SURMDER KUMAR Vs. PREM NATH PIALOK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are that Prem Nath, respondent No. I herein, filed an eviction petition against Narinder Kumar respondent No. 2 under Section 14 (l)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. Appellant Surinder Kumar filed an application for being impleaded as a party in the eviction petition, which application was dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller. Against the dismissal of the application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code the appellant filed C.M. (M) No. 201) of 1987 titled S'urinder Kumar v. Prem Nath, which was dismissed on 7-12-1988 by this Court observing "if the petitioner has an independent right of tenancy it will be open to him to move an application under Section 25 of the Act".

(2.) In the eviction petition an order of eviction was passed against respondent No. 2 on 9-3-1989 and thereafter the appellant filed objections under Section 25 of the Act which were dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller on 9-2-1990, Its appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal was also dismissed on 22-10-1990. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the appellant's possession in the premises has been throughout on behalf of his brother Narinder Kumar, respondent No. 2 herein, against whom an order of eviction has been passed and not in his own independent right.

(3.) Aggrieved, this second appeal has been filed by the objector Surinder Kumar. Counsel for the appellant agrued that both the Courts have dismissed the objection summarily without putting the parties to trial to prove their respective pleas both on law and facts. According to him, the objections under Section 25 of the Act cannot be dismissed in limine. He relied upon two decisions of this Court in Smt. Vidya Wami v. Takan Dans and Another 1974 R.C.R. 47(D) and Smt. Gaurl Devi v. Parmeshwar Parshad, 1975 RLR 6.