ALOK P JAIN Vs. SUNITA NARINDER AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition's directed against the judgment and order dated November 19,1994 whereby the learned lower court dismissed three applications moved by Shri Alok Jain, petitioner herein, under Order I Rule 10 and underorder IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated May - 3,1994, and under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated October 28,1994.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.N.Lekhi, Senior Advocate, has vehemently contended that the instant case is a case of fraud practised on the petitioner as well as on the Court. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is in occupation of the premise tearing No. A-13, West End, New Delhi, as a tenant under the respondent, vide lease agreement dated April 1-,1970. A petition for eviction under Section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by Mrs.Sunita Narinder Ahuja, respondent No. 1 herein, against Jaipur Udyog Ltd. wherein the present petitioner was arrayed as- respondent No.2. The address of M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. in the said petition was given as 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The petitioner was never served with any summonses or notices with regard to the suit bearing No. 265/93 entitled Smt. Sunita Narinder Ahuja v. M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. He was never aware of the proceedings pending in the said suit. The respondent in the said suit gave the address of M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. in the plaint as that of Rajasthan and not of Delhi i.e. the address which finds a mention in the lease deed i.e. 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Thus, a fraud was practised on the petitioner 'and on the Court also in order to obtain a decree for eviction'

(3.) The next contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Sub Judge did not have the necessary jurisdiction to pass the impugned decree dated February 22,1994 for possession against M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. and against the petitioner inasmuch as M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. was a sick unit and as such the proceedings in the said suit were hit by S. 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1986. The learned counsel in support of his argument has led me through the authorities reported in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. lagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others, ( AIR 1994 SC 853), City of London Corp v. Fell. (1993) 4 All ER 968, and M/s Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, Madras, (AIR 1992 SC 1439.)