Delhi High Court
Walchand Capital Ltd. vs Atma Ram Properties P. Ltd. And ... on 21 March, 2006
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This petition seeks to challenge the order of the learned Civil Judge, Delhi dated 31.01.2005 where by the learned Civil Judge has, on an application under Section 21 Rules 99-101 CPC, disposed of the objection of petitioner holding that petitioner has failed to establish any independent right or title in his favor and was bound by the decree.
2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Civil Judge, are that -
The applicant/objector has filed an application Under Order 21 Rules 99-101 Read with Section 151 CPC for restoring the possession of the applicant of first floor and second floor/terrace and two quarters on first floor of Annexe Building build on property bearing No. 58, Sunder Nagar, new Delhi 110003.
The main grievance of the applicant that is Walchand Capital Limited. Is that the applicant was in possession of the first floor of main building comprising 4 rooms with attached bathrooms, drawing cum dining room and a kitchen and second floor comprising of two rooms and terrace and the first floor and portion of second floor/terrace and two quarters on the first floor of Annexe Building built on property bearing No. 58, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, till the time the applicant was dispossessed there from on 11.12.2003 in execution of judgment and decree dated 18.07.2003.
It is further mentioned that the applicant had been in possession of above mentioned property continuously since 01.07.1964 and the applicant was inducted as sub tenant of Laxmi Cement Distributors Pvt Ltd , the judgment debtor.
It is further mentioned that the property was originally owned by Messers Inder Narain Har Harain who inducted Messers Laxmi Cement Distributors Pvt Ltd i..e. judgment debtor as tenant by virtue of lease agreement dated 24.6.64 and it is further mentioned that the said lease agreement authorised Messers Laxmi Cement Distributors Pvt Ltd to sublet, assign or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or any part of the suit premises and consent of the Lessers i. e. Messers Inder Narain Har Narain was deemed to have been obtained.
It is further mentioned that on 1.7.1964 Messers Laxmi Cement Distributors Pvt Ltd inducted Premier Construction Company Ltd now known as Walchand Ltd(Applicant) as sub tenant in the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs 1200/- per month which was later enhanced to Rs 1500/- per month.
It is further mentioned that the judgment debtor vide its letter dated 10.9.98 written to the applicant confirmed that the applicant i.e. Messers Premier Construction Company now known as Messers Walchand Capital Ltd were tenants.
It is further mentioned that the decree holder was aware that the applicant was sub tenant and in possession of a portion of the property bearing No. 58, Sunder Nagar, new Delhi and it ought to has been further mentioned that in the suit filed by the decree holder against judgment debtor, it is alleged that the decree holder purchased the suit property from erstwhile owners namely Messers Inder Narain Har Narain and others and at the time of purchase, the decree holder, definitely have conducted an inquiry and checked the records of L&DO and other Public Authority and after inspection, it would have abundantly been clear that the applicant is a sub tenant and as such was in possession of a portion of property bearing No. 58, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi.
It is further mentioned in the application that the mala fide on part of the decree holder in illegally dispossessing the applicant is also clear from the fact that by order dated 18.7.2003, the court appointed Sh S. N. Khanna, Advocate as Local Commissioner to visit the suit property and inquire about the prevailing rent in the area from the period 01.09.2002 till date. However, the decree holder knowing fully well that in case the Local Commissioner visited the property it would come to light that the that the applicant was in occupation of the property as sub tenant and hence, the decree holder dropped the claim for mesne profits/damages. It is further mentioned that the rent for the property bearing No. 58, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi, for the relevant period i.e. 01.09.2002 till date would be around Rs 4 lacs and it is unbelievable that the decree holder would drop the claim for mesne profits for over a year which would be around Rs 50 lacs.
It has been argued on behalf of decree holder that the lease deed as mentioned by the applicant is not registered and can not be looked into and further argued that objector has derived his title from judgment debtor and, therefore, he is not protected and further argued that applicant is not a person having independent title other than the judgment debtor who fan be awarded any relief.
3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that Laxmi Cement Distributor Pvt Ltd has independent right. He contended that there was collusion between Laxmi Cement Distributor Pvt Ltd and the respondent who suffered a decree without making the petitioner a party. Counsel for the respondent submits that sub tenancy if required to be created must be after notice to the landlord. He relies upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ratan Lal Jain and Ors. v. Uma Shankar Vyas and Ors. .
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the order under challenge and material placed on record. It appears to me that the possession of the premises in question was taken over from M/s Cricketnext.com Private Limited whose representative, Mr Manpreet Singh Kochar, was present. Possession was also taken from Smt Pooja Devi who came to be in possession of the second floor. Learned counsel has pointed out that electric connection is subsidiary of the petitioner and that Mr. Manpreet Singh Kochar came to assist of the care taker who was in possession of the premises in question.
5. What was required to be considered under order 21 Rule 101 CPC the right title of the petitioner. In the objection before the executing court the petitioner's objections were gone into by the executing court which came to the conclusion that petitioner has not been able to establish his independent right, title or interest and was bound by the decree.
6. It appears to me the aforesaid objections have been decided on merits. I find no ground to interfere. CM(M) 564 of 2005 & C.M.Appl. 4943/2005 are dismissed.
