Delhi District Court
M/S Om Parkash Bros vs M/S Space Tours And Travels on 5 August, 2011
In the Court of Sh. Manoj Kumar : Rent Controller of New Delhi District at
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
E. No. 10/09
Unique ID No. 02403C0978052008
In the matter of:
M/s Om Parkash Bros.
Through its partner
Shri Anand Parkash Singal,
K39, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi 110016 ....................Petitioner
VERSUS
1. M/s Space Tours and Travels,
Through its partner/proprietor
Shri Sanjiv Nahar,
Flat No. 7, Block C, Regal Building,
Connaught Place, New Delhi110001
Also at:
Flat No. 312, Mansarover Building,
96, Nehru Place, New Delhi110019
2. Shri Sanjiv Nahar,
Partner/Proprietor
M/s Space Tours and Travels,
Flat No. 7, Block C, Regal Building,
E. No. 10/09 Page no.1 of 6
Connaught Place, New Delhi110001
Also at:
Flat No. 312, Mansarover Building,
96, Nehru Place, New Delhi110019 ....................Respondents
Date of Institution : 20.10.2008
Date of Arguments: 01.8.2011
Date of Judgment : 05.8.2011
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14(1)(a) OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
JUDGMENT
This is an application under section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act 59 of 1958") made by applicant M/s Om Parkash Bros. through its partner Mr. Anand Parkash Singal against respondents M/s Space Tours and Travels and Sh. Sanjiv Nahar seeking eviction of the respondents from premises bearing flat no. 7, Block C, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi.
2. It is stated in the application that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the applicant and the respondents in respect of the premises comprising of two rooms and open terrace with bathroom as shown in red colour in the site plan at the monthly rent of Rs. 145.20/. It is further stated in the application that earlier the rent was being paid by the E. No. 10/09 Page no.2 of 6 tenant at the rate of Rs. 132/ per month but by way of notice dated 26.12.2007 the rent was enhanced to Rs. 145.20/ with effect from 01.2.2008. It is further stated in the application that the tenant has defaulted in the payment of rent and has been in arrears of rent with effect from 01.1.1997. It is further stated that the notice dated 26.12.2007 was served on the respondents whereby they were called upon to pay the arrears of the rent with effect from 01.1.1997 and despite service of the said notice through registered AD and UPC the respondents have neither paid nor tendered the arrears of rent.
3. The application has been contested by the respondents by way of a written reply wherein several defenses have been made.
4. A replication was filed by the applicant to the written statement of the respondents on 20.7.2009.
5. After completion of pleadings an order under section 15(1) of the Act 59 of 1958 was passed by the learned predecessor on 05.10.2009. On 05.10.2009, it was recorded by my learned predecessor that possession of the premises is not with the tenant as he has been dispossessed from the premises in execution of an order passed in E907/7 titled as Suri Properties v. Om Parkash and therefore, the learned predecessor refrained from passing any order regarding deposit of future rent in favour of the landlord.
6. Subsequently, the matter was posted for PE by the learned predecessor. However, on 23.11.2010 in the wake of the disclosure that the E. No. 10/09 Page no.3 of 6 respondents are not in possession of the premises this court entertained doubts regarding maintainability of the eviction petition in the changed circumstances. On 23.11.2010, Mr. Anand Parkash Singal through whom the present application has been made by the landlord made statement that the respondents are not in physical possession of the premises bearing flat no. 7, block C, Regal Building, Connaught Place, New Delhi and he had knowledge that M/s Suri Properties, the landlord of the applicant herein, is in physical possession of the said property after obtaining the possession of the premises from the respondents.
7. In the wake of the disclosure made by Mr. Anand Parkash Singal the matter was posted for consideration on the point as to why the matter should not be disposed of being infructuous.
8. I have heard counsel for the applicant and proxy for counsel for the respondents. The main counsel for the respondents did not appear to advance arguments.
9. Having drawn my attention on Sadashiv Shyama Sawant(D) through LRs and others v. Anita Anand Sawant, (2010) 3 SCC 85 it is submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is tenant under landlord Suri Properties qua the premises involved in this case. It is further submitted that the premises was sublet by the applicant to the respondents and thus, there exists relationship of landlord and tenant qua the applicant and the respondents. It is further submitted by counsel for the applicant that E. No. 10/09 Page no.4 of 6 an application for eviction was made by Suri Properties against the applicant herein wherein exparte order for eviction was obtained and got executed by the said Suri Properties in collusion with the respondents. It is further submitted that the respondents have parted the possession in favour of M/s Suri Properties and therefore, the present application does not become infructuous. It is further submitted that the exparte order for eviction passed against the applicant was subsequently set aside and an application for restitution has been made by the applicant in the said case. It is further submitted that the the present application can proceed with without any hindrance.
10. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that the respondents are not in possession of the premises and in execution of an eviction order, the respondents have already been evicted from the premises.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
12. As I have already observed the present application was made by the applicant with a view to evict the tenants from the premises and to take possession from them. Admittedly, the tenants are not in physical possession of the premises and therefore, in the circumstances which exists today even if the applicant succeeds in this application the respondents cannot be evicted and the possession of the premises cannot be taken from E. No. 10/09 Page no.5 of 6 them.
13. The judgment cited on behalf of the applicant has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. Admittedly, the respondents have been dispossessed from the premises by the process of a court and therefore, it cannot be attributed to the respondents that there was any collusion between them and Suri Properties.
15. As the respondents are not in possession of the premises and an order for eviction which may eventually be passed against them in the present proceedings cannot be enforced, therefore, this court has no doubt that the present proceedings have become infructuous. The application for eviction is dismissed being infructuous. File be sent to records.
Announced in the open court (Manoj Kumar)
on 5 August, 2011
th
Rent Controller : New Delhi
05.08.2011
E. No. 10/09 Page no.6 of 6