Delhi District Court
Dh / Non vs Bharat Bhushan on 16 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY BANSAL: SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGECUMRENT CONTROLLER (NORTH) DELHI.
Ex. No. 122/12
Abdul Gaffar
..... DH / Nonapplicant
Vs.
Bharat Bhushan
.....JD
And
H.C. Grover
..... Objector/Applicant
ORDER
16.2.2013
1. By this order, I shall decide objections filed by objector Sh. H.C. Grover u/s. 25 of Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act) read with Order 21 and Sec. 151 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC) as well as application u/O 39 R. 1 and 2 CPC against execution petition.
2. Facts in brief, and necessary for disposal of the objections, are as follows:
2.1 The decree holder had filed the eviction petition u/s. 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act seeking eviction of respondent/JD Bharat Bhushan from tenanted Ex. No. 122/12 Page 1 of 6 premises i.e. one shop on ground floor forming part of property no.
21422145, Ward No. XIV, Gali Chuleh Wali, Pan Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi6 as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.C1. 2.2 Summons as per prescribed form under Schedule III of DRC Act were sent to respondent which were served. Respondent filed application for leave to contest which was dismissed vide order dt. 24.4.2012 and eviction order was passed.
2.3 Thereafter when the period of six months expired, the DH filed the present execution petition. In the meanwhile JD had also filed application for review under the DRC Act in the main case. The review application was also dismissed vide order dt. 19.1.2013. Warrant of possession were ordered to be issued.
3. Now the present objections have been filed by Sh. H.C. Grover. He is father of JD. In the objection petition, it is claimed that Sh. H.C. Grover was the real tenant in his independent right. It is stated that JD Sh. Bharat Bhushan had nothing to do with the tenanted premises. It is alleged that objector was inducted as tenant by Smt. Prem Wati, the original owner who later on sold the property to DH. It is alleged that decree holder in connivance with JD has played fraud upon the court.
4. DH has filed reply opposing the objections. It is stated that objection petition is nothing but delaying tactics. All the contentions of objector are Ex. No. 122/12 Page 2 of 6 denied.
5. I have heard Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Ld. Counsel for objector and Sh. Jabbar Hussain, Ld. Counsel for DH. I have perused the record.
6. Ld. Counsel for objector relies upon two rent receipts copies of which were filed with objections. He also referred to letters written to STO, Ward No. 32, Delhi, MCD receipts etc. Ld. Counsel submitted that the objector was the real tenant and his son Bharat Bhushan had nothing to do with the same. Ld. Counsel referred to dealership certificate issued under the Delhi Sales Tax Rules. He submitted that objector was proprietor of M/s. Grover & Sons. He highlighted that the DH/petitioner had no idea as to who was real tenant. Ld. Counsel submitted that the objector had written to Sales Tax Authorities to include tenanted premises in his certificate and had deposited requisite fee in that respect. He also referred to MCD receipts towards deposit of trade license fee.
7. Ld. Counsel for the DH argued to the contrary and submitted that it is an attempt to delay recovery of possession. He argued that the objector never appeared before the court to state the true facts as alleged by him. He pointed out that in the application for leave to contest, the JD had described his father i.e. the objector as owner by way of adverse possession. Ld. Counsel thus argued that objector was already aware of the proceedings but kept mum. He prayed for dismissal of the objections. Ex. No. 122/12 Page 3 of 6
8. The dealership certificate is in respect of M/s. Hari Sons and does not include the address of tenanted premises. Ld. Counsel for objector submitted that application for addition of the said address was moved before the authorities and requisite fees were also deposited which have been filed also.
9. From the receipts, nothing of this sort can be ascertained. No such address is mentioned on the said receipts. The address should have been mentioned on the dealership certificate but which is not the case.
10. Only photocopies of two rent receipts filed. It is stated by Ld. Counsel for objector that original of these two receipts have been submitted with the Sales Tax Authorities. The objector did not file any other receipt. Ld. Counsel submitted that those could not be found. It is very strange that objector possesses only two receipts and does not have any other rent receipt. This creates doubt about his version. Moreover, these two rent receipts are in respect of M/s. Hari Chand Grover & Sons and not Hari Sons. Further, signature of Smt. Prem Wati on the rent receipts are different from those on sale deed. Upon query from the court regarding deposit of rent, objector submitted that it was not deposited in the court either because name of the landlord was not clear. This is no explanation. Even in such a situation rent can be deposited in court. If objector was really careful about his tenancy, he would have taken such steps but this is not the case. Ex. No. 122/12 Page 4 of 6
11. Nothing is shown by petitioner that he was proprietor of M/s. Grover & Sons. Ld. Counsel for the objector submitted that petitioner had sent notice dt. 5.5.2008 and it was addressed to Proprietor Grover Sons. He submitted that petitioner was not aware of the name of proprietor. Even if this submission is accepted, the objector also did not send any reply to this notice clarifying that he was the proprietor of Grover Sons. Now the objector cannot be allowed to appear on the stage and contend that he is proprietor. All through the objector kept silent. It is unbelievable that objector did not know that eviction proceedings were going on in respect of the tenanted premises. Therefore, there is great amount of doubt about the version of objector.
12. The son of the objector rather had taken plea of ownership of objector by way of adverse possession which has been declined by my Ld. Predecessor.
13. The MCD receipts are also of no help as they are merely receipts of deposit of license fees.
14. Objector alleges connivance between DH and JD. Rather to my mind, connivance is at the other end i.e. between objector and JD.
15. Ld. Counsel for objector relied upon 67 (1997) DLT 544 titled "Indira Transport Vs. Ratan Lal & Ors."; 57 (1995) DLT 321 (SC) titled "Noorduddin Vs. Dr. K.L. Anand"; and 82 (1999) DLT 213 titled Ex. No. 122/12 Page 5 of 6 "Rakesh Gupta Vs. M/s. Om Prakash Gupta & Sons".
16. These citations are of no help as the facts were different and issues were also different. It is clear that the only intention of objector is to thwart the execution proceedings.
17. There is no merit in the objection petition u/s. 25 of DRC Act read with Order 21 and Sec.151 CPC as well as application u/O 39 R. 1 and 2 CPC and same are hereby dismissed.
(SANJAY BANSAL) SCJ/RC/North/Delhi 16.2.2013 Ex. No. 122/12 Page 6 of 6