KAURAN DEVI Vs. LAKHMI CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular first appeal raises a very -short point for decision. Bakshi Mehtab Singh, predecessor -in -interest of the present Appellant, was the owner of the property in question and he had obtained a decree for eviction against Lakhmi Chand, Respondent from a Rent Controller. This decree became final.

(2.) WHILE seeking to execute this decree, the landlord had to obtain permission of the authorities concerned, under Section 19 of the Slum Area (Clearance and Improvement) Act, 1956. This permission was not allowed and the landlord is stated to have failed in his attempt right up to the Supreme Court.

(3.) THE Court below decided issue No. 1 in favour of the Appellant and this issue is not being agitated before us. Issues Nos. 2 and 3 were discussed together and the Court below took the view that the definition of the word "tenant" in Section 2(b) the Delhi Rent; Control Act, 1958 would include a person against whom a decree or order for eviction has been made when such decree or order is not executable. According to that Court an in -executable decree or order cannot be considered to be a valid decree or order and, therefore, a person against whom such an invalid decree or order has been made cannot be considered to be outside the definition of the word "tenant" contained in Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Act. The Defendant was accordingly considered to be a tenant of the Plaintiff and by virtue of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was held barred from trying the suit in question. The Plaintiff's suit was consequently dismissed.