Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4) Shiv Saran Lal, Judgment-debtor, in his reply pleaded that no part of the premises allotted to the decree-holder was in his possession. As a co-owner he was managing the suit property including granting tenancies to the tenants and that the said tenants were lawful tenants and the decree-holder was not entitled to physical possession. It was also pleaded that the decree-holder had already received symbolic possession.

(5) Notice was issued to the tenants alleged to have been inducted by the Judgment-debtor Shiv Saran Lal. A'l the $aid tenants, except M/s. Yamuna Traders, Chawri Bazar, Delhi, have filed objections, resisting the delivery of physical possession. The main pleas raised by them are that all of them except Mrs. Kultar Kaur (Objector No. 8), Sant Lal (Objector No. II) and Probodh Mehta (Objector No. 6) were in occupation of the premises since prior to the filing of the suit for partition by the decree-holder as tenants under both the decree-holder and the Judgment-debtor; that there was a relationship of a landlord and a tenant between the parties and they could not be ejected in execution of the decree because of the bar under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as well as' the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. They were not parties to the decree and the decree was not binding on them.-In any case, they had become tenants by operation of law and the decree-holder was not entitled to physical possession of the properties in dispute. The decree-holder was estopped to deny their rights as tenants and to claim physical possession because of his acts and conduct. It was also averred that the decree-holder had already received symbolic possession of the portion which fell to his share under the partition decree.