Rajhans Realtors Pvt Ltd vs Rajinder Goyal And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 2655 Del

$~A-29
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                           Date of Judgment: 23.4.2012

+     CM(M) 462/2012 & CM No.7154/2012


      RAJHANS REALTORS PVT LTD       ..... Petitioner
                   Through: Amitabh Narayan, Advocate.

                   versus


      RAJINDER GOYAL AND ORS                   ..... Respondents
                   Through: Nemo.


      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The application filed by the petitioner/landlord under Order XII

Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the

Code) in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi

Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA) had been

dismissed.

2 There are two concurrent findings of fact by the two courts below

i.e. the court of ARC and the RCT; both had returned a finding in favour CM(M) No.462/2012 Page 1 of 6 of the respondent/tenant; the prayer made by the petitioner seeking a

judgment on admission under the provisions of order XII Rule 6 of the

Code had been declined.

3 Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by

the landlord namely Rajhans Realtors against two respondents namely

Rajinder Goyal and Narender Kumar Goyal both sons of one Phool

Chand. Eviction petition has been filed under Section 14(1)(b) of the

DRCA; contention being that respondent no.1 (Rajinder Kumar Goyal)

had sublet these premises in favour of respondent no.2 (Narender

Kumar Goyal) who is now in exclusive possession of the aforenoted

premises; ground of eviction under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA are

made out. Written statement was filed. A petition under Section 20 of

the Indian Arbitration Act (hereafter referred to as the said Act) is also

on record; averments in the application under Section 20 of the said Act

seeking appointment of an Arbitrator have been highlighted. This is an

application filed by Rajinder Goyal against Phool Chand (his father) and

Mahendra Kumar. In this petition it has been averred that Rajinder

Kumar Goyal and Phool Chand had taken the disputed premises on rent

CM(M) No.462/2012 Page 2 of 6 (M-2, Greater Kailash-I Market, New Delhi) from one Jagan Nath

Goyal; the partnership business of 'Goyal Store' was being carried out

under the supervision, control and guidance of Phool Chand and

Rajinder Goyal; in July 1982 Phool Chand suffered a paralytic attack

and since then he is confined to bed and could not supervise, control and

guide the affairs of the firm and the same were being looked after by

Mahendra Kumar. Mahendra Kumar is also not dealing with the affairs

of the company in a proper manner and he is not disclosing the accounts

of the firm; the affairs of the firm are not being looked after by

respondents no.1 and 2; the same are being looked after by Mohan Lal

and Narendra Kumar who are also not maintaining the proper accounts

of the firm; accordingly in this application (under Section 20 of the said

Act) Rajinder Kumar Goyal had sought delivery of the premises as also

for appointment of an Arbitrator.

4 It is these aforenoted averments which have been highlighted by

the learned counsel for the petitioner to make a submission that these

averments made in the application under Section 20 of the said Act

amounts to an admission made by the Rajinder Kumar Goyal which

CM(M) No.462/2012 Page 3 of 6 clearly show that Phool Chand is now no longer watching the affairs of

the company; Rajinder Kumar Goyal is also outside the said premises;

both Rajinder Kumar Goyal and Phool Chand who were the initial

tenants have divested themselves completely from the suit premises and

as such ground under Section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA is made out and

Rajhands Realtors Pvt. Ltd. is entitled to a decree forthwith on the

aforenoted admissions.

5 These averments were noted in the correct perspective by both the

two courts below; it had declined the prayer.

6 Record shows that M/s Rajhans Realtors had inducted Rajinder

Kumar Goyal and Phool Chand as tenants; contention being that

Rajinder Kumar Goyal is no longer in possession of the premises and

Phool Chand has suffered a paralytic attack as such he is not in a

position to carry out the affairs of the firm; this entitles the plaintiff

forthwith to a decree.

7 There is no dispute to the legal position that unless and until an

unambiguous and unequivocal admission is made out a judgment on

admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code shall not follow.

CM(M) No.462/2012                                                 Page 4
of 6

Admittedly, Phool Chand was a tenant in the suit premises along with

Mahendra Kumar; he was one of the co-tenants. The possession of the

premises has been sought from Phool Chand; this is clear from the

application under Section 20 of the said Act; it is thus clear that the

retention of the suit premises continues with Phool Chand which is by

itself shows that there is no admission; in fact the averment in the

aforenoted application are to the effect that Phool Chand is in possession

of the suit premises although he had suffered a medical ailment and is

not in complete supervisory control over the premises yet the very fact

as stated in the application shows that Phool Chand (original co-tenant)

continues to have effective control over the suit premises; he has in no

manner divested himself from the suit premises making out a ground

under section 14(1)(b) of the DRCA. Respondent no.2 was never a

party in the arbitration proceedings and as such any admission made in

those proceedings would not even otherwise be binding upon respondent

no.2.

8 The impugned judgment has noted these facts in the correct

perspective. This petition is clearly an abuse of the process of the court;

CM(M) No.462/2012                                                  Page 5
of 6
 it is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.



                                            INDERMEET KAUR, J
APRIL 23, 2012
nandan




CM(M) No.462/2012                                        Page 6
of 6