DARSHAN LAL VOHRA Vs. S BHAGWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALLOWED, subject to all just exceptions. CM No. 14062/2007 in CM (M) No. 1393/2007 cm No. 14081/2007 in CM (M) No. 1396/2007 cm (M) No. 1393/2007 and CM No. 14061/2007 cm (M) No. 1396/2007 and CM No. 14080/2007

(2.) THESE petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India have been preferred by the respective petitioners viz. Sh. Darshan Lal Vohra (petitioner in C. M. (M) No. 1393/2007) and Sh. Inder Pal Malhotra (petitioner in C. M. (M)No. 1396/2007) to impugn the common order dated 12. 9. 2007 passed by the learned additional Rent Control Tribunal, Rohini, Delhi (ARCT for short) whereby the arct has dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners bearing RCA No. 62/2007 and RCA No. 63/2007 respectively. The petitioners had filed the said appeals before the Rent Control Tribunal against the common order dated 25. 4. 2007 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC for short), Rohini, Delhi whereby he had dismissed the objections filed by the petitioners in Execution No. 94/2006 filed by the deceased landlord, S. Bhagwant Singh, who is represented through his legal heirs in the present petition. This execution was in respect of an eviction order obtained by S. Bhagwant Singh against the judgment debtors, namely, Smt. Jeet Kaur, Sh. Mahinder Pal Vohra, Sh. Vijay Kumar Vohra and Sh. Mahindra Malhotra, inter alia, on the ground contained in Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) i. e. on account of subletting of the suit premises consisting of shop No. B-2 (ground floor) and B-4 (basement) forming part of property No. 2/4 Tilak Nagar, New Delhi by the tenant Smt. Jeet Kaur, to shri Mahinder Pal Vohra, Shri Vijay Pal Vohra and Shri Mahindra Malhotra. The eviction order passed in E-93/96 dated 20. 3. 2004 was confirmed in appeal before the RCT and challenge thereto before this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India also failed. The said eviction order has, therefore, attained finality and it stands established that the aforesaid premises wherein Smt. Jeet Kaur was the tenant had been sublet to the other three judgment debtors, namely, Shri Mahindra Pal Vohra, Shri Vijay Pal Vohra and Shri Mahindra Malhotra.

(3.) THE petitioners in the present petition, namely, Shri Darshan Lal Vohra and shri Inderpal Malhotra preferred objections before the executing court claiming independent title in respect of the tenancy premises. While Shri Darshan Lal vohra claimed to be in physical possession of shop No. B-2 on the ground floor of the property bearing No. 2/4, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi by virtue of a rent agreement dated 24. 7. 1990 executed between him and M/s Ace Associates Private ltd. through its director Shri Gurpreet Singh, the objector Shri Inder Pal malhotra claims to be in physical and exclusive possession, use and occupation of shop bearing No. B-4 (basement) in the aforesaid property by virtue of a rent deed dated 10. 8. 1990 executed between him and M/s Ace Associates Private Ltd. through its director Shri Gurpreet Singh.