Delhi High Court
Vinod Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs Suraj Kumari And Anr. on 5 August, 1993
Equivalent citations: 51(1993)DLT360, 1993RLR495
JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.
(1) This petition is directed against order of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 9/04/1991, by which he had dismissed the appeal filed against the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 7/02/1991, by which he had passed an interim order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, requiring the petitioner to deposit arrears of rent for the period 1/04/1987, at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per month, up to date within one month and continue to deposit month to month rent at the same rate till the disposal of the petition brought on the ground of non-payment of rent.
(2) Undisputed facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1Smt. Suraj Kumari had let out the premises in question to Shri Chander Bhan Aggarwal who died in the year 1973 and after his death his son Shri Vinod Aggarwal was accepted as tenant and thereafter in 1974 the petitioner, a private limited company, was accepted as tenant, it appears that agreement for sale dated 5/10/1974, was entered into between Smt. Suraj Kumari as vendor and Smt. Urvashi Aggarwal and her two sons, namely, Rajiv Aggarwal and Sanjeev Aggarwal, minors, as prospective vendees in respect of the property in question. The whole of the property including the demised premises was agreed to be sold to them for a consideration of Rs. 1,85,000.00. The said sale price was to be paid in Installments and the first Installment ofRs. 20,000.00 was to be paid on signing of the agreement and the second installment of Rs. 50,000.00 was to be paid on or before 31/10/1974 and the balance amount was to be paid at the rate of 7,000.00 per month commencing from first week of January, 1975 onwards.
(3) The petitioner has set up in the written statement that by virtue of this agreement to sell the Respondent-Smt. Suraj Kumari owner-landlady had given the rights to the prospective vendees for recovering the rent from the tenants. There were two tenants in the property, namely, Shri A.C. Deb.Principal Cambridge School, on a monthly rent of Rs. 450.00 for the ground floor whereas the petitioner is occupying the first floor and paying rent ofRs. 500.00 par month. According to the petitioner, this agreement for sale is binding on Respondent No. 1 and relationship of landlord tenant ceased between Respondent No. 1 and the petitioner when this agreement was acted upon and a sum of Rs. 70,000.00 (of the first two Installments) already stood paid and notice of demand was issued by Respondent No. 1 in the year 1989claiming arrears of rent. A suit for specific performance of the agreement to sell has been brought by the prospective vendees against Respondent No. 1which is pending in the Civil Court. This suit is stated to have been brought in the year 1987.
(4) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that Respondent No. 1 had ceased to be landlady vis-a-vis the premises in question on execution of the agreement to sell which had been acted upon and the petitioner has attorney to the prospective vendees and the petitioner has been even paying rent to the prospective vendees. He has referred to the copy of the reply sent in response to the notice of demand where such a plea has been taken. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that agreement to sell had been entered with the wife and sons of Vinod Chander Aggarwal, who was the erstwhile tenant in the premises in question. He has also referred to the share-holding of the said private limited company which is enumerated in para 5 of the petition. So, it is urged that petitioner is the family concern of Vinod Chander Aggarwal and if the veil is lifted it would show that in fact respondent No. 1 had agreed to sell the property to the said family.
(5) Counsel for respondent No. 1 has vehemently argued that petitioner is a separate legal entity and it is not disputed by the petitioner that petitioner continues to be the tenant in the demised premises and that there has been no attornment by the petitioner in favor of anyone as respondent No. 1 had never asked the petitioner in any manner whatsoever to attorn in favor of the prospective vendees. It is also argued that the agreement to sell was not acted upon and is not binding and there continues to exist relationship of landlady tenant between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner andthus, as arrears of rent becoming due have not been paid despite service of notice of demand, the impugned orders are liable to be sustained.
(6) The questions arising for decision, after the trial in the eviction case takes place, would be whether the agreement to sell continued to subsist and had been acted upon or not and if so, whether respondent No. 1 by conduct in any manner had agreed to attornment of the petitioner in favor of the prospective vendees or not and whether the same would result in wiping out the relationship of landlord tenant between respondent No. 1 and the petitioner. It is not proper to give any considered view on these complicated questions of facts and law while deciding whether any interim order under Section 15(1) should or should not be passed. At any rate, it is evident that the petitioner is the tenant in the demised premises and the petitioner disputes the status of respondent No. 1 as the landlady and is setting up the prospective vendees as the landlord. So, the interim order under Section 15(4) was called for and the impugned orders are liable to be modified to thatextent.
(7) Counsel for the petitioner has prayed that as the civil suit would have ample bearing with regard to the existence of relationship of landlord tenant between the respondent No. 1 and the petitioner, it would be in the interest of justice that eviction case is stayed till the disposal of the civil suit.I think the interests of justice would require that a final decision is made in the civil suit at first which would settle the disputed questions of facts and law with regard to existence or non-existence of relationship of landlordtenant between the parties. Counsel for the petitioner under takes that the petitioner would apply to become a party in the civil suit as well. Counsel for the petitioner may move an application for becoming a party in the civil suit and the civil Court will decide that application on its own merits.
(8) I, hence, allow this petition and modify the impugned orders and instead the order would be deemed to have been passed under Section 15.The parties are left to bear their own costs in this petition.
(9) The rent which has been already paid as per orders made under Section 15(1) be also deposited back with the Additional Rent Controller by respondent No. 1 and the rent would be disbursed in accordance with final order which would be made by the Additional Rent Controller. The proceedings would revive before the Additional Rent Controller after the civil suit is finally decided.
(10) CM. (M) No. 60193I may mention that this petition has been also filed by the same tenant praying that the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal and the Additional Rent Controller be set aside and the eviction petition filed on the ground of eviction covered by Clause (k) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act be stayed.
(11) For the reasons given above, interests of justice require that this eviction petition be also stayed till the disposal of the civil suit.
(12) So, this petition C.M. CM) No. 60/93 is also allowed and setting aside the impugned order I direct that the eviction petition be stayed till the disposal of the civil suit.