JUDGEMENT
Usha Mehra, J. -
(1.)Property bearing No.D-922, New Friends Colony, New Delhi was let out to respondent No.1 i.e. M/s International Amusements Ltd. (in short IAL) on a monthly rent of Rs.7,000.00 vide registered lease deed dated 1/4/1987. On expiry of the lease period, petitioner herein let out the property to respondent No.1 vide registered lease deed dated 1/4/1990 on a monthly rent of Rs.16,500.00. Respondent No.2 Shri Sharat Chander Dass was the Director of respondent No.1. He was in occupation of the suit premises on account of being the Director of respondent No.1. The petitioner wanted possession of the suit premises, therefore, filed a suit against respondent No.1 after the expiry of the lease period. Decree of possession was passed in her favour and against respondent No.1, its servants, agents and employees etc. vide decree dated 26/5/1993. Pursuance to that decree petitioner filed execution proceedings and obtained warrants of possession. Respondent No.2 filed objection to the execution proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that decree was a nullity inasmuch as it was passed without him being impleaded as a party. He was in occupation of the premises and without him being impleaded as a party, decree of possession could not have been passed. Moreover, decree had been obtained by collusion and fraud. He also took the plea that real landlord Shri R.K.Khanna had vide oral agreement inducted respondent No.2 as the tenant pursuance to which he spent huge amount in constructing the house. In the objection filed to the execution, respondent No.2 admitted that respondent No.1 was inducted as tenant in the premises in question. That he occupied the suit premises as Director of respondent No.1. He also took the plea that father of the petitioner Shri R.K.Khanna had orally agreed to let out the premises to him on a monthly rent of Rs.2,000.00. That the said oral lease was for a period of eight years from the expiry of the lease between the petitioner and respondent No.1. Petitioner contested the objections filed by respondent No.2 and denied that there was any oral agreement of tenancy between him and her father. She also denied that respondent No.2 was a necessary party in her suit for ejectment.
(2.)Respondent No.2 in the meantime filed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction against the father of the petitioner Shri R.K.Khanna, which suit was based on the alleged oral agreement. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn by the Additional District Judge. However, while permitting withdrawal of the suit the learned Additional District Judge declined to grant leave to respondent No.2 to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Subsequently respondent No.2 filed an application seeking specific permission from the learned Additional District Judge to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. That application too was rejected by the learned Additional District Judge. Respondent No.2 by concealing the above facts filed a suit for specific performance in the High Court of Delhi on the same cause of action. In that suit he did not implead the present petitioner. Respondent No.2 filed another suit for declaration against Mr.R.K.Khanna and against the petitioner seeking annulment of the decree of ejectment passed in favour of the petitioner. Both these suits were dismissed. Respondent No.2 filed applications for restoration of those two suits which are still pending.
(3.)Respondent No.2 filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Civil Procedure Code before the learned Additional District Judge seeking amendment of his objection petition filed in the execution proceedings. By this amendment he wanted to withdraw the admission made by him in the objection petition wherein he had admitted that respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant and that he was occupying the premises in question as Director of the respondent No.1. Amendment as sought by respondent No.2 was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 2/9/1995. That the order allowing amendment had been challenged by the petitioner vide a petition which was listed as Civil Revision No.950/95. Respondent No.2 thereafter filed an application seeking stay of the execution proceedings till such time the Civil Revision No.950/95 was disposed. Vide impugned order dated 15/7/1996 the learned Additional District Judge allowed the prayer thereby staying further execution proceedings. Aggrieved by this order present revision petition had been filed. This revision petition was dismissed in limini vide order dated 3/9/1996. Against the dismissal, the petitioner went in appeal to Supreme Court. The Apex Court vide order dated 28/10/1996 granted the special leave and directed the Revision Petition to be decided on merits. Further granted liberty to this petitioner to move an application for fixation of appropriate occupation charges to be paid by respondents during the pendency of this proceeding. Further this Court has to consider the question of payment of arrears. It is in this background that arguments on fixation of appropriate occupation charges and payment of arrears were heard.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.