Krishan Lal vs Mishri Lal Maurya & Anr.
2000 Latest Caselaw 182 Del

ORDER

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. The Petitioner, in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, had filed an application before the learned Additional Rent Controller under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) for impleading him as a party to the eviction petition filed by the Respondent.

2. The tenant in the suit premises was none other the uncle (father's brother) of the Petitioner.

3. In the application filed under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC, the allegation of the Petitioner was that the tenant had surrendered his tenancy and the Respondent had admitted him as a tenant and that the Petitioner and the Respondent had compromised their dispute by entering into an agreement dated 19th April, 1995. It was further alleged that the Respondent had issued rent receipts to the Petitioner for the months of February and March, 1995 and had also received two cheques totalling Rs. 90,000/- by way of security.

4. By an order dated 8th May, 1996, the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the Petitioner. The learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by an order dated 5th November, 1997 dis-believed the story put up by the Petitioner and dismissed his appeal with Rs. 2000/- as costs.

5. Learned counsel for the parties made their submissions on 8th February, 2000.

6. There is a long history of litigation between the Respondent and his tenant (who is the uncle of the Petitioner).

7. Sometime in 1976, the Respondent had filed an eviction petition on the allegation that the tenant had sub-let the premises to his elder brother (father of the Petitioner). The landlord did not succeed in the eviction petition nor did he succeed in the first appeal before the learned Tribunal. The Respondent's second appeal being SAO No. 239/82 was dismissed for non-prosecution of 12th August, 1999.

8. Sometime in 1974, the Respondent filed an eviction petition against his tenant for non-payment of arrears of rent. This eviction petition was allowed and the tenant was given the benefit of the provisions of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was, therefore, not evicted. The tenant filed and appeal before the learned Tribunal but the appeal was dismissed. The tenant has filed SAO No. 246/86 in this Court and the same is pending disposal.

9. The Respondent filed yet another eviction petition but this time against the father of the Petitioner who is a tenant in another shop. This eviction petition was also on the allegation of non-payment of arrears of rent. This eviction petition was allowed sometime in 1980. The Petitioner's father filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal which was dismissed. During the pendency of the said appeal the Petitioner's father died and his legal representatives, including the Petitioner, were brought on record. Against the dismissal of the first appeal by the learned Tribunal, the legal representatives of the deceased tenant filed SAO No. 116 of 1982 which was dismissed by this Court. The legal representatives then approached the Supreme Court who directed the re-hearing of the second appeal by this Court. This second appeal being SAO No. 116/82 was again heard and dismissed on 24th August, 1995.

10. The Respondent then filed another eviction petition against his tenant (Petitioner's uncle) sometime in 1986. This petition was also filed for eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. This eviction petition is still pending disposal and the application under Order I, Rule 10 of the C.P.C. was moved in this eviction petition.

11. In the background of these facts, the Petitioner set up a case that he and the Respondent had compromised the matter and that the tenant (Petitioner's uncle ) had surrendered his tenancy and the Respondent recongnised the Petitioner as his tenant from 1st February, 1995. The compromise deed was said to have been exacted by the parties on 19th April, 1995.

12. The Respondent vehemently denied these allegations and also denied the execution of any compromise dated 19th April, 1995.

13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that he had given two cheques to the Respondent totalling Rs. 90,000/-. However, it transpires that the cheques were bearer cheques which could have been encashed by anybody. Apart from this, in view of a long history of litigation between the parties, it is not at all natural for the Petitioner to have given bearer cheques to the Respondent and that too without even a receipt for them. The story put up by the Petitioner does not inspire any confidence at all.

14. Notwithstanding this, the learned Tribunal gave an opportunity to the Petitioner to take appropriate steps on his own responsibility to summon the requisite cheques on 16th October, 1997. The Petitioner did file the process fee but did not comply with any other formalities such as moving an application, deposit of diet money for the witness or giving the particulars of the cheques. He did not even appear before the learned Tribunal when the case was taken up on 17th October, 1997.

15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that 16th October, 1997 was declared as a holiday and the matter was adjourned to 17th October, 1997 and since the counsel was hard pressed for time, he could not appear before the learned Tribunal on 17th October, 1997. He submitted that after lunch he did appear and sought time to summon the bank officials which request was refused. None of these allegations find any mention in the order of the learned Tribunal. The averments now sought to be made have no factual basis. If the Petitioner's counsel was busy, at least the Petitioner could have appeared before the learned Tribunal.

16. Moreover, the learned Tribunal reserved orders on 17th October, 1997 and pronounced the same on 5th November, 1997. The Petitioner took on steps during this period to summon the bank officials or to explain his nonappearance on 17th October, 1997. In view of this, it is quite clear that no attempt was made by the Petitioner for summoning the cheques or to prove in any manner, that the payment had been made to the Respondent. For this reason also, it is difficult to believe the Petitioner's story.

17. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent had issued two typed rent receipts for the month of February and March 1995. Photocopies of these receipts have been placed on record. The receipts appear to be from a printed booklet.

18. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner has committed a daring act of forgery. Learned counsel produced the booklets from which he had been issuing rent receipts both prior to 1995 and subsequent thereto. All the counterfoils of the receipts are written in hand. It seems inexplicable that out of a huge bunch of receipts, the Respondent should type only two of them when for several years he had been entering the counter foils by hand.

19. Not only is this inherently improbable, but I also find that the tenant (Petitioner's uncle) had been depositing rent month by month before the concerned Additional Rent Controller in compliance with an order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act. The rent was deposited by the tenant month by month upto 31st May, 1995. So, on the one hand it is said that the tenant (Petitioner's uncle) had surrendered his tenancy, while on the other, the tenant went on paying rent month by month. This clearly shows that there was no question of the tenant having surrendered his tenancy on 1st February, 1995 as alleged or of any compromise having been entered into between the Petitioner and the Respondent.

20. The entire story put up by the Petitioner not only appears to be highly improbable but, in fact, appears to be false and motivated.

21. Consequently, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC.

22. The petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000/-. The stay of proceedings granted in eviction case No. 408/86 is hereby vacated. The learned Additional Rent Controller should endeavour to dispose of the case expeditiously after giving notice to the tenant. The Respondent is directed to appear before the learned Additional Rent Controller on 1st March, 2000.