PREM KUMAR Vs. GRAHPAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter called the Act", is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal whereby it has upheld the order of the Controller dismissing the objections of the appellant under Section 47, Order 32 Rule 6 and 7 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 25 of the Act to the execution of an order of eviction passed against the appellant, his mother and his brother in respect of the property in dispute and the principle question that it raises is as to the competence of a deaf and dumb person to protect his interest in legal proceedings and as to the extent of judicial protection in such proceedings

(2.) The facts leading to the present appeal are not in dispute and may be briefly stated in so far as they are relevant. The premises in dispute was originally let out to late Sita Ram by respondent Shri Grahpal Singh. In 1963 Sita Ram died leaving behind the widow Smt. Ram Piari respondent No. 2 in the appeal and two sons Prem Kumar the appellant herein and Surinder Kumar. On January 26, 1958, respondent No. 1 herein, claiming to be the owner of the premises in dispule filed an eviction action against the aforesaid three heirs on the ground that the said respondent bona fide required the premises in dispute for the purpose of a residence. Respondent No. 2, Smt. Ram Piari and Prem Kumar, the appellent, resisted the plea for eviction and contended that the respondent No. 1 did not bona fide require the premises for his residence and was living in a very comfortable and spacious house. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the ownership of the property in dispute was, however, not denied. It was, however, contended that the premises had been taken for residential and commercial purposes. Surinder Kumar, the other son, kept away from the proceedings and was proceeded exparte. The respondent/landlord closed his entire evidence on December 26, 1968 and when the case was taken up on April 8, 1969 Smt. Ram Pari respondent No. 2 and Shri P. C Bedi, Advocate who has been appearing as counsel for Smt. Ram Piari and the appellant made a statement to the following effect:

(3.) The aforesaid statement was signed by Shri P.C Bedi and Smt, Ram Piari, respondent. The landlord accepted the above statement as correct and agreed not to execute the eviction order till April 1, 1972. Ex. XI was however, signed only by Smt. Ram Piari and appeared to be based on the assumption that Smt. Ram Piari was the exclusive tenant in respect of the property in dispute Ex. X-1 was, however, signed by Smt. Ram Piari for herself and "as guardian of respondent No. 2" i e. the appellant, it was neither signed by respondent prem Kumur nor by the other brother who was ex-parte. It was also not signed on behalf of appellant by his counsel. In the course of the aforesaid compromise it was made to appear that respondent No. 1 was the owner of the premises and Smt. Ram Piari respondent No. 2 was the tenant of the same and proceeded to state that "the other respondents are formal respondents. Respondent No. 1 represents respondent No. 2 as her 167 guardian respondent No. 3 was proceeded ex-parte because he never appeared in Court." In the terms and conditions of the compromise set out in the said document it was clearly made out that respondent Ram Piari had been accepted as the sole tenant; that she had admitted the bona fide requirement of the landlord with regard to the need of the premises for his personal residence; that the said respondent had admitted that no relation or family members of the said respondent had any right or interest whatsoever in the pemises; that the respondent Ram Piari would deliver vacant possession of the premises to the landlord on April 1, 1972; and that a consent 'decree may be passed as prayed for in the eviction application. On April 9, 1969 the Controller, who was then seized of the matter made the following order : "The respondent has admitted the petitioner's claim that he requires the premises for bona fide requirement to occupy the same. So, eviction order is passed under sec. 14(1) (e) of the D.R Control Act. The respondent shall hand over possession after 1.4.1971. The parties shall bear their own costs."