BHUPINDER SINGH Vs. JANAK RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 praying for setting aside and quashing of the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in appeal under Section 38 of the Rent Control Act on 18.5.1996. Vide that order, the Rent Control Tribunal had dismissed the appeal of the present petitioner disallowing his prayer for amendment of the written statement by withdrawing the admission already made on record. In this case, one Raj Nath Jasrai had let out the premises in his capacity as the owner thereof to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said property was sold by the said Raj Nath Jasrai in favour of the petitioner on 19.12.1991. This fact is admitted by the petitioner in para 3(b) of reply on merits in his written statement filed before the Additional Rent Controller. Later on when the matter was ripe for evidence, the petitioner moved the Additional Rent Controller for leave to amend the written statement whereby the said admission was sought to be withdrawn and in its place, the petitioner wanted to state in reply to para No.3(b) and add a Preliminary Objection No. 9 as under:

(2.) Mr. Saluja stated that this admission was through an oversight and on account of lack of petitioner's knowledge about the details of the title of the respondent. It is also pointed out that there is another litigation pending between the parties and in that ease, the Additional Rent Controller had allowed such amendment allowing the applicant to withdraw the admission in the written statement. The main ground of attack on the impugned order by Mr. Saluja is that the person who executed the sale deed in favour of the respondent on behalf of the previous owner, had done so in his capacity as the Constituted Attorney of the owner and the said owner and the donor of the Power of Attorney had died on 1.7.1990 whereas the sale deed was executed on 19.12.1991 and, therefore, the sale deed is without any authority and is null and void. In another petition between the parties, one Additional Rent Controller had allowed the amendment, but in the present case when similar application was moved before the Additional Rent Controller it was dismissed. S.Mr. Saluja has raised certain points under Sections 32 and 87 of the Registration Act to butteress his arguments that the deed registered is invalid and does not convey any title. The provisions are quoted below :

(3.) Nothing as done invalidated by defect in appointment or procedure- Nothing done in good faith pursuant to this Act or any Act hereby repealed, by any Registering Officer, shall be deemed invalid merely by reason of any defect in his appointment or procedure.