FRONTLINE DEVELOPERS LTD Vs. ARUN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-tenant, after having lost at the hustings before both the Forums i.e. learned Rent Controller and also the learned Appellate Authority, is in revision to obtain invalidation of the ejectment order granted against it.

(2.) The order on point of ejectment came about on account of refrain on the part of the petitioner to pay the provisionally assessed rent for the period July 2003 to 25.9.2009. That order came about in accord with the law laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Wadhawan v. Jagdama Industries Corporation, 2002 AIR(SC) 2004 and a Division Bench judgment dated 7.1.2010 passed in Civil Revision No. 3577 of 2006 (Rajan alias Raj Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar).

(3.) It is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order deserves out right invalidation for the very simple reason that rent for the above indicated period had already been paid up. In elaboration thereof, it is argued that rent for the period July 2003 upto the year 2004 had been paid to (Om Parkash, father of the respondent- present landlord) who died in the year 2005 and after whose death respondent donned the cap of the landlord. It is also argued that the rent for the period thereafter was paid to Subhash Chander an another son of Om Parkash who did not, however, issue any receipt in that behalf. The plea raised is that since the petitioner-tenant had denied the existence of relationship between him as the tenant-landlord, it was inappropriate for the learned Rent Controller to at all proceed to provisionally assess the rent. Reliance, in support of the advocated view, is placed on M/s Rachitech Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. Kundan Steel Pvt. Ltd.,2006 2 RCR 687. It was further argued in the context that Om Parkash deceased had made a testamentary disposition in favour of Subhash Chander aforementioned and further that there had been a family partiion in which the tenanted partition fall to the share of Subhash Chand.