Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: ejectment execution in Amarjeet Kaur vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors on 11 March, 2014Matching Fragments
14. The respondent / defendant No.3 who is the son of the appellant / plaintiff, when appeared as aforesaid before this Court on 30th October, 2013, on enquiry informed that no mutation had been applied for or got carried out after the demise on 11th November, 1992 of Sh. Ajit Singh on 11th November, 1992 to the name of the appellant / plaintiff and / or the appellant /plaintiff and the respondents / defendants No.3 to 5; that no house tax was paid by the appellant / plaintiff and / or the respondents / defendants No.3 to 5 with respect to the said property and none of them were declaring themselves as owner of the property in any income tax record; he could not answer whether Sh. Ajit Singh had continued to declare himself as owner of the property after 10th December, 1986; in response to a query as to what rights of ownership were exercised by Sh. Ajit Singh and / or the appellant / plaintiff after 10th December, 1986, it was stated that the appellant /plaintiff had got issued a notice dated 6th July, 2009 of termination of tenancy to the tenant and thereafter filed a suit for ejectment on 31st January, 2012 and in execution whereof possession of the property had been recovered on 9th October, 2012. The son of the appellant / plaintiff further stated that thereafter possession of the property was taken by the Court Receiver appointed by the Recovery Officer of the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). On yet further enquiry, son of the appellant / plaintiff further stated that the tenant in the property, since his induction in December, 1986, had paid rent earlier to Sh. Ajit Singh and thereafter to the appellant /plaintiff till January, 2008; on yet further enquiry, it was informed that the proceedings in the DRT were initiated by the State Bank of India (SBI) and were being pursued by Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) as assignee of the loan; on yet further enquiry, it was informed that the rent was paid by the tenant in cash and was not declared by the appellant / plaintiff and / or appellant / plaintiff and the respondents / defendants No.3 to 5 before any authorities.