Smt. Raj Rani vs Pushpa Devi And Anr.
2004 Latest Caselaw 1248 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1.CR.937/2003 is directed against the judgment dated 16.11.2002 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-69/2002 whereby the learned Additional Rent Controller has dismissed the petition of the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) on the ground that in a Suit filed by the petitioner against the present respondents eviction was sought on the ground that the present respondents are tress-passers in the property in question. The Controller his ruled that the landlord claiming the respondents to be in illegal occupation, in the Civil Suit, cannot maintain an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Rent Controller has gone wrong inasmuch as the Controller did not notice that the Suit of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that the respondents herein are not tress-passers but were lawful tenants since their tenancy had not been correctly terminated.

3. On the other hand, it is contended by counsel for the respondents that it is not open for the landlord to blow hot and cold once having taken up a plea that the respondents are tress-passers, it would not lie, to maintain the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.

4. Heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment under challenge as also the material placed on record. I find that in the Civil Suit possession had been sought on the ground that the respondents were illegal occupants of the premisesin question, a finding returned that the respondents were tenants and not tress-passers. The Suit was dismissed. That being the position the petitioner could maintain a Suit for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, being the landlord and the respondents being tenants in the premises in question. Even otherwise, from the reply to the eviction petition there is an admission on the part of the respondents that the petitioner is merely the landlord and not the owner of the premises in question. Their own tenancy has not been denied.

5. In this view of the matter, the basis of the order of the Additional Rent Controller being faulty, I set aside the same. CR.937/2003 is allowed and disposed of.

6. Parties are directed to appear before the Additional Rent Controller on 22nd November, 2004 The Additional Rent Controller shall now decide the case afresh including the application of the respondents under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act.