SEEMA BANSAL Vs. CHITRA GARG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant by way of the present Appeal impugns the Order dated 09.09.2009 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Preliminary Objection as to the jurisdiction of this Court raised by the Defendant/ Appellant by way of IA No. 2028/1997 which the learned Single Judge has dismissed with costs.

(2.) AT the fulcrum of the dispute is the suit property bearing No. R -96, Greater Kailash -I New Delhi, which was given on lease by late Col. Harjeet Singh to one Mr. Pires, Sole Proprietor of Mr. Pires. Private School. The letting was for a period of 3 years with effect from 1.10.1971. On 27.09.1974, a fresh lease was executed by late Col. Harjeet Singh, this time with Mr. Pires. Private School through its partner Mr. Maurice Wilford Pires at a monthly rent of Rupees 1,800/ -. Eviction Petition No. 96/1978 was filed by the said Col. Harjeet Singh on the ground of bona - fide requirement. After demise of Mr. Pires, the Defendant was allowed to defend the petition before Rent Controller. The said Eviction Petition was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller vide Judgment dated 3.12.1985 on the ground that the purpose of the letting was not residential. In 1986, another Eviction Petition was filed by the heirs of Col. Harjeet on the ground that the Respondent had, without the written consent of the Owner/Landlord, sublet, assigned and parted with possession of the leased premises to Respondent (Defendant in the Suit). While a third eviction petition was also pending before the Rent Controller, the Petitioners sold the premises to Mrs. Chitra Garg, the plaintiff herein, by a registered Sale Deed dated 19.02.1992. A Suit was then brought by her on 10.11.1993, bearing CS (OS) No. 2565 of 1993, for possession and mesne profits against the Defendant/Appellant. In the said suit, the Defendant, vide IA No. 2028/97, raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in light of the bar on jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 50 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as the said premises were said to be governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act. for short).

(3.) IN their Written Statement, the Defendants, inter alia, pleaded that Defendant No. 2 had become the owner of the property by adverse possession in October, 1989. According to her pleadings her adverse possession commenced from October, 1977, that is, from the time of expiry of the second Lease Deed. In her Statement recorded on 15th May, 1995 under Order X of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC. for short), the Defendant No. 2(Appellant before us) admitted that she had been depositing the rent of the property in the Court and that she had not paid any House Tax of the property. She has also stated that though her possession of the property was that of a tenant, she was the owner by adverse possession. On a query from the Court, she categorically stated that my claim is only on adverse possession.