NITIN SETH Vs. ROHIT KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 29. 3. 2004 passed by the learned rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 2. 12. 2002 of the Executing Court whereby the objections of the petitioner were dismissed.

(2.) THE relevant facts in brief are that the suit property originally belonged to one Shri V. S. Bhargava, who purchased a free hold plot of land measuring approximately 302 sq. yards bearing No. 190 Block C, G. K. Part I, new Delhi from DLF Housing and Construction Private Limited vide a duly registered sale deed dated 26. 5. 1962. Mr. V. S. Bhargava constructed a single storey building on this plot after getting the building plan sanctioned from mcd.

(3.) MR. V. S. Bhargava died childless on 12. 2. 1972, his wife had pre-deceased him. He had made a "will" in respect of this property in favour of his nephew Mr. Rohit Kumar (respondent no. 1 herein) and his brother Mr. H. S. Bhargava. After the death of Mr. V. S. Bhargava, Mr. H. S. Bhargava let out this premises to one Mr. K. M. Virmani for a period of 2 years in September 1972 after obtaining permission from the Additional Rent Controller under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Mr. K. M. Virmani did not vacate the premises after two years and the said premises continued to be in possession of mr. K. M. Virmani. As the records reveal, Mr. K. M. Virmani parted with the possession of the suit property and created an unauthorized sub-letting in favour of one Mr. M. M. Bhandari in September, 1998. The respondents herein filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a), (b), (d) and (h) of the Delhi Rent control Act against Mr. K. M. Virmani and Mr. M. M. Bhandari. Mr. M. M. Bhandari died during the pendency of said eviction proceedings and his legal heirs were brought on record. While the eviction proceedings were going on, on the scene emerged one Ms. Kum Kum Jain. She made an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for her impleadment in the eviction case on 3. 5. 2000. She claimed to be the owner of the property. She also made an application on 27. 3. 2000 to MCD for sanctioning of the building plan for construction of this property. She claimed to have taken possession of the property from widow of Mr. M. M. Bhandari named mrs. Sneh Bhandari on 17. 4. 2000. On the same day, she took an advance of Rs. 10 lac from the petitioner herein under an agreement to sell the property to the petitioner. Thereafter, she had made above application under Order 1 Rule 10 cpc before the ARC. She also filed a Civil Suit on 8. 5. 2000 against the respondent herein for declaration that she was the owner of the property on the basis of a registered sale deed in her favour alleged to have been executed by late Shri V. S. Bhargava on 4. 3. 1971. Around November, 2000 the respondents herein came to know that the petitioner herein had demolished the old construction and was in the process of making new construction thereon. Aggrieved by this, respondent no. 1 on 21. 11. 2001 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner herein as well as against Mr. K. M. Virmani and others and sought an injunction against them that they should be restrained from raising any new construction in the suit property. In that suit, the petitioner herein had taken the stand that he had purchased the said property from Ms. Kum Kum Jain on 31. 8. 2000 for a sale consideration of Rs. 30,75,000/- by virtue of a sale deed executed in his favour on the same day and alleged that he had taken possession of the suit property from Ms. Kum Kum Jain on 31. 8. 2000. The learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 22. 11. 2000 directed the parties to maintain status quo in relation to the suit property till disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the Delhi High Court being FAO No. 96/2000. Delhi High Court vide order dated 3. 4. 2002 confirmed the status quo order however, during pendency of this fao, the High Court in order to come at a right conclusion had made detailed enquiry into the facts. The High Court vide order dated 17. 4. 2001 had directed the petitioner herein to produce the original title deeds of the said property on the basis of claim of ownership was staked and directed an investigation to be done by the Crime Branch of Delhi Police regarding genuineness of the said documents. The Crime Branch made an enquiry and got the documents examined from forensic lab and submitted its enquiry report dated 22. 1. 2002 to the High Court. The enquiry report revealed that sale deed dated 4. 3. 1971 in favour of Ms. Kum kum Jain and the sale deed dated 31. 8. 2000 in favour of the petitioner, both were forged and fabricated documents and even the stamps of Sub-Registrar were forged. The petitioner herein made an application before the High Court for impleadment of Ms. Kum Kum Jain as a party to the case on the ground that he was cheated by Ms. Kum Kum Jain, however, this request was not allowed by the High court.