ABDUL WAHAB & ORS Vs. SARFARAZ ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No.8939/2015 (Exemption)

(2.) Petitioners filed a suit for possession against Sarfaraz Ali Khan claiming that Smt. Chameli Devi Gupta was the original owner of the suit property which devolved on her two legal heirs, that is, Mool Chand and Gian Chand, who sold their half undivided shares each in the property to Nasiruddin and Mst. Amina Begum. Nasiruddin and Amina Begum passed away leaving behind Mohd. Akbar, Mohd. Yahya, Mst. Parveen Begum, Mst. Yasmeen Begum, Mohd. Imran, Mst. Saira Bani and Mohd. Akram as legal heirs who sold the suit property, that is, a shop on the ground floor in property No.509, Tokriwalan, Churiwalan, Jama Masjid, Delhi to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs. The said shop when purchased had already been let out to the Defendant/Respondent by Smt. Chameli Devi Gupta. The Defendant in order to harass the family members of late Chameli Devi Gupta forged and fabricated a Sale Agreement dated 13th August, 1996. The Defendant had also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against Mool Chand, Gian Chand, Shakuntala Devi and Smt. Anita but withdrew the same and filed a suit for specific performance of the contract in 1999 against them. The said suit is still pending before the learned Civil Judge and the Plaintiffs/Petitioners are also the Defendants in the said suit being Defendant Nos. 5-A, 5-B and 5-C. It is stated that since the filing of the civil suit, the Defendants neither paid nor tendered any rent to the landlord nor deposited the rent in Court and relies upon the alleged forged agreement which is not a registered document.

(3.) In the written statement Sarfaraz Ali Khan stated that the suit was not maintainable and was liable to be stayed under Section 10 CPC in view of the suit filed by him titled as 'Sarfaraz Ali Khan vs. Mool Chand and others' for specific performance of the contract and injunction pending before the learned Civil Judge. It was also stated that the suit was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'the DRC Act'). Further the Petitioners had earlier filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act which petition was withdrawn vide order dated 9th December 2013.