SHEEL KHANNA Vs. SURINDER KAUR BANGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 20th October, 2012 passed by the District Judge-cum-A.S.J.-Incharge (West)/ARCT, Delhi, whereby the appeal under Sections 14(1)(d) & (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and upheld the order passed by the learned trial court directing the eviction of the petitioners from premises bearing No.AD-40, Tagore Garden, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondents are the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises. As per averments made in the eviction petition that one Sita Ram, son of Sh.Shankar Dass was inducted as tenant by the respondents in the aforesaid premises in the year 1975 at monthly rent of Rs.530/- excluding electricity and water charges. The said rent was always paid by Mr.Sita Ram and rent receipts were issued by the respondents in the name of Mr.Sita Ram from time to time for monthly rent paid by him which was also acknowledged by him.

(3.) From 1st January, 1992 Mr.Sita Ram had not paid the rent with respect to the tenanted premises till the date of filing of the eviction petition by the respondents against him under Section 14(1) (a), (d) & (h) of the Act. His two brothers, namely, Shyam Lal and Vishwa Nath filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for their impleadment as respondents in the eviction petition claiming themselves to be the tenants of the respondents. It is a matter of fact that the respondents always denied the relationship of landlord and tenant also claimed by Shyam Lal and Vishwa Nath being joint tenancy. It was stated by the respondent No.1 that they neither ever lived in the tenanted premises nor ever made any objection or claim. However, the learned trial court considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in order to expedite the eviction proceedings passed an order of impleadment of Shyam Lal and Vishwa Nath as respondents No.2 and 3 respectively, without prejudice to rights and contentions of the parties despite of the fact that the case of the landlord from the day one contested they were not the tenants in the tenanted premises.