VINOD INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. SURAJ KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against order of the RentControl Tribunal dated 9/04/1991, by which he had dismissed the appealfiled against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 7/02/1991, by which he had passed an interim order under Section 15(1) of theDelhi Rent Control Act, requiring the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent forthe period 1/04/1987, at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month, uptodate withinone month and continue to deposit month to month rent at the same rate tillthe disposal of the petition brought on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(2.) Undisputed facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1Smt. Suraj Kumari had let out the premises in question to Shri Chander BhanAggarwal who died in the year 1973 and after his death his son Shri VinodAggarwal was accepted as tenant and thereafter in 1974 the petitioner, aprivate limited company, was accepted as tenant, it appears that agreementfor sale dated 5/10/1974, was entered into between Smt. Suraj Kumarias vendor and Smt. Urvashi Aggarwal and her two sons, namely, RajivAggarwal and Sanjeev Aggarwal, minors, as prospective vendees in respect ofthe property in question. The whole of the property including the demisedpremises was agreed to be sold to them for a consideration of Rs. 1,85,000.00. The said sale price was to be paid in instalments and the first instalment ofRs. 20,000.00 was to be paid on signing of the agreement and the secondinstalment of Rs. 50,000.00 was to be paid on or before 31/10/1974 andthe balance amount was to be paid at the rate of 7,000.00 per month commencing from first week of January, 1975 onwards.

(3.) The petitioner has set up in the written statement that by virtueof this agreement to sell the Respondent-Smt. Suraj Kumari owner-landladyhad given the rights to the prospective vendees for recovering the rent fromthe tenants. There were two tenants in the property, namely, Shri A.C. Deb.Principal Cambridge School, on a monthly rent of Rs. 450.00 for the groundfloor whereas the petitioner is occupying the first floor and paying rent ofRs. 500.00 par month. According to the petitioner, this agreement for sale isbinding on Respondent No. 1 and relationship of landlord tenant ceased between Respondent No. 1 and the petitioner when this agreement was actedupon and a sum of Rs. 70,000.00 (of the first two instalments) already stoodpaid and notice of demand was issued by Respondent No. 1 in the year 1989claiming arrears of rent. A suit for specific performance of the agreement tosell has been brought by the prospective vendees against Respondent No. 1which is pending in the Civil Court. This suit is stated to have been broughtin the year 1987.