HANS RAJ SHIV Vs. NIRMALJIT ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Nirmaljit Arora respondent No. 1 let out her permises bearing No. DD 31 Kalkaji Extn. New Delhi, to M/s. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd., respondent No. 2 for the residence of its employee Shri Hans Raj Shiv, the petitioner. Lease was for a period of three years executed on 17th July, 1980. The premises was let out for residential purposes. On or about 18th February, 1995 the said Smt. Nirmaijit Arora filed a petition for ejectment of the respondent M/s. Bharat Steel Tubes Ltd. on the ground of bonafide requirements. The said petition was dismissed. On 31st October, 1987, this petitioner resigned his job with M/s. Bharat Steels Ltd. He, however, did not vacate the premises let out to respondent No. 2 for the residence of this petitioner so long he remains in service of respondent No.

(2.) That when the premises was not vacated, the respondent No. 1, Smt. Nirmaljit Arora sought eviction against respondent No. 2 to whom she had let out the premises. Petition was filed on the ground of sub-letting and parting with possession of the premises in question. Against the order of the Rent Controller, revision was filed in the High Court which was listed as Civil Revision No. 470/ 87. It the said Civil Revision Petition an application was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 i.e., the landlady and the tenant bearing C.M. No. 412/95 under Order 23 Rule 3 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure. It was informed to the Court by the respondents herein that they had entered into a compromise, the terms of which were incorporated in the application (CM. No. 412/95). lt was prayed therein that order of ejectment be passed in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties. This Court of the basis of the said compromise supported by the affidavits of the landlady and the tenant passed the order of eviction on 6th March, 1995 under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Act and also applying the provision of Section 14(7) of the Act granted six months time to the teat to vacate the premises.

(3.) By this petition, Shri Hans Raj Shiv, ex-employee of respondent No. 2 has assailed the said compromise decree of eviction dated 6th March, 1995, inter alia, on the ground that the said order is against law and public policy of the State. Drawing the attention of this Court to para No. 3 of the said compromise application, Mr. J.M. Sabharwal pointed out that the landlady therein agreed to forego the arears of rent payable from July, 1993 and further agreed that till vacation of the premises she would not charge rent. This according to Mr. Sabharwal amounted to consideration received by the tenant for relinquishing his right of tenancy. Such an act is prohibited by the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). Moreover, the order dated 6th March, 1995 passed by this Court was based on collusive action of the respondents. The petitioner who was occupying the premises was ignored. He had not been heard. His objections to the execution have been wrongly dismissed by the Rent Controller as well as by the Tribunal.