$~A-29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 23.4.2012
+ CM(M) 462/2012 & CM No.7154/2012
RAJHANS REALTORS PVT LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Amitabh Narayan, Advocate.
versus
RAJINDER GOYAL AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
1 The application filed by the petitioner/landlord under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) had been dismissed.
2 There are two concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below i.e. the court of ARC and the RCT; both had returned a finding in favour CM(M) No.462/2012 Page 1 of 6 of the respondent/tenant; the prayer made by the petitioner seeking a judgment on admission under the provisions of order XII Rule 6 of the Code had been declined.
3 Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by the landlord namely Rajhans Realtors against two respondents namely Rajinder Goyal and Narender Kumar Goyal both sons of one Phool Chand. Eviction petition has been filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA; contention being that respondent no.1 (Rajinder Kumar Goyal) had sublet these premises in favour of respondent no.2 (Narender Kumar Goyal) who is now in exclusive possession of the aforenoted premises; ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA are made out. Written statement was filed. A petition under Section 20 of the Indian Arbitration Act (hereafter referred to as the said Act) is also on record; averments in the application under Section 20 of the said Act seeking appointment of an Arbitrator have been highlighted. This is an application filed by Rajinder Goyal against Phool Chand (his father) and Mahendra Kumar. In this petition it has been averred that Rajinder Kumar Goyal and Phool Chand had taken the disputed premises on rent CM(M) No.462/2012 Page 2 of 6 (M-2, Greater Kailash-I Market, New Delhi) from one Jagan Nath Goyal; the partnership business of 'Goyal Store' was being carried out under the supervision, control and guidance of Phool Chand and Rajinder Goyal; in July 1982 Phool Chand suffered a paralytic attack and since then he is confined to bed and could not supervise, control and guide the affairs of the firm and the same were being looked after by Mahendra Kumar. Mahendra Kumar is also not dealing with the affairs of the company in a proper manner and he is not disclosing the accounts of the firm; the affairs of the firm are not being looked after by respondents no.1 and 2; the same are being looked after by Mohan Lal and Narendra Kumar who are also not maintaining the proper accounts of the firm; accordingly in this application (under Section 20 of the said Act) Rajinder Kumar Goyal had sought delivery of the premises as also for appointment of an Arbitrator.
4 It is these aforenoted averments which have been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner to make a submission that these averments made in the application under Section 20 of the said Act amounts to an admission made by the Rajinder Kumar Goyal which CM(M) No.462/2012 Page 3 of 6 clearly show that Phool Chand is now no longer watching the affairs of the company; Rajinder Kumar Goyal is also outside the said premises; both Rajinder Kumar Goyal and Phool Chand who were the initial tenants have divested themselves completely from the suit premises and as such ground under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA is made out and Rajhands Realtors Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to a decree forthwith on the aforenoted admissions.
5 These averments were noted in the correct perspective by both the two courts below; it had declined the prayer.
6 Record shows that M/s Rajhans Realtors had inducted Rajinder Kumar Goyal and Phool Chand as tenants; contention being that Rajinder Kumar Goyal is no longer in possession of the premises and Phool Chand has suffered a paralytic attack as such he is not in a position to carry out the affairs of the firm; this entitles the plaintiff forthwith to a decree.
7 There is no dispute to the legal position that unless and until an unambiguous and unequivocal admission is made out a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code shall not follow.
CM(M) No.462/2012 Page 4 of 6
Admittedly, Phool Chand was a tenant in the suit premises along with Mahendra Kumar; he was one of the co-tenants. The possession of the premises has been sought from Phool Chand; this is clear from the application under Section 20 of the said Act; it is thus clear that the retention of the suit premises continues with Phool Chand which is by itself shows that there is no admission; in fact the averment in the aforenoted application are to the effect that Phool Chand is in possession of the suit premises although he had suffered a medical ailment and is not in complete supervisory control over the premises yet the very fact as stated in the application shows that Phool Chand (original co-tenant) continues to have effective control over the suit premises; he has in no manner divested himself from the suit premises making out a ground under section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA. Respondent no.2 was never a party in the arbitration proceedings and as such any admission made in those proceedings would not even otherwise be binding upon respondent no.2.
8 The impugned judgment has noted these facts in the correct perspective. This petition is clearly an abuse of the process of the court;
CM(M) No.462/2012 Page 5
of 6
it is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 23, 2012
nandan
CM(M) No.462/2012 Page 6
of 6