MAHESH CHANDRA Vs. KULDIP GOYLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated March 14, 1986, Additional District Judge, Delhi, on an application moved by the respondent no. 1, plaintiff in suit) under Order 22 Rule 4 C.P.C. to bring on record the legal representatives of respondent no. 3, who had since expired sometime in the year 1980. A separate application was also moved under the provisions of Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code ., for prayer that the legal representatives of respondent no. 3 may be made parties in their independent capacity, being necessary parties in the suit. The application under Order 22. Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code . was also accompanied with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay as the above said application was moved during the pendency of appeal, preferred in the Court of Additional District Judge, against the order dated February 4, 1984 wherein the Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi, dismissed the application of the. respondent no. 1 Shri Kuldip Kumar Goyle, under Order 39 Rules I and 2 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to restrain the respondents I to 3 from executing the decree, bearing title Shri Mahesh Chandra and Others v. A.C. Goyle in suit No. 540/70 decided on November 18, 1976, by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2.) The brief facts, which are relevant for the present controversy, are that a registered sale deed was made In favour of the petitioners, in respect of the premises known as 5, Doctors Lane, New Delhi, on March 4, 1971, and a supplementary lease-deed by Land and Development Office was made in favour of the petitioners on June 3, 1972. The petitioners filed a suit for eviction against Shri A.C. Goyle, the father of respondent no, I, and the same was decreed vide order dated November 18, 1976, by the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, the first appeal of Shri A.C. Goyle was dismissed by 615 the Rent Control Tribun..il on September 17, 1979, and the said order of eviction was upheld by this Court on October 12, 1979. It is stated that Special Leave Petition against the order of the High Court was also dismissed by the Supreme Court. The present respondent no. 1 Shri Kuldip Goyle is the son of Shri A.C. Goyle against whom a decree of eviction was passed. He filed objections, under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, before the Additional Rent Controller, before whom the execution was applied of the decree dated November 18, 1976. The evidence was led and the objections were tried. The same were dismissed by the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, vide order dated February 27, 1982, The said Court held that the objectors have failed to prove the case regarding independent title to the suit premises and the Court cannot go behind the decree and the same cannot be held as illegal, null and void. Shri Kuldip Goyle filed an appeal in the Court of Shri V.S. Aggarwal Rent Control Tribunal, assailing the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated February 27, 1982. The Rent Control Tribunal, vide order dated August 2 8, 1963, affirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller and held that the appellant therein failed to establish that he was a tenant in the property and in occupation of the same, in his own independent right. Meanwhile, the respondents 1 and 2 had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on December 11, 1979. The relevant prayer clause in the said suit may be reproduced as follows : "It is, therefore, prayed that decree for declaration and permanent injunction may be passed in favour of the plaintiffs declaring the plaintiffs as lawful tenants hiving an independent title to the said premises as tenants and declaring the said decree bearing title Shri Mahesh Chandra and Others v. A.C. Goyle suit No. 540/70 decided on 18.11.76, execution of which is pending in the Court of Shri P.K. Dham, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi, as illegal, void and restraining the defendants No. I to 3 permanently, from executing the decree bearing title Shri Mahesh Chandra and Others v. Shri A.G. Goyle suit No. 540/70 decided on 18.11.76 pending in the Court of Shri P.K. Dham, Addl., Rent Controller, Delhi and the defendants No 4 to 8 from denying the title of the plaintiffs as tenant in the said premises. No relief is claimed against defendant No. 9. It is further prayed that any other relief which this Court may deem fit may also be granted in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants."

(3.) The above said respondents also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C P.C. for ad interim injunction. The relevant prayer this application is reproduced as follows : "That in view of the above, it is, therefore, prayed that till the decision of the suit, an ad interim injunction may be granted restraining the defendants No. 1 to 3 from executing the decree, bearing title Shri Mahesh Chandra and Others v. Shri A.C. Goyle suit No. 540/70 decided on 18.11.1976 pending in the Court of Shri P.K. Dham, Addl. Rent Controller, Delhi." The said application was disposed of by the Court of Shri RC. Yaduvanshi, Sub Judge 1st Class, Delhi, vide order dated February 4,1984. The matter was hotly contested and it was held by the Trial Judge that the balance of convenience was not in favour of the plaintiffs/ respondents, as they are being sought to be evicted by due process of law. Respondent no. 3, Shri Rajinder 616 The Delhi Law Times 1992 Nath Dewan had already expired prior to the date of passing of the order In an application for interim injunction. No steps were taken to implead his legal heirs in the Trial Court as it was stated by the respondents herein that they had no knowledge of his death, although it was mentioned in the order sheet of September 14, 1981, "that defendant No. 4 i.e. Rajinder Nath Dewan reported to have died".