KRISHNA DEVI Vs. BHOOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the objector was one of the co-owner of the property in question and, therefore, he could have maintained the objection under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. He has further contended that the finding in paragraph 6 by the Rent Control Tribunal that the objection is not claiming an independent title is contrary to the facts on record. Eviction petition was filed by deceased respondent-Bhool Singh on 12.5.1981 against Ram Chander tenant. Eviction order was passed against Ram Chander on 11.7.1989. On 20.7.1989, the appellant filed objection which was withdrawn. Another objection was also filed. The same was dismissed on 24.11.1989 in view of the fact that the objector had filed earlier objection and the same was withdrawn. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal and the Rent Control Tribunal also dismissed the appeal on 27.8.1991. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed Second Appeal (SAO No. 64/91) in this Court. That Second appeal was allowed and matter was remanded back to the Rent Control Tribunal to decide the objection filed by the objector afresh. The Rent Control Tribunal passed its order on 5.11.1997 and the same has been impugned before me by the appellant.

(2.) The Rent Control Tribunal has discussed in detail in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment that no document was filed either before the Additional Rent Controller or before Rent Control Tribunal for the last seven years, whereas respondent-Bhool Singh had proved himself to be the sole landlord of judgment debtor Ram Chander. On the basis of the photo-copy of the registered lease deed dated 12.9.1953, executed in his favour by the Delhi Improvement Trust, duly registered as document No. 2507 on 24.9.1953, regarding lease of plot No.2, Bagh Rao Ji, Delhi, measuring 77 sq. yds. The Rent Control Tribunal held that Bhool Singh was the landlord qua Ram Chander. It has also been observed by the Rent Control Tribunal that on the basis of the averment, the objector himself has stated that he had come into possession between 21.7.1989 to 11.11.1989 from the judgment debtor. The law is well settled. A person who claims to have independent title in the demised premises, must not claim through the tenant but assert the same that he has come to the possession at the behest of the landlord.

(3.) No question of law involved.