Delhi District Court
Shri Anil Seth vs Smt. Asha Guglani on 15 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MRS. SUNITA GUPTA:
RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL: DELHI
RCT appeal No. 45/12
Unique ID No. 0240IC0288782012
Shri Anil Seth
s/o late Shri Ram Gopal Seth
R/o House No.G-12,
Chander Nagar, Delhi.
...........Appellant
Versus
1- Smt. Asha Guglani
W/o Shri G.S. Guglani
R/o House No.222, Neel Kanth Apartments,
Sector - 13, Rohini,
Delhi - 110 085 ........ ....... (Decree Holder)
2- Shri Sunil Kumar Singhal,
S/o Shri B.D. Singhal,
R/o House No. 2809,
Chatta Sufi People Mahadev,
Hauz Qazi, Delhi - 110 006 ....( Judgment Debtor)
............Respondents
Date of institution of appeal : 02.07.2012
Date when final arguments were heard: 06.09.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment :15.09.2012.
JUDGEMENT :-
Appellate jurisdiction of this Tribunal has been invoked under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act'), feeling aggrieved by the order dated 07.06.2012, whereby the objections filed by the Appellant in the case titled as Smt. Asha Guglani v.
(RCT Appeal No.45/12) (Page 1 of 8) Shri Sunil Kumar Singhal were dismissed. 2- Before going to the grounds of appeal, it will be in the
fitness of things to narrate the facts of the case leading to the filing of the present appeal. Smt. Asha Guglani (respondent No.1 herein) filed an eviction petition against Shri Sunil Kumar Singhal (respondent No.2 herein) under Section 14(1)
(e) of the DRC Act read with Section 25-B of the Act interalia on the allegations so far as material for the present purpose, that the petitioner purchased entire property vide registered sale deed dated 25.10.2002 and that the premises were required bonafide by the petitioner for her husband for storing the sanitary items for godown purpose. As required under law, summons as per schedule III of the DRC Act were sent to the respondent who filed an application under Section 25-B (4) & (5) of the DRC for leave to defend. Since there was delay in filing application for leave to defend, the delay was not condoned and an eviction order under Section 14(1)
(e) of the DRC Act was passed against respondent vide order dated 24.02.2011. Thereafter, an application under Section 25-B(9) of the Act read with Section 47 CPC was moved by the respondent which was dismissed vide order dated 26.04.2011. Revision petition was filed by the respondent before Hon'ble High Court which was dismissed vide order dated 22.07.2011. Thereafter, objections were filed under Section 47 read with Order 21 CPC by Judgment Debtor and objections were also filed by one Shri Mahesh Sharma. The objections filed by the Judgment debtor as well as Shri (RCT Appeal No.45/12) (Page 2 of 8) Mahesh Sharma, were dismissed vide order dated 15.09.2011. An appeal was preferred against the said order which was dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2012. Thereafter objections were filed by the present appellant on the ground that previous owner had not sold the entire suit premises to the decree holder and objector is the legal heir of previous owner who still owns the suit premises. As such, it was prayed that the decree be declared as null and void. Vide impugned order dated 07.06.2012, the objections were dismissed with costs of Rs.5000/-. This order has been assailed by filing the present appeal.
3- Notice of the appeal was given to the respondents and the trial court record was summoned.
4- I have heard Shri Suraj Kumar, Counsel for the appellant and Shri Amit Gupta, Counsel for respondent No.1 and have perused the records.
5- It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that there was a title dispute inasmuch as the entire property was not sold to Smt. Asha Guglani and she had not become the owner of the portion in occupation of Shri Sunil Kumar Singhal - tenant, and therefore, she could not have filed the eviction petition. It was submitted that the entire sale deed has to be read as a whole and words should not be taken out of the context and interpreted. Reliance was placed on AIR 1967 CALCUTTA 119 Union of India v.
(RCT Appeal No.45/12) (Page 3 of 8) Amarendra Nath Sarkara. 6- It was further submitted that since there was a title
dispute, it was the duty of the court to refer the dispute to Civil Court instead of deciding the matter. Reliance was placed on MCD v. Harish Chander & Ors 2001 I AD (Delhi) 83. As such, it was submitted that the impugned order suffers from illegality and same may be set-aside.
7- Rebutting the submissions of learned Counsel for appellant, learned Counsel for respondent referred to the history of case whereby eviction order was passed against the respondent. His review application as well as revision was dismissed. Thereafter, when the execution application was filed, same Counsel who has now filed the present appeal, filed objections on behalf of Mahesh Sharma, which was also dismissed. It was submitted that the entire property was purchased by the petitioner and therefore, rightly ejectment was sought. It was further submitted that instead of helping the appellant, the authority MCD v. Harish Chander & Ors (supra) helps the respondent inasmuch as if there is a title dispute that is to be decided by the Civil Court and not by the Rent Controller. It was lastly submitted that the appeal even otherwise has become infructuous since possession of the suit premises has been taken by the Decree Holder. As such, it was submitted that the appeal is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
(RCT Appeal No.45/12) (Page 4 of 8) 8- Refuting the submissions of learned Counsel for
respondent, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that even if the possession of the premises has been taken during the pendency of the appeal, the appeal still survives.
9- I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
10- The main grievance of the objector is that the entire property was not sold to the petitioner and that sale deed dated 25.10.2002 was executed by Objector after being nominated as attorney by other legal heirs of deceased Smt. Savitri Devi, but only a portion of the property was sold, which was specifically mentioned in the sale deed, the portion in possession of Judgment Debtor was never sold to the Decree Holder. This plea is devoid of merit inasmuch as photocopy of the sale deed has been placed on record and a perusal of the same goes to show that it was specifically mentioned therein that the "entire free hold property, bearing Municipal No. 2809, Chatta Sufi People Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi" is being sold for a total consideration of Rs.2,70,000/-. The further clause of sale deed goes to show that Vendee shall have full right to recover the rent from the tenants and to get vacated the tenanted premises from any source or through court of law. As such, a bare reading of the entire sale deed goes to show that the entire property was (RCT Appeal No.45/12) (Page 5 of 8) sold to the decree holder. The learned Trial Court had not considered any particular clause of sale deed in isolation and therefore, the authority Union of India (supra) relied upon by the Appellant does not help him.
11- At any rate, whether the entire property or only a portion of property was sold to the Decree Holder, is a matter between the Decree Holder and the Appellant but by virtue of this sale deed, the Decree Holder was granted a right to recover the rent from the tenant and to get the same vacated. Therefore, by taking recourse to law the eviction petition was filed which culminated in a decree in favour of decree holder who got possession of the suit premises in execution of the decree. If there is any dispute regarding the interpretation of the sale deed or the right of the decree holder qua the entire suit premises or a portion of the suit property, it was not for the Rent Controller to go into this aspect of the matter. That may be an inter-se dispute between the decree holder and the appellant and the appellant can take appropriate proceeding where the claim can be adjudicated in a more effective manner. The authority MCD v. Harish Chander & Ors (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant does not help him inasmuch as, it was no where held in that case that it was incumbent upon the Rent Controller to have referred the dispute between the parties to the Civil Court. In fact, it was observed that the title dispute is not to be decided by the Rent Controller. The same is to be determined by recourse (RCT Appeal No.45/12) (Page 6 of 8) to a civil court. That being so, the learned Addl. Rent Controller rightly dismissed the objections of the Objector. There is no infirmity in the impugned order which calls for interference.
12- While passing over, it may be mentioned that the appeal has even otherwise become infructuous as it has come on record that during execution of the decree, possession of the suit premises had already been taken by the Decree Holder. The prayer in the instant appeal is to set aside the order dated 07.06.2012 and to stay the execution of the decree and waive the costs imposed on the appellant.
13- In view of the discussion made above, since the impugned order dated 07.06.2012 suffers from no legal infirmity, therefore, there is no ground to set-aside the same. The execution petition no longer survives after the possession has been handed over to the Decree Holder.
14- Furthermore, there is no ground for waiver of the costs inasmuch it seems that after the judgment debtor had failed in his attempt to frustrate the decree by all means, then the objections were filed by the present objector with a view to further delay the proceedings.
The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the appeal being without any merit, is dismissed with costs of Rs.7,000/-.
(RCT Appeal No.45/12) (Page 7 of 8) Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial Court while returning the records.
Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court
on 15.09.2012 (SUNITA GUPTA )
Rent Control Tribunal: Delhi.
(RCT Appeal No.45/12) (Page 8 of 8)