Kiran Parkash vs Vishwa Nath Sharma And Ors.
1995 Latest Caselaw 263 Del

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar, J.

(1) By this petition, the petitioner landlord has challenged an order dated 29/10/1994 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi allowing an application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code to implead Shree Krishna Sangeet Mahavidyalaya (hereinafter referred to as the 'Mahavidyalaya') throughSmt. Sarvada Acharya, Principal/Superintendent as a party. The petitioner landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against Vishwa Nath Sharma,respondent. Vishwa Nath Sharma filed an application dated 9/04/1994 for leave to defend the eviction petition under Section 25B(5) of the Act through Smt.Sarvada Acharya acting as attorney on behalf of Vishwa Nath Sharma. The affidavit m support of the said application was also filed by the same Smt. SarvadaAcharya. This application was filed through Shri Inderjit Singh,Advocate. During the pendency of the said application for leave to defend, an application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was filed on 8th July, 1994 on behalf of the Mahavidyalaya through Smt. Sarvada Acharya by Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate for impleading the said Mahavidyalaya as a party. By the impugned order, the said application was allowed and 15 days' time was granted to the newly imploded party to file affidavit seeking leave to defend. The petitioner landlord has challenged the said order by way of present petition.

(2) In the application under Order I Rule 10 Cpc, the case of the applicant is that the property in dispute was let out to the Mahavidyalaya through Vishwa Math Sharma for residential-cum-commercial purposes in the year 1962 and the Mahavidyalaya is being run in the tenanted premises since then. It is further stated in the application that Vishwa Nath Sharma joined Government service in the year 1963.Prior to this, he was the Principal/Superintendent of the said Mahavidyalaya.After joining Government service in 1963, Raghbir Saran Acharya was nominate das Principal/Superintendent of the Mahavidyalaya who occupied the said post till his death. After the death of Raghbir Saran Acharya in the year 1985, Smt. SarvadaAcharya, his widow was nominated as Principal/ Superintendent of the Mahavidyalaya and is working as such since then and is residing in the premises.Reference has also been made in the application to an alleged agreement dated 2 1/12/1965 entered into between Vishwa Nath Sharma and the then landlady of the property Smt. Krishna Kaur in respect of the tenancy of the entire second floor of property A-7, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi, i.e., the property in suit. Thus,according to the applicant, the Mahavidyalaya is the tenant in the property since1962. The premises is meant for the residence of the Principal /Superintendent of the Mahavidyalaya as well as for running the Mahavidyalaya, i.e., the premises is for residential-cum-commercial purposes.

(3) It must be noticed at this stage that Raghbir Saran Acharya was the father-in-law of Vishwa Nath Sharma while Sarvada Acharya is his mother-in-law. The petitioner landlord filed reply to the said application opposing the same. According to the landlord, Vishwa Nath Sharma is the tenant in the premises. There is n orelationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner herein and the Mahavidyalaya. It is further stated that the application under order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was mala fide and was with a view to foist the Mahavidyalaya on the petitionerlandlord as a tenant in place of Vishwa Nath Sharma, the actual tenant in the premises.

(4) The crucial question for determination is as to who is the tenant in the premises. It is the tenant alone who is entitled to be imploded as a party in the eviction petition. For determining this question, there are a few important facts which have to be noticed.(i) The application for leave to contest the eviction petition was filed by Vishwa Nath Sharma, respondent. In the said application, it is specifically stated "the respondent is also residing in the tenanted premises and the tenanted premises were let out to the respondent for residential-cum- commercial purposes and the tenanted premises are being used as such". Thus, Vishwa Nath Sharma admits that he is the tenant in the premises.(ii) The said application was filed on behalf of Vishwa Nath Sharma bySmt. Sarvada Acharya in the capacity of his attorney through Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate. This application was filed on 9/04/1994.The application under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code was filed on 8/07/1994by the same Smt. Sarvada Acharya through the same Counsel Shri Inderjit Singh. This application purports to be on behalf of theMahavidyalaya. It is claimed that the Mahavidyalaya is the tenant in the premises.(iii) There is a legal notice dated 21/07/1992, photo copy whereof has been placed on record. The notice is issued by Shri Inderjit Singh,Advocate, i.e., the same Counsel on behalf of Vishwa Nath Sharma addressed to Shri Kiran Parkash, the petitioner landlord. The first para of the said notice reads "that my aforesaid client is a lawful tenant of the entire second floor......".(iv) Vishwanath Sharma filed a suit for permanent injunction on 14/07/1988 against the previous landlord /owner of the property in suit in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi. In the said suit, he claimed to be a tenant with respect to these very premises under the erstwhile owner who was imploded as defendant. It is further interesting to note that in the said suit, Vishwa Nath Sharma further pleaded that in the tenancy premises a Sangeet Vidyalaya is being run since 1962. The plaintiff (Vishwa Nath Sharma) remained as Principal of the said Vidyalaya till 1963 and thereafter he was working as an honorary Principal of the said Vidyalaya. One Raghbir Saran Acharya was the Central Superintendent of the said Vidyalaya and after his death, his son Gautam and his widow Smt. Sarvada Acharya were looking after the affairs of the said Vidyalaya as Superintendent and she was residing in the said tenanted premises with the son of the plaintiff named Neeraj Sharma. Further in para 2 of the plaint in the said suit,it has been stated that the "the plaintiff mostly visits the said Sangeet Vidyalaya daily and sleeps with his son Neeraj Sharma in the tenanted premises".(v) On 25/05/1988, Vishwa Nath Sharma filed a petition under Section 44 of the Act against the then owner of the premises in suit in his capacity as tenant for permission to get the premises repaired. In the said application also, the first para starts with "that the petitioner is tenant under the respondent in the premises No. A-7, Rana PratapBagh, Delhi........".(vi) The petitioner landlord had earlier filed an eviction petition against Vishwa Nath Sharma under clauses (a),(b),(d),(h) and (j) to proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. In the written statement filed by Vishwa Nath Sharma through his Special Attorney Neeraj Sharma(his son) in which also he admitted that "the tenanted premises were let out to the respondent for residential-cum-commercial purposes........". This written statement was again filed through the same Counsel Shri Inderjit Singh.(vii) Apart from this, the petitioner landlord has placed photostat copies of two registered sale deeds with respect to the property in suit. The first sale deed is dated 2/06/1966 executed by Krishna Kaur as vendor in favor of Krishan Lal. The second sale deed is dated 1/04/1987executed by Krishan Lal as vendor in favor of the present petitionerlandlord. In both the sale deeds, Vishwa Nath Sharma is mentioned asa tenant in the premises along with other tenants whose names are mentioned in the sale deeds.

(5) In the face of all these facts and clear-cut admissions and assertions on the part of Vishwa Nath Sharma that he is the tenant in the premise, is it possible to say that Mahavidyalya is the tenant and not Vishwa Nath Sharma? Further question is can the Mahavidyalaya claim itself to be a tenant in the premises in these facts and particularly in view of the fact that the Mahavidyalaya's legal entity is nowhere disclosed and, therefore, is not known? The tenant has to be either a natural person or a juristic person. It is nowhere disclosed in the application under Order I Rule10 Civil Procedure Code moved on behalf of Mahavidyalaya as to what is the legal status of theMahavidyalaya. Is it a registered society or a partnership firm or a company under the Companies Act? Without disclosing its legal entity, can the Mahavidyalaya claim itself to be a tenant? Further can something having no legal entity be a tenant?

(6) The learned Counsel Shri Inderjit Singh has tried to explain away the admissions on the part of Vishwa Nath Sharma by saying that they were made by his son and not by Vishwa Nath Sharma himself and, therefore, they are notbinding. This is no explanation at all. Vishwa Nath Sharma has never himself disclaimed or disputed these various pleadings. He has acted upon the stand taken by him through his attorneys all along. He has enjoyed the stand taken in the pleadings and the legal notice.

(7) It is also worth mentioning that regarding the status of Vishwa Nath Sharma qua the Mahavidyalaya, the stand has been changing. At some places, he has described himself as Principal of the Mahavidyalaya till 1963. At another place,he has described himself as honorary Principal of the Mahavidyalaya after 1963. At yet another place, he says, he is honorary Secretary of the Mahavidyalaya. Same is true about Raghbir Saran Acharya and Sarvada Acharya. Sometimes they are referred to as Superintendents, sometimes as Principal and so on. This only shows that the respondents are setting up a false case. The only document sought to be relied upon by the respondents is an alleged agreement dated 21/12/1965between Smt. Krishna Kaur, the erstwhile owner of the property and Vishwa Nath Sharma. The alleged agreement is entered into by none else than Vishwa Nath Sharma. Prima fade, the agreement does not inspire any credibility and I am unable to pursuade myself to rely on the same. Vishwa Nath Sharma had occasion to file proceedings in Courts including a petition under Section 44 of the Act for carrying out repairs in the premises. Reference to all these proceedings have already been made hereinbefore. There is no reference to the alleged agreement in any of the proceedings initiated by Vishwa Nath Sharma qua the tenancy premises.

(8) From the above discussion, it appears that the sole object of the respondent is to foist Smt. Sarvada Acharya and the Mahavidyalaya on the petitioner landlord as tenants. In view of getting a Government job, Vishwa Nath Sharma does not seem to have any interest left in the premises and he is trying to help his mother-in-law to retain possession of the premises through this device. It is a trap laid by Vishwa Nath Sharma in collusion with Smt. Sarvada Acharya. This Court cannot shut its eyes to such tactics and devices. The application under Order I Rule 10 CPC on behalf of the Mahavidyalaya is totally devoid of any merit and is wholly malafide. The learned Counsel for the respondents argued that this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and this Court will not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under the said provision in a matter of the present kind. He cited certain judgments to show the limitations on powers of the High Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution ofIndia. It is settled proposition of law that jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the power of Superintendence given to the High Court under the said provision can be exercised to prevent manifest injustice and sheer abuse of the process of the Court. This is a clear case of abuse of process of the Court by a litigant on the basis of a totally false and dishonest pleas and documents.

(9) In the present proceedings, Vishwa Nath Sharma has chosen not to appear.Shri Inderjit Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Mahavidyalaya only who has been directed to be imploded as a party by the impugned order of the Additional Rent Controller though before the Additional Rent Controller he appeared by Vishwa Nath Sharma also. Shri Inderjit Singh also relief on variousdocuments, photo copies whereof he has placed on record of this petition. On the basis of these documents, he has urged that the Mahavidyalaya was functioning from the premises in suit and it was so because the Mahavidyalaya was the tenant in the premises. The petitioner landlord has not had any opportunity to counter these documents because they have been recently placed on record without seeking permission of this Court and also without supplying copies to the petitioner landlord. The petitioner, therefore, had no knowledge of these documents. Thesedocuments in any case need not detain me because they at best would show that theMahavidyalaya was being run in the premises. The point in controversy before me is whether the Mahavidyalaya could be said to be a tenant in the premises. These documents do not help in the matter of reaching this finding. The question whether the Mahavidyalaya was being run in the premises or not is not the subject matter of inquiry.Under the circumstances, the impugned order dated 29/10/1994passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside. The application on behalf of the Mahavidyalaya under Order I Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code for being imploded as a party in the capacity of a tenant in the premises is dismissed. This petition is allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. " 2,000.00.