BIHARI LAL Vs. MUKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal on 1.12.1998, the landlord/petitioner has filed this revision petition. The case set out by the petitioner was that the previous owner of the property in question served a notice dated 12.8.1969 which was duly served on the tenant Net Ram. The present petitioner along with his wife purchased the property somewhere in 1987. In 1996 eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed. That petition was filed on 4.5.1996, which was marked to the Addl. Rent Controller on 6.5.1998. These dates are important as on 6.5.1996 the petitioner filed the AD card of the notice dated 12.8.1969 and reply to said notice sent by Net Ram. The leave to defend application was filed by Smt. Champa Devi widow of Net Ram. That application was dismissed on 16.9.1996. An order of eviction was passed against Champa Devi. Aggrieved by the said order, Champa Devi filed a Civil Revision Petition in the High Court which was disposed of vide order dated 5.9.1997 in he following terms :

(2.) In spite of the order of the High Court granting time to vacate the premises by 31st March, 1998, the premises were not vacated by the tenant. When the premises were not vacated the petitioner filed the execution application before the Addl. Rent Controller.

(3.) After execution was filed, objections were filed on behalf of Mukesh, s/o Jai Kishan, Renu, d/o Jai Kishan, Satish Kumar, s/o Jai Kishan and Radha, w/o Jai Kishan. Jai Kishan was son of Net Ram. Objections were dismissed by the Addl. Rent Controller. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the objections, the objectors filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal set aside the order of the Addl. Rent Controller and remanded the case back to the trial court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this revision petition.