BHAGWAN SINGH Vs. RAKESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition has been preferred to impugn the order passed by the Additional rent Control Tribunal (ARCT) Delhi in R. C. A. No. 497/2005 dated 3. 10. 2006. By the impugned order, learned Rent Control Tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order passed by the learned Additional Rent controller (ARC) dated 30th September 2005. The ARC had by the aforesaid order dismissed the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and another application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the petitioner No. 3 Shri Bhagirath Singh.

(2.) PETITIONER No. 3 Shri Bhagirath Singh is father of petitioner No. 1 and 2. The respondent filed an Eviction Petition impleading the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 herein as the Respondent tenants under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent control Act. The petition was founded upon a rent agreement dated 8th January 2004 claimed to have been executed between the Respondent and petitioner No. 1 and 2. The Respondent landlord claimed title to the property on the basis of registered General Power of Attorney and registered Will stated to have been executed by petitioner No. 3 (the applicant under Order 1 rule 10 CPC) in favour of the Respondent in respect of the suit premises. In his applications under order 1 rule 10 CPC and under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, the case set up by petitioner no. 3 was that the documents on the basis of which the respondent landlord was claiming title to the suit property had been obtained by fraud. He further stated that he has already filed a suit to seek a decree of declaration and cancellation in respect of the said documents including the agreement to sell and the rent deed. By order dated 30th September 2005, the learned Additional rent Controller dismissed both the applications and as aforesaid, the appeal has also been dismissed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal by the impugned order dated 3. 10. 2006.

(3.) THE submission of the petitioner is that petitioner No. 3 ought to have been impleaded as a party respondent in the eviction petition and the eviction petition itself ought to have been dismissed since the dispute with regard to the title of the respondent, his claim of ownership and as landlord of the petitioner No. 1 and 2 in respect of the suit premises is pending adjudication before the Civil Court. His argument is that unless and until the title of the respondent as the owner and landlord is established before the Civil Court, he cannot maintain or proceed with the eviction petition.