LAWS(DLH)-2006-11-312

JSISA TYRES (P) LTD Vs. R N BINDRA

Decided On November 20, 2006
JSISA TYRES (P) LTD Appellant
V/S
R N BINDRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Smt. Nirmal Kanta, owner of property no. E-14, Naraina Vihar, New Delhi had let out the same to Sh.I.R.Malik in 1980 initially for a fixed period of four years after obtaining necessary permission under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Eviction proceedings were filed by her in 1987 against the tenant and the petitioner herein, a private limited company, was impleaded a proforma party on the allegation that at times the rent was paid through the company.

(2.) The petitioner filed a suit for specific performance against Smt. Nirmala Kanta in the High Court of Delhi in October 1987 alleging that the property had been agreed to be sold to them for which an agreement to sell dated 18.09.1984 had been executed. The agreed consideration was stated to be Rs 4 lakh and payment in part performance of the agreement was stated to have been made. The petitioner claimed to be in possession of the suit property in part performance of the said agreement to sell and it was claimed that it was the said entity which was the tenant. The suit was contested by Smt.Nirmal Kanta. The eviction proceedings initiated by her were, however, adjourned sine die on 17.05.1990 in view of the pendency of the suit. Smt Nirmal Kanta passed away on 08.02.1993. The petitioner failed to implead the legal representatives and thus the suit for specific performance stood abated on 19.05.1995. This order has been upheld right till the Supreme Court.

(3.) Respondents no.1 and 2, legal heirs of Smt. Nirmal Kanta, filed a fresh eviction petition in the year 1996 against Sh.I.R.Malik. The petitioner was not impleaded as a party. The petition was filed on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B of the said Act. The application filed for leave to defend the eviction petition was allowed on 29.11.99 and the matter was contested. Sh. Malik also took the stand that it was the petitioner who was inducted as a tenant in the suit property and later on the possession was recognized in part performance of the agreement to sell.