SATJIT SINGH Vs. SKIPPER TOWERS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Initially in 1979 the tenancy was created under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') by the mother of the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2-Skipper Sales Private Limited for a period of two years. In 1995 a petition for eviction was filed by the petitioner under Section 14(l)(e) of the DRC Act against respondent No.2, Skipper Sales Private Limited, and an eviction order was passed on 10.11.1995. When that order was to be executed, Sardar Tejwant Singh filed objections claiming that in 1986 the tenancy had been transferred by Skipper Sales Private Limited in favour of Skipper Towers Private Limited, respondent No.1. Thereafter amended objections were filed. Additional Rent Controller, being the executing Court, dismissed the objections vide its order dated 30.7.1997.

(2.) Aggrieved by the said order of the Additional Rent Controller, respondent No.l-Skipper Towers Private Limited filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Tribunal modified the order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the objections of the Skipper Towers Private Limited and remanded the case back to the Additional Rent Controller for investigation by the Trial Court for concluding the evidence of the Objector to determine about the status of Skipper Towers Private Limited as a tenant.

(3.) Mr.G L Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-Skipper Towers Private Limited, has argued that rent was paid by Skipper Towers Private Limited for almost ten years and he contended that initially Skipper Sales Private Limited was taken as a tenant in suit property when two families headed by Dr.Inderjit Singh and Professor Harbans Singh floated various companies carrying on various businesses in the name of Skipper Sales Private Limited, Skipper Towers Private Limited, Skipper Construction Private Limited, Skipper Builders Private Limited and Anand Construction Private Limited. Mr.Rawal has contended that rent was paid by Skipper Towers Private Limited through cheques which were deposited in the account of the petitioner and from the conduct of the petitioner, who was otherwise meeting the respondent No.l, it can be implied that petitioner has impliedly accepted respondent No.l as a tenant. In support of his contentions, Mr.Rawal has cited the cases of Sri Krishnapur Mutt, Udipi & am. Vs.P.Gopalakrishnayya & others AIR 1967 Mys 65 and Jagannath v.District Judge Mathura& ors. AIR 1977 Allahabad 439, in which it is held I -