R.N. Jaju vs M/S Gokal Chand Khanna & Others
2011 Latest Caselaw 3848 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment: 09.08.2011

+ CM (M) No. 917/2011, CM Nos.14739-40/2011 &
CAV No. 694/2011


R.N. JAJU                                       ........... Petitioner
                          Through:   Mr. Ajay Mehrotra, Advocate
                     Versus

M/S GOKAL CHAND KHANNA & OTHERS       ..........Respondents
                  Through: Mr.A.S. Chadha, Sr. Advocate
                           with Mr. Vikas Aggarwal,
                           Advocate       for       the
                           respondents/Caveators.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

    1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
       see the judgment?

    2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?              Yes

    3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
                                                         Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated

17.03.2011 vide which the application filed by the petitioner

namely R.N. Jaju seeking impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of

the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code')

had been dismissed.

2 The present eviction petition had been filed by the landlord

against M/s Electric Construction and Equipment Co. Ltd.; this

was a petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control

Act (DRCA); leave to defend had been granted to the defendant;

written statement had been filed by the defendant i.e. M/s Electric

Construction & Equipment Co. Ltd. The petitioner R.N. Jaju is

admittedly the President of the company; he had signed the

written statement in this capacity. It is also not in dispute that the

landlord had entered into a written rent agreement with the

defendant company on 11.12.1970 which was effective from

01.12.1971. The company was described as the tenant; there is

also no dispute to the fact that a company is a distinct legal entity

and has a distinct and separate persona.

3 In the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code the

contention of the petitioner was that he was a tenant in his

independent right and this was revealed for the first time in the

cross-examination of PW-7 wherein PW-7 had stated that R.N. Jaju

is a tenant in the suit property; attention has also been drawn to

the letter dated 07.12.1973 addressed by the landlord to the

company wherein the landlord had stated that the suit premises

i.e. 7, Sri Ram Road, Delhi is occupied solely by R.N. Jaju with his

family since January, 1971; contention being that R.N. Jaju was a

tenant in his individual capacity. To support the same submission

reliance has also been placed upon another communication sent

by the company to the landlord dated 12.05.2009 wherein this fact

has been confirmed by the company. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has submitted that in this view of the matter, the

dismissal of his application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code

suffers from an illegality; order is liable to the set aside.

4 On advance notice, counsel for the respondents had put in

appearance.

5 Record shows that the tenant of the landlord was the

company and as already noted supra, the company is a distinct

entity; the company had taken these premises on rent and the

President of the Company i.e. R.N. Jaju was residing in these

premises; admittedly he has since retired in 2008. It was only in

his capacity as an employee of the company that R.N. Jaju was

retaining the premises; tenant was the defendant company. This is

amply clear from the fact that the written statement filed by the

company was signed by the petitioner R.N. Jaju in his capacity as

the President of the Company; it was never the stand of R.N. Jaju

ever before that he was a tenant in his individual capacity. As

noted hereinabove, the eviction petition had been filed in 1983 i.e.

28 years ago; leave to defend had been filed by the company on

30.11.1983 under the signatures of the petitioner again in his

capacity as President of the Company; the present application

filed in the year 2011 after a gap of 26 years was nothing but one

more last ditch effort to delay the proceedings. It was only in

capacity as the principal officer of the company that the petitioner

was occupying these premises; he had no other independent

status. The dismissal of the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of

the Code warrants no interference. Order suffers from no

illegality.

6     Dismissed.




                                          INDERMEET KAUR, J.
AUGUST 09, 2011
a