MADHU BHATNAGAR Vs. SURINDER KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Dr. Brij Behari Lal Bhatnagar was inducted as a tenant by Lala Gauri Shankar Bansal somewhere in the year 1962-63. Surinder Kumar Bansal filed an ejectment petition against Dr. Brij Behari Lal Bhatnagar after the death of his father Lala Gauri Shanker Bansal. During the pendency of the said ejectment petition, said Dr. Brij Behari Lal Bhatnagar died. An application was moved by Vipin Kumar Bhatnagar to implead him as legal representative of the deceased. The plaintiff opposed the said representative on the ground that he is not the legal representative. However, the Rent Controller allowed the defendant to be impleaded as legal representative being intermeddler with the estate of the deceased. The Rent Controller allowed the ejectment petition. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the ejectment petition. In revision petition, before this Court, the landlord sought the withdrawal of the petition itself which was allowed by this Court on 15.1.1986. The order dated 15.1.1986 reads as under :

(2.) AFTER the withdrawal of the petition, the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession on 23.8.1986. The said suit has been decreed by the Courts below. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants have filed the present appeal. It may be stated that the defendants had not led any evidence and their evidence was closed by order by the trial court on 3.3.1997. It was found by the trial court that the plaintiff concluded his evidence on 21.1.1988 and then the case was taken up for the evidence of the defendants on 21.7.1988, 11.11.1988, 17.5.1991, 16.5.1996, 21.9:1996, 9.12.1996 and finally for 6.2.1997. Consequently, on 3.3.1997 the evidence of the defendant was closed by court order.

(3.) THE first contention raised by the appellant is not tenable either in law or on facts. Factually, the ejectment petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.1.1986. Therefore, there is no finding which is final and operative between the parties. Mr. C.B. Goel, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of this Hon'ble Court in Gram Panchayat Village Ismailpur v. Pawan Kumar and others, 2000 H.R.R. 669 to contend that the previous ejectment petition was withdrawn thus, there is no finding which is in operation and final between the parties. Still further, the Appellate Authority has not given any finding that Shri Vipin Kumar Bhatnagar was the adopted son. The ejectment petition was dismissed holding that the premises in dispute are not residential premises.