Delhi District Court
Vide This Order I Shall Dispose Of ... vs Santosh Kumari & Satish Kumar Alleging ... on 12 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. BALWANT RAI BANSAL
ARC (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Ex. 82/08
Smt. Sunita Pawar
......... Decree Holder.
Versus
Sh. Mool Chand & Ors.
......... Judgment Debtors.
ORDER:
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of objections filed by three objectors namely Sh. Ram Swaroop, Sh. Sri Kishan and Smt. Shanti Devi separately u/s 25 r/w section 37 of DRC Act r/w section 151 CPC.
2. It is stated in the objections filed by Sh. Ram Swaroop that his late father namely late Sh. Inder Singh was original tenant in the property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6, under Smt. Daya Wati and prior to her, to her husband namely late Sh. Sarju Prasad and his tenancy goes back to 1937 and the tenanted premises comprised of two rooms common Ex. 82/08 1/24 courtyard, common toilet and common roof rights in the suit property. It is stated that after the death of Sh. Inder Singh the objector became the tenant in the said property and the rent of the tenanted premises in possession and occupation of the objector is Rs. 15/ only and he has been residing in the said property along with his family members. It is further stated that property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 is inhabited by around 17 families and at present there are about 100 people residing in the said property. The said property is divided into several parts and every tenant is direct tenant under Sh. Sarju Prasad and thereafter under late Smt. Dayawati who were the landlord and owner of the suit property. It is further stated that though the father of the objector and after his death the objector was paying rent to Smt. Dayawati but no rent receipt was issued to the objector or to his late father and Smt. Dayawati was collecting the rent through her munshies and agents. It is further stated that the objector is a direct tenant under the landlord namely Smt. Dayawati and he is occupying the suit property in the capacity of tenant and the objector is having his voter I Card, ration card, electricity meter, water meter in his name which shows that the objector is in possession and occupation of the property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 since long Ex. 82/08 2/24 without any hindrance of anybody. It is further stated that in the month of December 2008, the DH Smt. Sunita Panwar whose motherinlaw herself had been a tenant in the suit property claimed that she has won the case against the tenants of the property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 and that she will get the property evicted from all the persons who are in possession of the said property. After listening the same, the objector came to know that the petitioner had filed an eviction petition against Sh. Mool Chand and others and has got eviction order against them and in the said eviction petition neither the objector was impleaded as party nor any summons were ever sent to him. It is further stated that objector is not a subtenant in the suit property and neither the objector nor his late father had ever recognized the respondents or their predecessors and others as his landlord and he is occupying the premises in his own rights and the eviction order is not enforceable upon him. It is stated that objector is not a tenant in the suit property through JDs and he is in possession of the same in his own independent rights and the eviction order cannot be executed against him and it has been prayed that present execution petition may be dismissed.
3. The DH has contested the objections filed by Sh. Ram Swaroop by filing reply to same contending that the present Ex. 82/08 3/24 objections are not maintainable as same has been filed by concealing about the civil cases related to the suit property in which the objector himself was also a party. It is stated that objector filed a false and frivolous suit in the court of Sh. Chandra Bose, the then Civil Judge, Delhi vide suit No. 437/98 titled as Ram Swaroop Vs. Santosh Kumari & Satish Kumar alleging himself to be a tenant in respect of two rooms on the ground floor of the property No. 2785 and alleged that Sh. Satish Kumar, present JD herein was demanding the rent from him and Smt. Santosh Kumari Gupta was also demanding the rent claiming her ownership and the plaintiff (objector herein) prayed for relief of injunction. It is stated that in the said suit also the objector alleged about the thekedari rights of Mool Chand and Chet Ram qua the suit property. It is further stated that in the said suit the defendant no. 1 filed her written statement claiming that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff (objector herein) and defendant no. 1 and the property was let out to Mool Chand and Chet Ram as tenants and a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent has been instituted by defendant no. 1 against the tenant Mool Chand and Chet Rem. It is further stated that during the pendency of the said suit for recovery, the tenant Chet Ram had expired and his legal heirs became the tenants along with Mool Chand. It is Ex. 82/08 4/24 further stated that during the pendency of the said case, the defendant therein sold the entire suit property to Smt. Sunita Panwar vide registered sale deed and the present objector filed an application u/o 22 rule 10 CPC praying for impleading the new owner of the suit property namely Sunita Panwar as defendant no. 3 and the said application was duly supported by his affidavit also and as such the objector knew all the facts about the tenancy rights of Sh. Mool Chand and Sh. Chet Ram and about the ownership. It is stated that objector has no locus standi to file the present objections and the objector has no right, title or interest of any nature in respect of the premises in question. It has been denied that father of the objector namely late Sh. Inder Singh was original tenant under late Smt. Dayawati and prior to her, to her husband late Sh. Sarju Prasad. It has also been denied that the objector is a direct tenant under the landlord namely Smt. Dayawati and he is occupying the suit property in the capacity of tenant. It is stated that suit premises comprising of entire ground floor, first floor and a room, two small tin sheds on the second floor of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 was let out to the original tenants namely Mool Chand and Chet Ram by the owner landlady Smt. Dayawati for residential purposes only and after the death of Chet Ram, his legal heirs became the tenants in Ex. 82/08 5/24 respect of the said premises by operation of law. It is further stated that Smt. Daya Wati during her lifetime executed a Will bequeathing the entire suit property bearing No. 2785 in favour of her daughter Smt. Santosh Gupta and she became the owner of the said property after the death of Smt. Dayawati. It is further stated that Smt. Santosh Gupta filed a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the said two tenants Mool Chand and Chet Ram and during the pendency of the said suit, Smt. Santosh Gupta sold the entire property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 to the present DH Smt. Sunita Panwar vide registered sale deed with right to recover the rent from the said tenants and the said suit was decreed by the court of Sh. Naveen Arora vide judgment dated 23.7.2005 holding that the defendants (JDs herein) are the tenants in respect of the suit property bearing No. No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 . It is further stated that the aforesaid tenants after 09.06.1952 sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of a major portion of the tenanted premises in their possession to various subtenants without the written consent and permission of Smt. Dayawati or Smt. Santosh Gupta and an eviction petition to this effect u/s 14 (1)
(b) was filed by the owner landlord against the aforesaid tenants qua the aforesaid tenanted premises after obtaining the necessary Ex. 82/08 6/24 slum permission which is pending in the Court of Ms. Navita Kumari, ARC, Delhi. It is stated that the original tenants namely Sh. Mool Chand and Sh. Chet Ram were inducted as tenants in respect of the suit premises, in respect of which eviction order has been passed, by Smt. Dayawati and the said tenants in 1959 unlawfully and illegally sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of two rooms on the ground floor of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 to Sh. Inder Singh, the objector's father, now deceased without the written consent and permission of the owner landlady and the objector has filed the present objections in respect of the said two rooms. It is further stated that neither Sh. Inder Singh nor the objector has any legal right or any tenancy rights in respect of the said two rooms or any portion of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6. The other contents of the objections are stated to be wrong and denied and the DH has prayed for dismissal of the objections.
4. In the objections filed by Sh. Sri Kishan, the objector has stated that his late grandfather namely Sh. Babu Ram was originally inducted as tenant in the property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 by late Sh. Sarju Prasad and after his death the grandfather of the objector attorned to Smt. Ex. 82/08 7/24 Dayawati, the wife of late Sh. Sarju Prasad as a tenant and his tenancy goes back even prior to independence. It is stated that after the death of Sh. Babu Ram, the tenancy devolved upon his sons namely Tota Ram, Murari Lal and Banwari lal and the objector is son of late Sh. Tota Ram. It is further stated that Sh. Babu Ram expired in the year 1988 and after his death all his legal heirs inherited tenancy right in the aforesaid property, but late Smt. Daya Wati accepted all the legal heirs of late Sh. Babu Ram as separate tenants after his death and started collecting rent from them individually thereby creating fresh tenancy in favour of legal heirs of late Sh. Babu Ram individually regarding the different rooms in the suit property occupied by them. It is further stated that the tenanted premises in the possession of the objector and his brother comprised of two rooms, one on the first floor and one on the ground floor and besides this common courtyard, common toilet and common roof rights in the suit property. It is further stated that after the death of Sh. Tota Ram, the objector and his other legal heirs became tenant in the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 and the rent of the tenanted premises in possession and occupation of the objector is Rs. 10/ only. It is further stated that the objector is residing in the suit property along with his family members . It is further stated that property bearing Ex. 82/08 8/24 No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 is inhabited by around 17 families and at present there are about 100 people residing in the said property which is divided into several parts and every tenant is direct tenant under Sh. Sarju Prasad and thereafter under late Smt. Dayawati who were the landlord and owner of the suit property. It is further stated that though the grandfather of the objector and after his death the objector's father were paying rent to Smt. Dayawati but no rent receipt was issued to the objector or to his late father or to his late grandfather and Smt. Dayawati was collecting the rent through her munshies and agents. It is further stated that the objector is a direct tenant under the landlord namely Smt. Dayawati and he is occupying the suit property in the capacity of tenant being legal heir of late Sh. Tora Ram and the objector is having his voter I Card, ration card in his name and the electricity meter in the name of his grandfather which shows that the objector is in possession and occupation of the property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 since long without any hindrance or objection of anybody. It is further stated that the objector came to know about the eviction petition filed by the DH when in the month of December, 2008, the DH Smt. Sunita Panwar whose motherinlaw herself had been a tenant in the suit property claimed that she has won the case against the tenants of the Ex. 82/08 9/24 property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 and that she will get the property evicted from all the persons who are in possession of the said property. It is stated that in the said eviction petition neither the objector was impleaded as party nor any summons were ever sent to him. It is further stated that objector is not a subtenant in the suit property and neither the objector nor his predecessors had ever recognized the respondents or their predecessors and others as their landlord and he is getting the premises in is own rights. It is further stated that objector is not a tenant in the suit property through JDs and he is in possession of the same in his own independent rights and the eviction order cannot be executed against him and it has been prayed that present execution petition may be dismissed and the eviction order may be set aside.
5. The DH has also filed the reply to the objections filed by the objector Sh. Sri Kishan in which it has been contended that the present objections are not maintainable which have been filed at the instance of JDs. It is stated that the objector has no locus standi to file the present objections as the objector has no right, title or interest of any nature in respect of the premises in respect of which the objections have been filed or in any portion of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6. It has been Ex. 82/08 10/24 denied that the grandfather of the objector namely late Sh. Babu Ram was originally inducted as a tenant by late Sh. Sarju Prasad. It has also been denied that the objector is a direct tenant under the landlord namely Smt. Dayawati and he is occupying the suit property in the capacity of tenant. It is stated that suit premises comprising of entire ground floor, first floor and a room, two small tin sheds on the second floor of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 was let out to the original tenants namely Mool Chand and Chet Ram by the owner landlady Smt. Dayawati for residential purposes only and after the death of Chet Ram, his legal heirs became the tenants in respect of the said premises by operation of law. It is further stated that Smt. Daya Wati during her lifetime executed a Will bequeathing the entire suit property bearing No. 2785 in favour of her daughter Smt. Santosh Gupta and she became the owner of the said property after the death of Smt. Dayawati and the said tenants namely Sh. Mool Chand and Sh. Chet Ram became the tenants under Smt. Santosh Gupta. It is further stated that Smt. Santosh Gupta filed a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the said two tenants Mool Chand and Chet Ram and during the pendency of the said suit, Sh. Chet Ram expired and his legal heirs were substituted and further Smt. Santosh Gupta sold the entire property bearing No. 2785, Ex. 82/08 11/24 Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 to the present DH Smt. Sunita Panwar vide registered sale deed with right to recover the rent from the said tenants and the said suit was decreed by the court of Sh. Naveen Arora vide judgment dated 23.7.2005 holding that the defendants (JDs herein) are the tenants in respect of the suit property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 . It is further stated that the aforesaid tenants after 09.06.1952 sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of a major portion of the tenanted premises in their possession to various subtenants without the written consent and permission of Smt. Dayawati or Smt. Santosh Gupta and an eviction petition to this effect u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act was filed by the owner landlady/DH against the aforesaid tenants qua the aforesaid tenanted premises after obtaining the necessary slum permission which is pending in the Court of Ms. Navita Kumari, ARC, Delhi. It is stated that the original tenants namely Sh. Mool Chand and Sh. Chet Ram were inducted as tenants in respect of the suit premises, in respect of which eviction order has been passed, by Smt. Dayawati and the said tenants after 09.06.1952 unlawfully and illegally sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the portion including the portion, in respect of which the objections have been filed, of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Ex. 82/08 12/24 Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 to Sh. Babu Lal alias Sh. Babu Ram, without the written consent and permission of the owner landlady. It is further stated that neither Sh. Babu Ram nor any of his legal heirs nor the objector has any legal right or any tenancy rights in respect of the said portion or any portion of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6. The other contents of the objections are stated to be wrong and denied and the DH has prayed for dismissal of the objections.
6. In the objections filed by objector Smt. Shanti Devi, it is stated that she is a tenant in respect of one room, common roof in the property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6, under Smt. Dayawati and prior to her, her husband namely late Sh. Sarju Prasad @ Rs. 15/ only. It is further stated that Sh. Mool Chand, who was respondent in the eviction petition, is independent tenant and the objector is separate and independent tenant and she is not subtenant of anyone and she is a tenant since 1974 when her husband Sh. Shiv Charan Dass expired. It is further stated that the objector is running Anganwari in the room under her tenancy since 199192 in her own name and she had been paying rent to Smt. Dayawati. It is further stated that actual position of the property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 is that it is inhabited by around 17 families and at present Ex. 82/08 13/24 there are about 100 people residing in the said property. The said property is divided into several parts and every tenant is direct tenant under Sh. Sarju Prasad and thereafter under late Smt. Dayawati who were the landlord and owner of the suit property. It is further stated that though the objector was paying rent to Smt. Dayawati and Smt. Dayawati was collecting the rent through her munshies and agents and name of one of the munshi of Smt. Dayawati is Sh. Gopi who was collecting the rent on behalf of Smt. Dayawati. It is further stated that the objector is a direct tenant under the landlord namely Smt. Dayawati and she is occupying the suit property in the capacity of tenant and the objector is having her voter I Card, ration card, electricity meter installed in her name which shows that the objector is in possession and occupation of the property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 since long without any hindrance of anybody. It is further stated that in the month of December 2008, the DH Smt. Sunita Panwar whose motherinlaw herself had been a tenant in the suit property claimed that she has won the case against the tenants of the property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 and that she will get the property evicted from all the persons who are in possession of the said property. It is stated that after listening the same, the objector came to know that the Ex. 82/08 14/24 petitioner had filed an eviction petition against Sh. Mool Chand and others and has got eviction order against them and in the said eviction petition neither the objector was impleaded as party nor any summons were ever sent to her. It is further stated that objector is not a subtenant in the suit property and the objector had never recognized the respondents or their predecessors and others as her landlord. It is stated that the objector and her family members are residing in the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi 6 in their own rights and the eviction order is not enforceable upon her. It is stated that objector is not a tenant in the suit property through JDs and she is in possession of the same in her own independent rights and the eviction order cannot be executed against her and it has been prayed that present execution petition may be dismissed and the eviction order may be set aside.
7. The DH has also contested the objections filed by Smt. Shanti Devi by filing reply contending that the present objections are not maintainable which have been filed at the instance of JDs. It is stated that the objector has no locus standi to file the present objections as the objector has no right, title or interest of any nature in respect of the premises in respect of which the objections have been filed or in any portion of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6. It has been denied that objector Ex. 82/08 15/24 Smt. Shanti Devi is a tenant in respect of one room, common roof in the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi
- 6. It has also been denied that the objector is a direct tenant under the landlord namely Smt. Dayawati and she is occupying the suit property in the capacity of tenant or she is running Anganwari in the room under her tenancy since 1992 in her won name and had been paying rent to Smt. Dayawait. It is stated that suit premises comprising of entire ground floor, first floor and a room, two small tin sheds on the second floor of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 was let out to the original tenants namely Mool Chand and Chet Ram by the owner landlady Smt. Dayawati for residential purposes only and after the death of Chet Ram, his legal heirs became the tenants in respect of the said premises by operation of law. It is further stated that Smt. Daya Wati during her lifetime executed a Will bequeathing the entire suit property bearing No. 2785 in favour of her daughter Smt. Santosh Gupta and she became the owner of the said property after the death of Smt. Dayawati and the and said tenants namely Sh. Mool Chand and Sh. Chet Ram became the tenants under Smt. Santosh Gupta. It is further stated that Smt. Santosh Gupta filed a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent against the said two tenants Mool Chand and Chet Ram and during the pendency of the said suit, Sh. Ex. 82/08 16/24 Chet Ram expired and his legal heirs were substituted and further Smt. Santosh Gupta sold the entire property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 to the present DH Smt. Sunita Panwar vide registered sale deed with right to recover the rent from the said tenants and the said suit was decreed by the court of Sh. Naveen Arora vide judgment dated 23.7.2005 holding that the defendants (JDs herein) are the tenants in respect of the suit property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 . It is further stated that the aforesaid tenants after 09.06.1952 sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of a major portion of the tenanted premises in their possession to various subtenants without the written consent and permission of Smt. Dayawati or Smt. Santosh Gupta and an eviction petition to this effect u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act was filed by the owner landlady/DH against the aforesaid tenants qua the aforesaid tenanted premises after obtaining the necessary slum permission which is pending in the Court of Ms. Navita Kumari, ARC, Delhi. It is stated that the original tenants namely Sh. Mool Chand and Sh. Chet Ram were inducted as tenants in respect of the suit premises, in respect of which eviction order has been passed, by Smt. Dayawati and the said tenants after 09.06.1952 unlawfully and illegally sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession Ex. 82/08 17/24 of the portion including the portion, in respect of which the objections have been filed, of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 without the written consent and permission of the owner landlady. It is further stated that the objector has no legal right or any tenancy rights in respect of the said portion or any portion of the property No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 and the objections are not maintainable. The other contents of the objections are stated to be wrong and denied and the DH has prayed for dismissal of the objections.
8. All the three objectors namely Sh. Ram Swaroop, Sh. Sri Kishan and Smt. Shanti Devi have filed their separate rejoinder to the reply of the DH to the objections filed by them. In their respective rejoinder, the objectors have reiterated the averments made in the objections filed by them and those made in the reply to objections have been controverted.
9. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
10. A perusal of the record reveals that the DH/petitioner filed an eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w section 25B of DRC Act against the respondents/JDs namely Mool Chand, Smt. Gyan Wati, Sh. Satish Kumar, Sh. Santosh Kumar, Sh. Jitender Kumar Ex. 82/08 18/24 and Smt. Sunita Devi on the ground that originally the tenanted premises was let out to Sh. Mool Chand and Sh. Chet Ram by owner/landlady Smt. Dayawati and the petitioner became the owner of the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 07.04.2000 which has been executed by Smt. Santosh Kumari in whose favour, the Will was executed by Smt. Dayawati. The said eviction petition was contested by the respondents/JDs by filing the leave to defend application which was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 16.05.2008 and an eviction order was passed in favour of the DH/petitioner and against the JDs/respondents in respect of the suit premises. Now, the present execution petition has been filed for execution of the eviction order in which present objections have been filed by objectors namely Sh. Ram Swaroop, Sh. Sri Kishan and Smt. Shanti Devi separately.
11. In nutshell, the case of the objectors is that they are occupying premises in their possession in the suit property in the capacity of direct and independent tenant under Sh. Sarju and after his demise Smt. Daya Wati to whom they were paying the rentals though no rent receipt was issued by Smt. Daya Wati. Further that they are not deriving tenancy rights through JDs and as such eviction order is not enforceable against them.
12. On the other hand, the DH has taken a specific stand that Ex. 82/08 19/24 mere possession does not create the tenancy rights in favour of the objectors and no single document has been filed by the objectors to show the alleged tenancy rather the objectors are the sub lettees to whom the premises has been sublet, assigned or parted with by the tenants Mool Chand and Chet Ram and none of them is occupying the premises in their own independent right.
13. After going through the submissions and perusing the material available on record, undisputedly the objectors are in possession of the suit property in respect of the portion shown in the site plan filed by them separately. The objectors are contending that they are tenants in the suit property since long time in their own independent right under the ownership of late Sh. Sarju Prasad and after his death under Smt. Dayawati, the wife of Sh. Sarju Prasad and further that they were paying rentals to Smt. Dayawati who used to collect the rent through her munshies and agents. It is not in dispute that the suit property was initially owned by late Sh. Sarju Prasad and after his death by his wife late Smt. Dayawati. The DH has claimed her ownership over the property in question by virtue of sale deed dated 07.04.2000 executed by Smt. Santosh Gupta who is daughter of Smt. Dayawati in whose favour Will was executed by Smt. Dayawati by which the property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 was bequeathed Ex. 82/08 20/24 upon her.
14. The Ld. Counsel for the DH has argued that earlier a civil suit for recovery of arrears of rent was filed by Smt. Santosh Gupta against the original tenants namely Mool Chand and Chet Ram and during the pendency of the said suit, Smt. Santosh Gupta sold the entire property bearing No. 2785, Gali Arya Samaj, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi - 6 to the present DH Smt. Sunita Panwar vide registered sale deed dated 07.04.2000 with right to recover the rent from the said tenants and the said suit was decreed by the court of Ld. Civil Judge vide judgment dated 23.7.2005 holding that the JDs are the tenants in respect of the suit property and as such the present objectors are subtenants in the suit property and cannot claim the independent right. I do not find much force in this argument of the Ld. Counsel for the DH as in those civil proceedings, the objectors were not a party and said findings cannot be said to be binding upon the objectors and further the objectors are asserting their independent rights in respect of the property in question u/s 25 of DRC Act.
15. So far the contention of the DH that no documents have been placed on record by the objectors Sh. Ram Swaroop and Sh. Sri Kishan to show that they are tenants in the suit property or that any tenancy existed under Sh. Sarju Prasad and after his death Ex. 82/08 21/24 under Smt. Dayawati and the documents placed on record show only possession over the property in question and merely possession does not confer any tenancy rights in favour of the objectors, is concerned, of course, no such documents have been placed on record by the objectors Sh. Ram Swaroop and Sh. Sri Kishan to show their tenancy, but specific case of the objectors is that they are occupying the premises in question since long time as the father of objector Sh. Ram Swaroop namely Sh. Inder Singh and grandfather of the objector Sh. Sri Kishan namely Sh. Babu Ram were inducted as tenants by Sh. Sarju Prasad and after his death they were tenants under Smt. Dayawati. It is also case of the objectors that they were paying the rentals to Smt. Dayawati but no rent receipt was issued by Smt. Dayawati who used to collect the rent through her munshies and agents. Therefore, there are disputed question of facts as to whether the objectors are sublettes as alleged by the DH or they are occupying the premises in their possession in their own independent rights, which cannot be decided at this stage and these are matter of trial.
16. Furthermore, the objectors have placed on record sufficient documentary evidence to show that they are in possession of the property in question. The objectors have also filed the site plan showing their respective portion in their Ex. 82/08 22/24 possession. The objector Smt. Shanti Devi has also placed on record the rent receipt issued by landlords Sh. Sarju Prasad and Smt. Daya Wati in her favour. Although, the same is alleged to be forged and fabricated, but at this stage it cannot be said that the rent receipts filed by Smt. Shanti Devi are forged and fabricated and again it is matter of trial as to whether the rent receipts placed on record by the objector Smt. Shanti Devi are forged and fabricated or same was issued by Smt. Dayawati in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi.
17. There is another aspect of the matter that it is own case of the DH itself in the main eviction petition that the respondents/JDs namely Sh. Mool Chand and others have sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of the suit premises to the subtenants, but the names of the alleged sublettees were not mentioned by the DH in the eviction petition. On the other hand, the JDs have taken a plea in the leave to defend application that there are several sub tenants including the objectors in the suit property with the permission of previous landlady Smt. Dayawati. While, the specific case of the objectors is that they are not deriving their tenancy rights in the property in question through JDs and they are occupying the property in question in their own independent right. Moreover, an eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act on the ground of sub Ex. 82/08 23/24 letting filed by the DH against the tenants namely Sh. Mool Chand and others is also pending in which it has to be decided whether the said tenants have sublet, assigned or parted with the possession of the suit premises to the subtenants as alleged by the DH or not.
18. It has been held in Vidyawanti Vs. Takan Dass & Anr. that, "Order of eviction against tenant - It is not binding on a person who claims to be tenant in his own right and does not claim through a person against whom ejectment order was passed - Such a person has a right to be heard by the Controller - His application cannot be dismissed in limine."
19. In view of aforesaid discussions and law laid down in the aforesaid authority, as there are disputed questions as to whether the objectors are sublettes in the suit property as alleged by the DH or they are direct tenant under Sh. Sarju Prasad and after his death under Smt. Dayawati and they are occupying the premises in question in their own independent right as asserted by the objectors, the present objections cannot be decided at this stage without leading evidence by the parties. Hence, the evidence is required to dispose of the objections filed by the objectors.
Announced in the open court (Balwant Rai Bansal) on 12th July, 2010 ARC(Central), Delhi Ex. 82/08 24/24 Ex.82/08 12.07.2010 Present: None.
Vide my separate order announced in the open court, the objections filed by the objectors namely Sh. Ram Swaroop, Sh. Sri Kishan and Smt. Shanti Devi are disposed of with the observation that the present objections cannot be decided at this stage without leading evidence by the parties.
Hence, case is fixed for objectors' evidence for 20.08.2010. Let objectors lead their evidence by filing evidence by way of affidavit of the witnesses with advance copy to the counsel for DH.
(B.R. Bansal) ARC (Central), Delhi/12.07.2010 Ex. 82/08 25/24