Vijay Shankar Dass vs M.S. Bawa
1991 Latest Caselaw 664 Del

JUDGMENT

S.N. Sapra, J.

(1) This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi, by which, appellants appeal against the order dated April 26, 1991, passed by Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, was dismissed.

(2) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on July 8, 1986, a conditional eviction order, on the ground covered by Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1956, 1958 hereinafter called the Act, was passed, by learned Additional Rent Controller, against M/s. Concord International Pvt. Ltd. respondent no. 2 herein. As, the conditional eviction order was not complied with, therefore, the landlord/owner, respondent no. 1 herein, on December 8, 1986, filed an application for execution of the eviction order. During the execution proceedings, appellant herein, filed his objections dated May 19, 1987 under Section 25 of the Act thereby, alleging that in fact, he became the tenant in the demised premises with effect from August 25, 1978, on which date, the keys of the premises were handed over to him, by attorney of respondent No. 1.

(3) Both the parties produced oral, as wall as, documentary evidence.

(4) Vide order dated April 26, 1991, Shri D.R. Singh, Additional Rent Controller, dismissed the appellant's objections and held that the Objector (appellant here in) had failed to prove that he was tenant In the demised premises, under the landlord.

(5) The appeal against the said order was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated May 15, 1991, of learned Rent Control Tribunal, by co current findings.

(6) The second appeal is maintainable, only when a substantial question of law Is involved, The Courts below, after examining the evidence, oral, as well as, documentary, have come to the conclusion that Shri Vijay Shanker Dass was never the tenant in the demised premises. In the second appeal, it is not for this Court to re-appraise the evidence, so led by the parties. It is not a case of on evidence. In fact, both the parties produced evidence. In support of their respective contentions. So, in my view, the Courts below have rightly come to the conclusion that appellant was not a tenant. I do not find that any substantial question of law is involved in the present appeal, so, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

(7) The landlord, respondent no. 1 herein, was a very senior officer In the Indian Air Force and at the time of his retirement, was holding the rank of Air Marshal. As, Air Marshal M.S. Bawa (retd.) was going to retire from his active service and, consequent upon his retirement he had no other alternative accommodation available to him, he filed an eviction petition against the tenant, namely, M/s. Concord International Pvt. Ltd., under Section 14-B of the Act, for recovering the possession of the premises in question immediately.

(8) During the pendency of the eviction proceedings, Shri Vijay Shanker Dass, appellant herein, filed an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, for being imp leaded as a party to the proceedings, on the ground, that he was a tenant, as such, was a necessary party.

(9) Vide order dated May 13, 1991, learned Rent Controller, dismissed the application on the 'ground that there was nothing on the record, to suggest that Shri Vijay Shanker Dass was a tenant and, as such, was a necessary party. Against this order dated May 13,1991, appellant has filed a petition, being C.M. (M)228/91, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(10) As I have stated above that in the earlier proceedings, and by concurrent findings, the Rent Control Tribunal, rejected the appeal of the appellant, against the order dated April 26, 1991, of the Additional Rent Controller, by which, the learned Additional Rent Controller, dismissed the application of the appellant, filed under Section 25 of the Act. I have already held that the appellant has failed to make out any case for interference in the impugned judgment. I am also satisfied that the appellant has failed to make out any case that he was a tenant in the premises in question. In view of this finding, the petition, being C.M. (M) 228/91 is also liable to be dismissed.

(11) Under the circumstances, S.A.O. No. 30 of 1991 is hereby dismissed. Similarly, C.M. dismissed. also is 91 228 No.

(12) I must concede that I am faced with another problem. It is a very hard case as, respondent no. 1 has retired with honour and glory, as Air Marshal in the Indian Air Force, and he is unable to recover the possession of his own house. It is also established that he has no other alternative suitable accommodation, available to him, for b(r)s residence and for the residence of his family members. Under Section 14-B of the Act, the owner becomes entitle to recover immediate possession, of the tenanted premises, if, he satisfies certain conditions and other requirements of law. There is a litigation between the appellant and respondent no. 1, and there is no guarantee that there will be no further litigation. In my view, if, by giving some time to appellant to vacate the premises in question, the litigation between the parties can come to an end, so, it will be in the interest of respondent no. 1. Apparently, it may appear to be little bit hard to respondent No, I but in the long run, he will be benefitted.

(13) Under these circumstances, and for the sole consideration that there should be an end to the litigation between the parties, I direct that the eviction order shall not be executed before 31st December, 1991, subject to the appellant, Shri Vijay Shanker Dass, giving an undertaking to the Court that he would vacate the premises in question on or before 31st December, 1991, and hand over vacant and peaceful possession to respondent no. 1. This undertaking to the Court, should be filed by the appellant, by means of an affidavit within One week from today.