dated 01.08.1983 executed by his father, and thereafter vide renewed agreement dated 10.08.1984 executed by him in his favour. Both the respondents, namely, Lavtar Singh and the petitioner herein filed the written statements on similar lines. THEir case, as set up, was that Lavtar Singh had given the premises to its owner Om Prakash, who in a suit of specific performance, filed against LRs of Budh Ram, had got the sale deed executed in his favour through the ex-parte order of the court, and had in turn sold the suit premises by registered sale deed to petitioner Sushil Kumar Sobti. THE ARC as also the ARCT both have categorically recorded the findings of facts that the sale deed executed in favour of Om Prakash as also in favour of petitioner Sushil Kumar Sobti were fraudulent and that the ex-parte decision of the court executing sale deed in favour of Om Prakash, was not binding on respondent Dinesh Chand Jain, as he was not a party to those proceedings. From the evidence available on record, it was recorded by the ARC, and so maintained by the ARCT, that from the various litigations between Lavtar Singh and respondent Dinesh Chand Jain, it was established that Lavtar Singh had admitted respondent Dinesh Chand Jain to be the owner/landlord of the suit premises. Based on the evidence on record, the ARC recorded finding of fact that Lavtar Singh was the tenant under respondent Dinesh Chand Jain in respect of suit premises and that the documents of title placed on record by Dinesh Chand Jain proved him to be the owner/landlord of the suit premises. THEse findings of facts have been rightly confirmed and maintained by the ARCT, and I do not see any illegality or perversity in those findings. From the evidence available on record, it was also recorded by the ARC that Lavtar Singh was a tenant in the suit premises, and that he has in any case parted with the possession thereof to Om Prakash, without his consent. This finding of fact has also been confirmed and maintained by the ARCT.