LAWS(DLH)-2004-5-103

RENU VIJ Vs. DALJIT SINGH BHATIA

Decided On May 31, 2004
RENU VIJ Appellant
V/S
DALJIT SINGH BHATIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the order dated 19th July, 2000 passed by the Court of Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Shahdara, Delhi, allowing appeals of the respondent No. 2, against orders dated 29th April, 1999 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, holding that petitioner is a necessary and proper party in the eviction proceeding filed by respondent No. 2 against respondent No. 1. The controversy involved in these two petitions is the same and, thereforee, the same are being disposed of by this common order. CM. (M) 538/2000:

(2.) IN this case Jai Parkash (respondent No. 2) filed a petition for eviction under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act against Daljeet Singh Bhatia -respondent No. 1 (hereinafter 'the tenant') in respect of a portion of the property No. 355, Gali No. 2, Saraswati Bhandar, Gandhi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, consisting of one room on the ground floor with common toilet and bath (hereinafter, referred to as 'the suit property'). It is pleaded that he had purchased the said property from its earlier owner Amrit Lal, through a registered Sale Deed dated 10.2.1998; thereafter tenant was asked to pay the rent to him and despite service of notice, rent was not paid. It is also pleaded that tenant was not staying in the suit premises and has sublet, assigned and otherwise parted with possession to some other person and that he was residing in Dayanand Vihar, Delhi. Respondent No. 2 also pleaded about earlier litigation pending between him and the petitioner, in respect to the suit property.

(3.) IN the above eviction proceedings, petitioner -Smt. Renu Vij moved applications before the Trial Court under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151, CPC, for impleading her as a necessary party. It was, inter alia, stated that she is the owner and landlady of the entire four storeyed building including the suit premises; her husband Krishan Lal purchased the same from Amrit Lal on the basis of agreement to sell and receipt dated 12.7.1978 and constructed the building in stages. Jai Prakash (respondent No. 2) and one Kallu threatened to dispossess her from the suit property; and she filed a civil suit being S.No. 106/98, against them. Learned Civil Judge vide order dated 26.3.1998 granted injunction in her favor restraining them from dispossessing her from the said property. Jai Prakash (respondent No. 2) filed written statement in the said suit on 14.5.1998 claiming that he had purchased the property vide sale deed dated 10.2.1998 from Amrit Lal; she was shocked to know about it and on her complaint criminal case under Sections 420/506, IPC vide FIR No. 80/2000 at PS Gandhi Nagar against Amrit Lal and Jai Prakash was registered for creating false documents in pursuance of criminal conspiracy to deprive the petitioner of her property. It is pleaded that there are five tenants in the suit property, namely, Sunil Kumar, Daljit Singh Bhatia, Kaushik Bhatt, Vinod Bedi and Hardwari Lal. All tenants were paying rent to the applicant by cheque for the last many years. The police investigated the matter and statement of tenants has been recorded by the police. CM(M) 539/2000: