ZAHOOR HASSAN Vs. MST. NOOR JAHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts fall in a short compass. Consequent upon a petition seeking possession on the grounds of non-payment of rent and subletting under clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') an order of eviction was passed in favour of the landlady Noor Jahan and against the tenant Wazahat Nabi. This was on March 26, 1979. The learned Additional Rent Controller held that Wazahat Nabi had been proved to have sublet, assigned or parted with possession of the premises in dispute to one Zahoor Hassan. We need not deal with the ground of eviction under clause (a) relating to the non-payment of rent as it is not relevant for our purposes. However, what is relevant is that after obtaining the order of eviction, Noor Jahan filed an execution application praying for delivery of possession and when warrants of possession were sought to be executed, the same were resisted. This was on July 12, 1979. On July 23, 1979 she moved an application for grant of police aid alleging that execution of the warrants of possession had been resisted. The learned Additional Rent Controller issued notice of the same to the judgment-debtor for 17th August, 1979 and thereafter for September 14. However, before that the Decree-holder moved an application under Order 21 Rule 97 praying that as it was Zahoor Hassan who had resisted the execution of the warrants of possession, he be put into civil prison. Its notice was also ordered to be issued for 14th September, 1979 and it appears from the record that thereafter both the applications were dealt with together. It may, however, be pertinent to note that in the first application no provision of the Code of Civil Procedure was mentioned. As in the application of September 1, 1979 the name of Zahoor Hassan was specifically mentioned, notice was issued to him and he filed his objection claiming to be in possession of the premises in his own right as a tenant under the decree holder. This led to the recording of evidence of both the sides. Ultimately, on January 27, 1983 the objections were dismissed and fresh warrants of possession were ordered to be issued. Aggrieved by the said order, Zahoor Hassan preferred an appeal which too met the same fate. Hence, this second appeal.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has sought acceptance of the appeal on three grounds. His first contention is that neither the learned Additional Rent Controller nor the learned Tribunal had appraised the evidence in the right perspective. The second contention is that the application under Order 21 Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure ought to have been dismissed as barred by limitation and lastly the appellant cannot be held liable to vacate the premises as he is neither the Judgment-debtor nor had he resisted the execution of the warrants of possession at the instigation of or on behalf of the Judgment-debtor. In support my attention has been drawn to sub-rule (2) of rule 98 of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) IN view of what has been noticed by me above, I am inclined to agree with the learned Additional Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal that the appellant has failed to prove that he is in possession of the premises in his own right or that he was inducted as a tenant by the Decree-holder.