Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in 2 vs Wamanrao V. Shenoy on 17 October, 2016Matching Fragments
1. Objections have been filed by the objector Sh. Harish Sethi against the DH Sh. Pradeep Chand Giri U/o 21 Rule 97 CPC. The DH had filed a suit for ejectment against Sh. Sat Prakash Malhotra under Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act, 1952, which was decreed on 24.01.1970 in favour of the DH by the Court of Ld. Sub Judge, Delhi. The respondent, Sh. Sat Prakash Malhotra, thereafter filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.1970, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.02.1974. Thereafter, DH filed an execution petition for the execution of the decree of ejectment and for possession of the property bearing Flat No. 10, 1 st Floor, Pratap Singh Building, Janpath Lane, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'suit property') against the JD Sh. Sat Prakash Malhotra. W/P was issued by the executing court and at the time of execution of the said W/P, Sh. Kuljas Rai Malhotra, father of the JD objected to the execution of W/P and claimed himself to be the tenant. After the death of Sh. Kuljas Rai Malhotra, his wife, Smt. Sushila Devi claimed the tenancy with respect to the suit property. After her death as well, Sh. Chand Prakash Malhotra, younger brother of the JD Sh. Sat Prakash Malhora, claimed the tenancy with respect to the suit property. After his death, his son Sh. Manoj Malhotra claimed the tenancy. The objections filed by the objector was dismissed by the executing court and fresh W/P was issued on 15.12.1989. On 23.01.1990, the Bailiff took possession of two rooms, out of four rooms on the first floor of the suit property from Sh. Manoj Malhotra, who was nephew of the JD Sh. Sat Prakash Malhotra and the keys of the same were deposited in the executing court. Sh. Manoj Malhotra, further gave an undertaking in writing to the Bailiff that he will handover the the physical possession of remaining two rooms in the last week of April, 1990. That after the deposit of keys of two rooms in the executing court by the Bailiff, the DH Sh. Pradeep Chand Giri rushed back to Ahmedabad to attend his ailing brother who happened to be the business partner of the of the DH also. After that, DH could not pursue the execution of the decree with respect to the suit premises because of the death of his brother and prevailing family circumstances. That after the death of his brother, the DH shifted from Ahmedabad to Shimla and it took him five years to establish himself in Shimla. Thereafter, DH again applied for fresh execution of the decree passed in his favour before the successor court and prayed for handing over the keys of the two rooms which were deposited by the bailiff in the executing court after taking over the possession of two rooms of the suit premises. Before the execution of the W/P, objections u/o 21 Rule 97 CPC were filed by Sh. Harish Sethi on 27.04.2001, objecting to the execution of decree for possession of decreed premises on the ground that the DH had already entered into rent agreement with Sh. Harish Sethi on 01.04.1991. The objector further based his claim to resist execution of decree on the alleged Agreement to Sell dated 18.12.1995, alleged to have been executed by the DH in favour of the objector for the sale of the suit premises. The objector also relied upon a notice issued by NDMC towards attachment of rent for outstanding house tax arrears due towards the DH and the payment of the same by him from 1994 to 1996. The DH denied the execution of any rent agreement as well as agreement to sell. Thus, it is averred by the objector that since he is in possession of the tenanted premises since 01.04.1991 and also an agreement ot sell was entered into between the DH and the objector, therefore, the objector cannot be forced to eject from the tenanted premises.