PRADEEP ANOOP TRUST Vs. A K BURMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated January 4, 1996 passed by Shri R.K.Gauba, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Pradeep Anoop Trust filed two petitions simultaneously against the tenants in occupation of different portions of property No.D-41, Defence Colony, New Delhi. The allegations in the petition are that the tenancy was created for residential purposes and while the petition against A.K.Burman sought an order of eviction on the ground under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), similar order was being prayed against the tenant in the other case i.e. Dr.Suresh Gupta and Dr.(Mrs) Madhu Gupta on the grounds as available in Section 14(1)(e),(c), (b) and (h) of the Act. The two petitions were preferred in the name of Pradeep Anoop Trust through O.P.Jhalani Trustee shown as resident of 106, Sunder Nagar,New Delhi. The petitions have been signed and verified in both the cases by said O.P.Jhalani apparently claiming himself to be Trustee of the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the tenancy in favour of the respondent in each of the cases had been created on November 1, 1979 and June 1, 1975 respectively. The respondents in the second case did not specifically deny the relationship of landlord and tenant though the ownership of the petitioner in respect of the suit property was disputed besides the plea of denial that O.P.Jhalani was Trustee or had authority to file the petition.

(3.) In the first case which is the subject matter of the present petition, a plea was taken that the petitioner Trust had extinguished by efflux of time. Leave to contest was granted in this case on October 27, 1986 to the respondents to facilitate a contest which was conceded to on behalf of the petitioner. After pleadings had been completed in the said case, O.P.Jhalani was examined as AW1 and Pradeep Jhalani one of the beneficiaries of petitioner Trust as AW2. In the second case, after pleadings had been completed the said two witnesses were examined in similar manner. The questions which arose for consideration before the Additional Rent Controller were raised for the first time in the second case i.e. against Suresh Gupta and another by way of an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code moved by the respondents on September 1, 1994 by which the said respondents referring to the Trust Deed which had been proved as Exhibit AW1/1 by AW1 O.P.Jhalani an additional preliminary objection was sought to be taken to the effect that the said Trust had become extinct and stood terminated on the two beneficiaries having attained the age of majority. An objection, therefore, was taken to the effect that on extinguishment of the Trust the Trustee stood automatically discharged and the property of the Trust stood vested in the two beneficiaries, namely, Pradeep Kumar Jhalani and Anoop Kumar Jhalani in equal shares and the petition in the absence of these persons was not maintainable. The petitioner thereafter moved an application for amendment of the petition itself. By way of this application preferred on January 23, 1995 permission was sought to implead Om Prakash Jhalani, Pradeep Kumar Jhalani and Anoop Kumar Jhalani as petitioners 2 to 4 in addition to the original petitioner. The petitioners also sought an amendment of paragraph 18(a) of the petition so as to incorporate pleas to the effect that the property in question had been purchased by the original petitioner Trust by means of Sale Deed dated March 29, 1965 which was duly registered and as per Trust Deed dated March 31,1959 the three Trustees were appointed, namely, Smt.Ganga Devi, Om Parkash Jhalani and Smt.Shanti Jhalani out of whom first and third Trustees died on December 16, 1969 and October 21,1976 leaving Om Prakash Jhalani as the sole Trustee to manage the affairs of the Trust. It was further sought to be admitted that Pradeep Jhalani and Anoop Jhalani were owners of the suit property by virtue of various covenants of the Trust Deed dated March 31, 1959. These are proposed amendments with regard to realisation of rent by the petitioner Trust and Om Prakash Jhalani and the same being credited to the accounts of Pradeep Jhalani and Anoop Jhalani. While the two applications were being considered by the Court on April 6, 1995, the petitioners filed another application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code . This application was moved by counsel for the petitioner on behalf of Pradeep Jhalani and Anoop Jhalani seeking to be impleaded as co-petitioners. The contentions raised in this application is with reference to the contents of the earlier application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code . and also to the effect that the petition had been earlier filed by the Trustees without impleading these names under a bona fide mistake and in good faith. Similarly, the petitioners filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code . with the proposed amendments to the similar effect in the other case as well as an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code on behalf of Pradeep Jhalani and Anoop Jhalani was filed.