RAMESH CHAND SHARMA Vs. R S AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the tenant under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th October, 1980 of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order dated 11th March, 1980 of the Rent Controller passing an order of eviction against the appellant under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act and holding further that if he deposits all arrea's of rent at Rs. 100 per month with effect from 1st January, 1976 within one month from the date of the order the appellant wotild be deemed to have availed the benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act.

(2.) Briefly the facts are R. S. Aggarwal, respondent on 19th January, 1979 filed an application for eviction of the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent for the period from 1st June, 1970 at Rs. 100 per month in spite of notice of demand. The other ground of eviction was that the premises were let for residential purposes, the same were required by him for occupation for himself and for members of his family dependent on him, that he was the owner of the premises and that he had no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. He pleaded that he was a Divisional Accounts Officer and was occupying Government allotted quarter No. 1085 Sector VIII R. K. Puram, New Delhi consisting of three bed rooms, one drawing-cum-dining hall, two verandahs, one Kitchen bath room. Latrine, toilet etc. and that he had retired and the Government had asked him to vacate the quarter. The appellant in the written statement pleaded that the respondent was not the owner-landlord and the property was ownd by Smt. Ganga Devi widow of J. N. Gupta. He also pleaded that in a suit filed by Smt. Ganga Devi against present respodent and others she was claiming ownership of the suit property and the respondent was claiming the property on the basis of a Deeded of Relinquishment allegedly executed by J. N. Gupta, deceased husband of Smt. Ganga Devi in favour of respondent's wife, that the controversy as to who was the owner of the suit property was being vigorously contested in the civil court. In replication the respondent pleaded that he was the owner-landlord of the suit property, that J. N. Gupta, husband of Smt. Ganga Devi executed a Relinquishment deed. The Controller and the Tribunal held that the respondent was ownerlandlord, that J. N. Gupta executed a Release deed in favour of respondent's wife, that the agreed rent was Rs. 100 per month and considering the family of the respondent and the fact of his retirement and occupation of the Government accommodation by him it was held that the need of the respondent was bona fide. Hence this second appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant-tenant submits that a dispute as to who was the owner of the suit property between the respondent and Smt. Ganga Devi widow of J. N. Gupta ostensible owner has been pending in the civil court and therefore the Controller and the Tribunal ought not to have passed the order of eviction but should have awaited the decision of the Civil court. Ex. A. W. 11 is the Release Deed dated 12th May, 1969 executed by Jagdish Narain Gupta (J. N. Gupta) son of Shri Ram Pershad in favour of Smt. Santosh Kumari wife of the respondent. This document states that the plot of land of the suit property at 110A, Krishan Nagar, Safdarjang Enclave, New Delhi was purchased by the respondent's wite in his name as a benamidar from the previous owner by means of a registered sale deed dated 21st September, 1961, that after purchase the respondent's wife put up construction on the said plot, that the property had been in possession of different tenants including the appellant, that he was managing the suit property as a benamidar for and on behalf of the respondent's wife, J. N. Gupta relinquished all his rights, interest and titled in favour of Smt. Santosh Kumari further delcaring that he has no right, title or interest in the suit property whatsoever any longer. J. N. Gupta died on 31st May 1970, leaving behind his widow, Ganga Devi. It appears that Ganga Devi filed a civil suit against Santosh Kumari, respondent's wife and othtr occupants of the suit property for a declaration that she was the owner of the suit property. This suit, it is admitted, is still pending before the civil court. The respondent's wife died on 9th September. 1975 and the respondent is now contesting that civil suit. The respondent filed that present eviction application, as already stated, in 1979 claiming eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It is true that dispute about the title of the suit property is pending in the civil court but the Controller also has jurisdiction to determine whether the respondent was entitled to an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. There is no bar for the Controller to decide an eviction application merely on the ground that a title suit relating to the suit property was also pending before the civil court. For the grant of an order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act it is necessary for the Controller to determine if the respondent was owner-landlord. No provision of law has been brought to my notice that the Controller has no jurisdiction to try and decide the eviction application under Section 14(l)(e) of the Act during the pendency of the said suit in civil court. It is not denied that the civil court under Section 14 of the Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction against a tenant. The provisions of Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable and therefore the eviction proceedings cannot be stayed on account of the pendency of the title suit in the civil court. It is therefore held that in spite of pendency of the title suit in the civil court the Controller has jurisdiction to try and decide the eviction application under Section 14 of the Act.