Delhi District Court
Delhi vs . on 29 May, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR : ACJcumARC : (NORTH)
DELHI.
In Re :Ex. No. 04/2008.
Mrs. Usha Singh Decree Holder.
Versus.
Sh. Chander Kanta Kapoor Judgment Debtor.
ORDER
Vide this order, I shall dispose off the objections filed by the objector u/S 25 DRC Act r/w Section 47 CPC.
2. It has been stated that the present objections have been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 25.10.2008 passed in the eviction petition bearing no. 07/2008 passed by Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. ARC. It has been stated by the objector that the aforesaid order dated 25.10.2008 have been obtained by the DH in respect of premises bearing no. 519, Gali Krishna, Katra Neel, Delhi against the mother of the objector on false, frivolous and baseless grounds u/S 14 (1) (e) DRC Act in a collusive and fraudulent manner. It has been further submitted that JD is residing with his son somewhere in Qtr. no. 72, ESI Colony, Basai, Darapur, New Delhi since long while tenancy in question duly occupied by the objector solely Ex. No. 04/2008 Page no. Page numbers / Statistics since long. It has been further submitted that DH is neither the absolute owner and nor the landlady of the property in question. It has been stated further that the DH failed to file on record any document regarding ownership or title documents. It has been stated further that the father of the objector Sh. Gopal Chandani Kapoor was tenant in respect of premises in question @ 72/ per month excluding other charges and he was inducted by one Kayam Singh who expired on 02.12.2005 leaving behind the following legal heirs :
a. Smt. Chandrakanta Kapoor, wife. b. Ms. Manjoo, daughter. c. Sh. Nand Gopal Kapoor, son. d. Ms. Kamlesh Mehra, daughter. e. Sh. Rakesh Kapoor, son (died on 18.07.2005). f. Ms. Madhu Malhotra, daughter. g. Sh. Ramesh (expired).
It has been further submitted that DH had not impleaded the necessary and proper parties in the said eviction petition. It has been further stated that neither the legal heirs of Sh. Gopal Chandani Kapoor nor the legal heirs of Sh. Kayam Singh, who expired on 07.08.1991, had been impleaded by the DH. It has been stated further that the petition was bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties. It has been stated further that the objector is residing in the premises in question in her own Ex. No. 04/2008 Page no. Page numbers / Statistics individual rights and the aforesaid orders dated 25.10.2008 are not binding upon the objector. It has been prayed that the orders dated 25.10.2008 passed by Ld. ARC in the eviction petition bearing no. 07/2008 titled as Smt. Usha Singh vs. Chandrakanta be set aside being illegal, inexecutable, bad in law and not binding and not enforceable against the objector.
3. Reply to the objections, has been filed on record by the DH stating therein that the objector is the daughter of JD and she is a married lady and is living elsewhere in her matrimonial home and not in the premises in dispute. It has been further submitted that petitioner is co owner of he premises alongwith her sister and it is the respondent who is the mother of the objector, who had been residing solely in the premises in question. It has been stated further that the tenancy of the late father of objector has already been terminated during his lifetime. It has been further submitted that in Qtr. no. 72, ESI Colony, it is the sons of the respondent who has been residing with his family and respondent used to live with him for some time. It has been further submitted that objector has filed the false affidavit and is therefore liable to be prosecuted for perjury. It has been further submitted that petitioner has inherited the ownership of the property in question besides letter of administration has been issued in her favour by the court of Ld. District Judge, Delhi. It has been further submitted that the objections filed by the objector are false and frivolous and are liable to be rejected.
4. Ld. counsel for the objector has also relied upon the authority titled Ex. No. 04/2008 Page no. Page numbers / Statistics as Ujagar Singh Kakkar vs. Chander Mohan & Ors, C.R. No. 889 of 1984 decided on 04.08.1986 wherein Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under :
" Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Order 1 Rule 10 - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 14 (1) (e) - Non joinder or necessary parties - Ejectment application filed by only one legal heir of deceased landlord without being authorised by other legal heirs - Tenant never allowed him as the sole landlord - Petition suffers from nonjoinder of necessary parties - Petition dismissed.
5. I have carefully gone through the entire material on record and have heard the rival submissions as advanced by both the Ld. counsels for both the parties.
The present execution petition has been filed for execution of the orders dated 25.10.2008 passed in eviction petition no. 07/2008 titled as Smt. Usha Singh vs. Chanderkanta. The aforesaid petition was a petition u/S 14 (1) (e) DRC Act. Against the aforesaid orders, the JD preferred a revision petition bearing no. 26/2009, which was dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Manmohan of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide orders dated 20.04.2009. A perusal of the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reveals that the JD had taken the ground in the said revision petition that respondent was not the owner of the tenanted premises and further that tenanted premises was quite large and there was still vacant accommodation comprising of 14 rooms. The aforesaid pleas raised by the JD before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi were duly dealt with by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and the same were dismissed vide order dated 20.04.2009, Ex. No. 04/2008 Page no. Page numbers / Statistics holding therein that petitioner / tenant has without any basis taken a number of unsubstantiated defences in her leave to defend application.
Now in the case in hand, the objector is the daughter of JD and she has taken the plea that the LRs of Sh. Kayam Singh had not been added as a party in that eviction petition. This plea was taken by the JD in the eviction petition and a perusal of the order dated 25.10.2008 clearly reveals that the aforesaid plea was duly dealt with by the Ld. ARC, Delhi while passing the aforesaid order holding therein that anyone of the co owners can file an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement and same is not required to be rejected for nonjoinder of the parties unless the respondent shows that other coowners have not given the consent for the eviction petition. As such, the said objection raised by the objector is not sustainable.
Further more, the objector has taken the stand that the LRs of original tenant have not been added as a party. In this regard, DH has clearly stated in the reply that only the JD has been residing in the premises in question. Further more, had it been true, the JD was at liberty to take this objection before the court of Sh. Amit Kumar, Ld. ARC, Delhi and in my opinion this objection cannot be considered at this stage in the present eviction petition.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the objections filed on record by the objector are not sustainable and as Ex. No. 04/2008 Page no. Page numbers / Statistics such same are hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits.
Now to come up for recording of statement of bailiff regarding his report dated 27.07.2009, on 04.06.2010.
Announced in the open court on this 29th Day of May, 2010.
(RAJ KUMAR)
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE
cum ADDL RENT CONTROLLER
(NORTH) DELHI
Ex. No. 04/2008 Page no. Page numbers / Statistics