AJIT SINGH CHAWLA Vs. RAJINDER PARSHAD ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit for declaration and permanent injunction has been filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants with the allegations that the Plaintiff is the lawful tenant and in possession of premises bearing no. 44 -A, Coronation Building, Om Bhawan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi -110006. The premises are owned by Defendant no. 3, which is a Public Limited Company.

(2.) ACCORDING to the Plaintiff, Defendant no. 1 claims himself to be the owner of the suit premises on the basis of a Sale Deed dated 13.02.2008 executed by Defendant no. 2, Managing Director of Defendant no. 3 in favour of Defendant no. 1. It is urged that Defendant no. 3 never passed any Resolution authorising Defendant no. 2 to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the Defendant no. 1, thus, the Sale Deed dated 13.02.2008 on the basis of which Defendant no. 1 claims himself to be owner of the shops bearing nos. 44 -A and 44 -B, Coronation Building, Om Bhawan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi -110006 is of no consequence. Consequently, Defendant no. 1 who filed an Eviction Petition on the basis of the Sale Deed dated 13.02.2008 against the Plaintiff claiming possession of the suit premises on alleged bona fide requirement and the consequent judgment dated 28.04.2014 is also of no avail. The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks following reliefs: -

(3.) MR . Sudhir Nandrajog, the learned senior counsel for the Plaintiff relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bindra Watch Company v. Delhi Sigh Gurdwar Board and Anr., : ILR (1974) 2 Del 219, submits that the provision of Section 43 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the DRC Act) has to be read in conjunction with the provision of Section 50 of the DRC Act. Thus, the question of title can always be gone into by the Civil Court and since the Plaintiff has challenged the Sale Deed itself on the basis of which Defendant no. 1 claims ownership and consequently claims himself to be the landlord of the premises, the said question can be gone into by this Court.