Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills ... vs Ruby Singh
2012 Latest Caselaw 2553 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Judgment:19.04.2012.

+     RC.REV. Nos. 110/2005 & 158/2005


RAJA BAHADUR MOTILAL POONA MILLS LTD       ..... Petitioner
                Through  Ms. Shobhna Takiar, Adv.

                    versus


RUBY SINGH                                    ..... Respondent
                             Through    Mr. Pradeep Dewan, Sr.
                                        Advocate with Mr. S.S. Misra,
                                        Adv.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 These two petitions have impugned two different orders i.e.

orders dated 02.12.2004 & 22.10.2005. Vide order dated 02.12.2004, the

eviction petition filed by the landlady Ms. Ruby Singh and Ms. Abha

Narain seeking eviction of the tenant Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills

Ltd. had been decreed; this was an ex-parte decree of eviction passed

under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). Inspite

of a valid service of summons, leave to defend had not been filed within

the stipulated time period of 15 days; eviction decree had accordingly

followed in favour of the landlady. This is the first order which has been

impugned. The second order which has been impugned is the order

dated 22.10.2005. The application filed by the judgment debtor (Raja

Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd.) seeking setting aside of the

aforenoted ex-parte decree obtained by Ms. Ruby Singh and others had

been dismissed.

2 At the outset, it has been brought to the notice of the Court that

the vacant and physical possession of the disputed premises i.e. flat No.

25, 7th Floor, Dakshineshwar Apartment, Hailey Road, New Delhi has

since been taken over by the respondent in the year 2005. Attention has

also been drawn to an order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court

dated 24.02.2011 in RFA No. 455/2001 between the same parties titled

Mrs. Ruby Singh Vs. Raja Bahadur Motilal Poona Mills Ltd. which was

a first appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated11.07.2001

wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff therein (Raja Bahadur Motilal

Poona Mills Ltd.) was decreed. In the first appeal, the parties had agreed

that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit be

dismissed; it was further agreed that the appellant/Ruby Singh is the

owner/landlady of the suit premises. Relevant extract of the aforenoted

judgment is reproduced herein below:-

"Counsel for the parties have therefore, agreed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside and the suit be dismissed. It is agreed that the appellant is the owner/landlord of the subject premises."

3 Record shows that an eviction petition had been filed by Ms.

Ruby Singh and Mrs. Abha Narain. This was under Section 14 (1)(e) of

the DRCA. Contention was that the premises are required bonafide by

the landladies for their own use; as noted supra, inspite of service of

summons, leave to defend had not been filed within the stipulated time

period of 15 days and as such the eviction petition had been decreed ex-

parte. The application filed by the tenant seeking setting aside of the ex-

parte decree had been dismissed by the second impugned order. The

averments made in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of

Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') have been

perused. The foremost contention of the tenant/petitioner is that there is

no relationship of landlord-tenant and the case of the decree holder is

based on false facts. Contention being that the original owner of the suit

property is one Mrs. Vidyawati Malka Bahadur who had informed the

judgment debtor/tenant vide her letter dated 16.08.1996 that she had

sold the premises to Ruby Singh and had asked the tenant to pay the rent

thereupon to Ruby Singh. It is also the case of the petitioner/tenant that a

suit for declaration was filed by the tenant which was decreed in her

favour on 29.09.2000. Vehement contention of the petitioner before this

Court is that although she has admitted in the proceeding in the RFA

that the non-applicant/respondent is her landlord yet the landlord had

played fraud upon the court and has not disclosed the true facts in the

eviction petition which he had filed before the trial Court pursuant to

which he had obtained an eviction order in her favour; for the aforenoted

reason, the order is liable to be set aside as fraud vitiates all proceedings.

4 This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is bereft of

all force. The averments contained in the eviction petition have been

perused. There has been no concealment of facts as has been contended.

In the eviction petition it has clearly been disclosed that the mother of

petitioner No. 2 namely Mrs. Vidyawati Malka Bahadur was the original

owner of the suit premises who had subsequently sold these premises to

petitioner No. 1 namely Ruby Singh vide a written agreement; in fact

the case of the petitioner/tenant has herself admitted that she has been

informed by her erstwhile owner by a written communication that she

should henceforth pay rent to Ruby Singh as Mrs. Vidyawati Malka

Bahadur had sold these premises to Ruby Singh. In the RFA Court, the

title and ownership of the respondent/non-applicant has also been

accepted; this was on 24.02.2011; this was a consent order and is clear

from the extract as noted supra. It does not now lie in the mouth of the

petitioner to reagitate the same issue and argue on the premise that the

non-applicant/respondent has played fraud upon the Court qua his status

of ownership/landlord. This has been accepted by the petitioner in the

aforenoted RFA proceedings which had culminated on 24.02.2011.

5 As noted supra, there is no other defence which has been raised

by the petitioner. No other argument has been urged before this Court. It

is also not the case of the petitioner that he has not been served with the

summons of the eviction petition; his only submission being that the ex-

parte decree and judgment had been obtained by fraud. No argument has

been raised upon the merits of the dismissal of the application under

Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. The argument only being bordered on the

fact that a fraud has been played upon the Court and that there has been

an active concealment by the non-applicant about his status in the

eviction petition. No such concealment has been noted. It is also no in

dispute that the disputed premises are in possession of the

landlord/owner since the year 2005. Nothing survives in the petitions.

Both the impugned orders call for no interference.

6 Both the petitions are without any merit. Dismissed.

INDERMEET KAUR, J APRIL 19, 2012 A