JOGINDER SINGH Vs. REKHA GUPTA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Cm No. 24726/2016 (exemption)

(2.) By the impugned order, the CMM held that the earlier order dated 30.01.2016 appointing a Receiver is final and Cr.P.C. does not vest power with the CMM to review its order. The only remedy available to the petitioner was held to approach this Court. The impugned order further held that even otherwise, the petitioner has failed to show any cogent document to establish that he was a tenant in the property prior to the creation of the mortgage and is entitled to protection in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harshad Govardhan Sondagar vs. International Assets Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors.,(2014) 6 SCC 1. It was the contention of the petitioner/the objector before the CMM in his objections, that he was inducted as a tenant on 20.09.2011 by one Shri Manish Gupta. The impugned order notes that the ownership vests in Smt.Rekha Gupta vide sale deed dated 05.10.2011 and not with Shri Manish Gupta. The alleged induction of the objector/petitioner into the concerned property was by way of an oral lease. The impugned order also notes that the objector has placed on record alleged receipts of payment of the year 2015- 16 and not of 2011. The court also observed that the objector/petitioner had approached the court only four days before the day scheduled for recovery of possession. The order concludes that the objections appear to have been filed to stall recovery proceedings filed before the DRT and that the petitioner cannot be said to be a bona fide protected tenant entitled to protection of law as laid down by the Supreme Court. The court further held that the judgment relied upon of the Hon'ble Supreme Court deals with the protected tenants and as such would not affect the petitioner. Accordingly the objections/application for review filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has before this court reiterated his submissions which are dealt with in the impugned order. He admits that he was inducted into the property in question by an oral tenancy in September 2011. It is further urged that the tenancy was subsequently reduced in writing vide document dated 15.04.2014 and the agreed rent was Rs.10,000/- per month. It is further urged that various payments have been made to Shri Manish Gupta who is the son of Smt. Rekha Gupta and is said to be a joint owner with Smt. Rekha Gupta. He has pointed out that lacs of rupees have been paid to Shri Manish Gupta including a cheque of Rs.80,25,000/- which is said to have been given on 30.01.2016. This payment was said to be for sale of the property to the objector.