DARVESH BHARGAVA Vs. PUSHPA KAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Pushpa Kapur, respondent No. 1, had filed an application for ejectment of M/s. Galaxy International Hotels Ltd., respondent No. 2, and Shri Darvesh Bhargava, appellant, who was an employee of respondent No. 2. The case of the landlady has been that she had let out the premises to M/s. Galaxy International Hotels Ltd. at a monthly rent of Rs. 1800.00 and that it had fallen in arrears of rent and it did not pay the same despite service of notice of demand on it (respondent No. 2). The appellant took up the plea before the Rent Controller that he was a direct tenant under Smt. Pushpa Kapur, respondent No. 1. Smt. Pushpa Kapur, however, succeeded before the Rent Controller. The Rent Controller held that M/s. Galaxy International Hotels Ltd. was a tenant of respondent No. 1 and it failed to pay the arrears of rent despite the service of notice of demand on it. The plea of the appellant that he was a tenant of respondent No. 1 was negatived by the Rent Controller and an order of ejectment was passed by the Rent Controller against both M/s. Galaxy International Hotels Ltd. and the appellant under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. This order was affirmed on appeal by the Rent Control Tribunal.

(2.) Darvesh Bhargava filed an' appeal against the impugned order of the Rent Controller as affirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The second appeal was admitted by this Court. The appellant moved an application for stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Rent Controller, being C.M. 692/86. A notice of this application was directed to be issued to the respondents. Service of notice was accepted on behalf of the landlady, Smt. Pushpa Kapur, then and there. The dispossession of the appellant from the premises in question was stayed subject to the condition that the appellant was directed to deposit in the Court the arrears of rent viz. from September 1, 1983 till the date of the passing of the order on February 24, 1986 within one month from that date. It was further stated in the said order that the deposit would be without prejudice to the rights of the parties. M/s. Galaxy International Hotels Ltd. subsequently filed a complaint under Section 630 of the Companies Act against Darvesh Bhargava for convicting the appellant and punishing him for his not having vacated the premises. It was alleged by respondent No. 2 that the appellant was inducted in the premises, being an employee of the company, and has not vacated the premises after he ceased to be the employee of respondent No. 2 company. The appellant was convicted by the court of the Magistrate under Section 630 of the Companies Act and was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 . He was also directed to deliver the possession of the premises to respondent No. 2 within two months of the order. The matter was taken by the appellant upto the Supreme Court. This order was upheld upto the High Court, the Special Leave Petition filed by the appellant against the order of the High Court upholding the order of the Magistrate was dismissed. Respondent No. I then moved an application, being CM 1402/87, before this Court staling that the appellant had since vacated the premises on April 13, 1987 and that the possession of the premises was now with respondent No. 2 and that the stay has become infructuous in view of the appellant having vacated the premises on April 13, 1987. It was prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to hand over the possession of the premises to respondent No. 1. It was stated on behalf of the appellant before this Court that the possession of the premises had been handed over to respondent No. 1 on April 13, 1987 in compliance with the order of the Supreme Court. An order was passed by this Court on May 19, 1987 staling that in view of the fact that the appellant was no longer in possession of the disputed premises the interim order made on February 24, 1986 is vacated. Respon- dent No. I had moved an application to the Rent. Controller for delivery of possession of the premises by execution of the order of ejectment passed in her favour and against the appellant and respondent No. 2 and the possession of the premises was got delivered to her by the Rent Controller.

(3.) The appellant had earlier moved the present application, being CM 1327/87 in April, 1987. It is stated in the application that as the Supreme Court has finally held that respondent No. 2, Galaxy International Hotels Ltd. is the tenant under respondent No. I, Smt. Pushpa Kapur, and the appellant is not the tenant under respondent No. I the appellant/applicant wishes to withdraw the appeal and does not want to proceed with the same as he had already handed over possession of the premises to respondent No. 2. The appellant prayed that the sum of Rs. 75,600.00 as deposited by him in the Court in pursuance of the stay order may be returned to him. This application, . has been opposed by respondent No. 1. No appearance, was put in on behalf of respondent No. 2 despite service of notice of this application on it.