AMARJEET SINGH Vs. UMA SETHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the Judgment dated November 5, 1997 passed by Shri S.M. Aggarwal, Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The appeal Filed by the petitioners against the Order dated January 27, 1995 of Shri J.R.Aryan, Additional Rent Control, Delhi was dismissed. The petitioners Filed objections under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Order 21 Rules 98 & 99 and Section 151 Civil Procedure Code claiming independent right in The suit premises and praying that execution of eviction Order dated February 2, 1994 be not effected against them.

(2.) The respondent Smt. Uma Sethi filed eviction petition under Section 14-D of the Act on September 15, 1993 seeking recovery of tenanted premises being flat No.38, Khan Market, New Delhi comprising of premises on First floor and second floor. It was alleged that M/s. Hindustan Thompson Associates Ltd. was let out the suit premises by her father late Shri P.N. Mehta and after his' demise the tenanted premises were inherited by her and she became co-owner/co-landlady qua the tenant who started paying rent to her. The eviction petition was contested by the tenant M/s Hindustan Thompson Associates Ltd. culminating into passing of an Order on February 2, 1994. Shri B.L. Anand who was employee of the tenant/judgment debtor filed his objections under section 25 of the Act, when execution proceedings were initiated claiming that he was the actual tenant in the premises and his employer M/s Hindustan Thompson Associates Ltd. was only guarantor regarding payment of rent by him. The objections were dismissed by the Trial Court vide Order dated August 25, 1994 and Civil Revision filed by him was also dismissed by this Court. Shri B.L. Anand did not accept the orders passed in eviction petition as well as the dismissal of his objections and handed over the possession of premises to the petitioners who allegedly came in possession after Shri B.L. Anand had failed in his efforts to stay in the demised property. Consequently, objections were Filed by the present petitioners claiming "that their late father Shri Prabhash Singh was the owner of the suit flat and their names have been substituted in the record of the L.&D.O. after the demise of Prabhash Singh. Prabhash Singh had Filed a suit for possession against the JD herein and Shri B.L.Anand who were claimed to be in unauthorised occupation of the suit flat. During the pendency of that said suit, the Decree-holder herein and other legal heirs of late Shri P.N.Mehta were impleaded when they Filed their application u/o I rule 10 Civil Procedure Code and they Filed written statement on 2.11.92. The said suit is still pending trial. It was claimed that the eviction petition was filed by Mrs.Uma Sethi, respondent herein as the sole petitioner concealing material fact regarding pendency of the suit and without impleading the objectors or other legal heirs of Shri P.N.Mehta. It was then claimed that M/s Hindustan Thompson Associates Ltd. was paying rent to Shri P.N.Mehta and after his demise the rent was being paid to all the legal heirs jointly through Shri S.K.Mehta s/o P.N.Mehta. It was specifically admitted that last payment of rent was made by the JD for the month of September, 93 under covering letter dated 7.9.93. It was then claimed that B.L.Anand who was in actual occupation of the flat realising the real facts surrendered the second floor portion of the tenanted premises to the objectors and underlook to deliver the vacant possession of the rest of the flat to them. Hence they were enjoying the possession of the suit premises in their own independent right as owners".

(3.) In view of the averments as referred to above,the petitioners are presently in possession of the entire premises. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed these objections and affirmed the eviction Order made under the provisions of Section 14-D of the Act. The Rent Control Tribunal upheld the Order and came to the conclusion that admittedly the premises were let out by late Shri P.N. Mehta, predecessor in interest /father of Smt. Lima Sethi, who had inherited the same as co-owner/colandlady. The question whether the Objectors/Appellants are the actual owners is yet to be decided by the Court dealing with the suit for possession Filed on behalf of petitioners. Further it was noticed that the petitioners obtained possession of the suit premises from Shri B.L. Anand, who was an employee of the tenant Hindustan Thompson Associates Ltd. and therefore, an Order passed under Section 14-D of the Act was in accordance with law. The respondent was entitled to recover possession of the property as the employee of the judgment debtor/tenant was duly bound to deliver back possession to the decree holder. The appeal as a consequence was also dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal.