Rakesh Gupta vs M/S Om Prakash Gupta & Sons
1999 Latest Caselaw 869 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Executing Court as well as by the Rent Control Tribunal declining the prayer of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the objections under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act have been filed by the petitioner on 18th August, 1988 and till the objections of the petitioner are decided the Executing Court was bound to protect the possession of the petitioner. Mr. Maheshwar Dayal has contended that so many hearings have taken place before the Executing Court, evidence was led as per the orders passed by the Executing Court to adjudicate upon the objections filed by the petitioner and, therefore, till the evidence is concluded, objections are decided, the possession of the petitioner has to be protected. In support of his contention Mr. Maheshwar Dayal has cited Sh. Chhottey and another Vs. Sh. Mohd. Yasin and others 1977(6) RCJ 537 Vidyawanti Vs. Takan Dass and another 1974(6) RCR 47, 1998(1) RCR 454. In support of his contention that the order of eviction is not binding on a person who claims an independent right in the tenanted premises, Mr. Maheshwar Dayal has cited Vidyawanti Vs. Takan Dass and another (supra). For the similar proposition learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon 1998(2)CCC 873.

3. On the other hand, Mr. G.N. Aggarwal learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/decree holder contended that power to grant stay are discretionary. The decree holder cannot be made to suffer if frivolous objections are filed by a third party. Learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the order of grant of stay is analogous to the provisions of Order 39 and Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. It is for the Objector to establish that he has got a prima-facie case in his favour. Only then the Executing Court may refrain from executing the decree. Mr. Aggarwal has contended that in every case where objections are filed, it will not be a matter of rule that stay must follow. In support of his contention, Mr. Aggarwal has cited Pradeep Kumar Vs. Ranjit Kaur , Late Krishna Damani (dead) by his LRs Vs. Kailash Chand Srivastava & Another Harijan Wood Workers Production-cum-Sales Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. Smt. Maya Wati and another Smt. Usha Jain and others Vs. Manmohan Bajaj and others . I have given my careful considerations to arguments advanced by counsel for the parties.

4. The original eviction petition was filed by respondent No. 1 on the grounds mentioned under Section 14(1) (a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against respondent No. 2-Satish Chand Gupta and respondent No. 3-Surender Kumar Gupta. Thereafter, respondent No. 4-Shobha Bansal was imp leaded as a sub-lessee on the ground that Satish Chand Gupta and Surender Kumar Gupta have sub-let the premises to Shobha Bansal respondent No. 4. That eviction petition was allowed. An order under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the said petition was passed on 31st January, 1990. It is also important to mention that order under Section 15(7) against the aforesaid respondents 2 and 3 was also passed on 28th September, 1993. Against the final order of eviction respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed an appeal on 20th December, 1994.

5. The case, as set up by the Objector is that the Petitioner/Objector was inducted in the tenanted premises by respondent No 1 on 1st September, 1994. The petitioner is the son of respondent No. 2. Rent Control Tribunal has given this finding by following the order of the Executing Court refusing to stay in the following terms :-

"The claim of the appellant/Objector was based upon his having an independent title of a tenant. According to him, he was inducted in his independent capacity as a tenant on 1.9.94, and was handed over the vacant possession of the premises. He further claimed that tenancy was oral and rent receipts were never issued. He again pleaded that he came to know about the eviction order against his father and his co-tenant only on 14.8.98 when he inspected the file through his counsel. He filed the objections on 18.8.98."

6. Before adverting to the fact of the present case, let me deal with the proposition of law as propounded by learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. There is no gain-saying to the fact that a person who claims to have an independent title under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act is not bound by an order of eviction. It is also no more res-integra that a person who is claiming an independent title in the premises in question has got a right to maintain an objection application before the Executing Court to resist a decree of eviction passed against the tenant but to stretch the argument that once objections have been filed, resisting the order of eviction passed against the tenant invariably an order of stay must follow is not correct. None of the authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner helps the case of the petitioner. If that is allowed to be done, then any third party may be a busy bee or an interlopper or a person who makes a claim of having some kind of right in the property on any frivolous basis can thwart the execution of a decree granted by the court of competent jurisdiction. That cannot be the intention of the Legislature.

8. Coming back to the fact of this case, there was nothing on record when the objections were filed by the Objector that the tenancy was surrendered by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on 31st August, 1994 as alleged by the petitioner. If that would have been so, the fact would have been very well mentioned before the Additional Rent Controller as the eviction petition which was filed by respondent No. 1 was pending before the Additional Rent Controller and the Additional Rent Controller passed final order of eviction only on 12th December, 1994. Even otherwise if it has been so that the tenancy was surrendered by respondents 2 and 3 and petitioner was inducted as a tenant on 1st September, 1994, the averment led credence in view of respondents 2 and 3 having filed an appeal against the order of eviction passed against them before the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal finally decided and dismissed the appeal on 3rd August, 1998. The Additional Rent Controller/Executing Court rightly did not grant any interim stay taking into consideration the document placed on record that respondent No. 2 father of the Objector had paid rent/damages amounting to Rs. 10,800/- in respect of the suit premises in the Court of Rent Control Tribunal on 24th April, 1998.

9. In view of all the above mentioned facts, the order of the Additional Rent Controller cannot be faulted with. There is no inherent right in an Objector after he files an objection application under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act to claim stay of the execution proceedings. After the filing of the application, he has to place some material on record to prima-facie show that ultimately if given a chance, he will succeed in the objection. I do not find any infirmity with the reasoned order passed by the Rent Control Tribunal as well as by the Executing Court/Additional Rent Controller. Nothing said above will be an expression of opinion on the merit of the objections pending before the Additional Rent Controller.

10. Interim stay granted earlier stands vacated.

11. Petition is dismissed.