Delhi District Court
Courts vs Inderjeet And Others Equivalent ... on 25 February, 2011
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRITAM SINGH, ARC (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
Ex65/09
25.02.2011
Sheikh Mohd. Yahya
Vs.
V.K.Bhandari
ORDER
The brief facts as stated in the objection filed by the objector Mohammad Ali are that the objector is in possession of two rooms at ground floor of property no. XVI/9448, block no. 65/4, Sardar Manzil, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. The said two rooms were taken on rent by Sh. Mohabbat Ali, father of the objector from the decree holder. It is further stated that initially the rent of two rooms were Rs. 300/ per month and now the rent is Rs. 400/ per month. Electricity meter in the name of the objector/tenant is installed at 65/4, New Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Objector/tenant has came to know that Sheikh Mohammad Yahya and his family members have filed one execution petition before this court against one Sh. V.K.Bhandari and his family members.
2. It is further stated that since 1988 Sh. V.K.Bhandari and his family members were never in possession of two rooms at any point of time. It is //2// objector and his father are in possession of as tenant since 1988. Sheikh Mohd. Yahya and Sh. V.K.Bhandari filed the cases/petitions/appeals in connivance with each other with malafide intention to dispossess the lawful tenant.
3. The brief facts as stated by other objector Sh. Murari Lal Soni are that the objector is in possession of one big room at ground floor of the property bearing no. XVI/9448, Block No. 65/4, Sardar Manzil, New Rohtak Road, Delhi. The said one big room was taken on rent by Sh. Anandan Kumar s/o Sh. Kunju Kunju. It is further stated that Sh. Murari Lal Soni/Objector started a partnership firm in the name and style of M/s Ganpati Properties in one big room on ground floor of property bearing no. 65/4, situated at new Rohtak Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi with Sh. Anandan Kumar S/o Sh. Kunju Kunju and a partnership deed was also executed in this regard. The objector and Sh. Anandan Kumar were regular paying the rent but no rent receipts issued by Sheikh Mohd. Yahya and his family members. The objector and Sh. Anandan Kumar never insisted of rent receipt due to cordial relations between them.
4. Reply filed on behalf of the DH to the objection of Mohd. Ali wherein he stated that the judgment debtors were contesting the eviction //3// petition filed by the decree holders without alleging that two rooms forming part of the decreetal property are in possession and occupation of the objector as direct tenant of the decree holder as falsely alleged by the objector in the objections under reply. The decreetal property was found open and a person who identified himself as Mohd. Ali, the objector herein was present and claimed himself to be representative of the JD's. The objections made by the objector Murari Lal were also denied by the Dhs.
5. Arguments heard. Record perused and considered.
6. Ld. Counsel for the Objector Mohd. Ali relied upon Indira Transport Vs. Rattan Lal and others, 67 (1997) Delhi Law Times 544 (DB).
7. Ld. Counsel for objector Mohd. Ali submitted that Sh. Mohabbat Ali, father of the objector Mohd. Ali, took on rent the two rooms on the ground floor @ Rs. 300/ per month and he was paying the rent regularly but no rent receipt was issued by decree holder Sh. Sheikh Mohd. Yahya and his family members. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the objector is having water, electricity and landline telephone connection in his name and has also filed the photocopy of documents to show his possession in the premises. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the decree holders claiming to //4// be in possession of first floor of the suit premises, therefore, why did they allow the objector to have water and electricity connection in his name. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the decree holders have stated in the main petition that the respondents/JDs without the permission in writing of the decree holders sublet or parted with the possession to one Sh. Ananda and Sh. Ashish etc. who were in unauthorised occupation of the tenanted premises. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the decree holders in collusion with the bailiff has prepared a false report that the objector had signed a paper or given any statement.
8. Ld. Counsel for objector Murari Lal submitted that one Sh. Anandan Kumar was tenant in respect of one big room on the ground floor in suit premises and paying rent to the decree holders. Ld. Counsel further submitted that objector Murari Lal has started partnership firm with Sh. Anandan Kumar in said one big room and he alongwith Anandan Kumar was paying rent.
9. Ld. Counsel for decree holders submitted that the objector, Murari Lal has not stated from which decree holder the room was taken on rent, the rate of rent was not stated. It is also not stated when the room was taken on rent. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the objector even does not gave the whereabout of Anandan Kumar. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the //5// objector have raised frivolous objections and the same may kindly be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for decree holder further submitted that neither the Mohd. Ali nor his father was ever tenant under the decree holders. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the JD who contested the matter for about 10 years never stated the presence of any objector in the suit premises. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the decree holders are contesting with Sh. V.K.Bhandari in respect of suit premises since 1955 and only V.K.Bhandari was tenant and no one else. Ld. Counsel further submitted that when the bailiff went to execute the warrant of possession at the suit premises objector Murari Lal was found and informed the bailiff that he is employee of V.K.Bhandari and on seeing the warrant of possession told that he had a stay order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court and can produce the same. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the objectors have no legal right to stay in the tenanted premises and the obejections may kindly be dismissed.
10. Objector Murari Lal has contended that one Anandan Kumar was tenant in one big room on the ground floor of the suit premises and the objector has started a partnership firm with him and thereafter started paying rent. These contention of the objector Murari Lal has no substance. From these contention it is clear that objector Murari Lal has no locus to file //6// the objection. According to objector, Murari Lal himself, he merely started the partnership firm with a tenant and came in possession of the room in question. The objector do not know what was the rate of rent, when the room was let out to Anandan Kumar, who has let out the room to Anandan Kumar, to whom the rent was being paid by Anandan Kumar. The objector Murari Lal has filed frivolous objections just with a view to delay the executions. Hence the objections raised by Sh. Murari Lal, objector are rejected with a cost of Rs. 5,000/.
11. So far the objector Mohd. Ali is concerned, he is claiming himself tenant in two rooms on the ground floor in the tenanted premises since 1988. The objector has filed the photocopy of documents such as water, electricity and telephone connection in his name. The documents filed on behalf of the objector are for the year 2001 onwards. The question arise, if the objector Mohd. Ali or his father has taken the two rooms on rent in the year 1988 then why he has not filed any documents for the period from 1988 to 2000. It is a big period of thirteen years from 1988 to 2000. The second question arise, if objector Mohd. Ali or his father is tenant in the suit premises and also in occupation of same then why did they not join the main petition of eviction which was filed by the petitioner/decree holders in the year 2001. The main petition for eviction u/s 14 (1) (e) of bonafide //7// requirement was allowed on 12.09.2008. The respondents/JD have hotly contested the eviction petition and were granted leave to defend. Finally the eviction petiton was allowed on 12.09.2008 after a lengthy trial. Not only this, the respondents have challenged the judgment dated 12.09.2008 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but they could not succeed. The party which are hotly contesting the matter for about 10 years cannot be said that they have filed a petition for eviction in collusion with each other. The documents filed on behalf of the decree holders shows that the decree holders are in litigation with the JDs since 1957. The decree holders are contesting the present disputes with the JDs for a very long time and even they have approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court in early eviction petition, therefore, it is beyond imagination that they have filed the present petition in collusion with each other.
12. In view of the above discussions I am of the considered view that the objector Mohd. Ali is not a tenant in the suit premises in his independent capacity and he has come in possession of the suit premises through the JDs. It was held in Nand Lal Vs. Inderjeet and others equivalent citation 1992 (102) PLR 9 decided on 21.01.1992 that "Under Section 47 CPC the question arising between the parties to the suit, relating to the execution, can be determined. Where a question for decision does not arise between //8// the parties to the suit or their representatives, it cannot be decided under this section. Admittedly, objector is not claiming himself to be a representative of the judgmentdebtors. The only recourse available to him is a separate suit and not an objection petition u/s 47 CPC. In other words at this stage he is entitled to be in defensive but cannot take an offensive step. In case he wants to take such step he can do so under Rule 99 but after surrendering possession. The rule has been framed to protect the decree holder from frivolous claimes by third persons. All questions arising between the parties to the proceedings, on an application under rule 97 or rule 99 and relevant to the adjudication of the application are now required to be determined by the court dealing with the application. However, if the person in possession wants to raise any dispute before surrendering possession, he can do so by filing a suit for declaration of his title to the property".
13. The rulings relied upon by the counsel for the objector is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the said ruling a suit for partition a joint Hindu family property was filed and a compromise decree was passed whereas in the present case an eviction order under the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed on merits and section 25 of Delhi Rent Control Act provides that 'note withstanding anything contained in any other law, where the interest of a tenant in any premises is determined for //9// any reason whatsoever and any order is made by the Controller under this Act for the recovery of possession of such premises the order shall, subject to the provisions of section 18, be binding on all persons who may be in occupation of the premises and vacant possession thereof shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such person therefrom.
14. In view of the above discussions the objections made by the objector Mohd. Ali are found frivolous and the same are dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/.
(Announced in the open court
on 25/02/2011) (Pritam Singh)
ARC/Central/Delhi