Shri Praful Kumar Shahi vs Shri B.D. Dhawan & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 3814 Del

*              THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                   CM(M) 732/2012 with CM 108981/2012 &
                    10892/2012

                                            Date of Decision: 02.07.2012

SHRI PRAFUL KUMAR SHAHI                                  ...... Petitioners

                          Through:     Mr. Y.R. Narula, Sr. Adv. with
                                       Mr. Som Dutta Sharma, Adv.

                                  Versus

SHRI B.D. DHAWAN & ORS.                                ...... Respondents

                          Through:     None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has

been filed challenging part of impugned judgment dated 06.06.2012 of

the learned Additional Rent Controller Tribunal (ARCT) in Rent

Appeal No. 47/2012. Vide this order the learned ARCT had declined

the requests of the petitioner to stay the execution proceedings.

2. A petition of eviction under section 14(1)(a), (b), (d) and (h) of

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act') was filed by

respondent No. 1 B.D. Dhawan against respondent No. 2 and 3 Ajay

Kumar and Shashi Kumar. The learned ARC passed the eviction order

against the respondent No 2 and 3 on 11.04.2012. These respondents

challenged the eviction order in appeal which is pending before the

learned ARCT. In the main eviction proceedings the petitioner had filed

an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC on16.10.2008 for impleading

him as a party. The plea which was taken by the petitioner for

impleading was that he was owner and in possession of the premises in

question. The said application of the petitioner was dismissed by the

ARC on 23.04.2009. The petitioner preferred appeal against this order

and which was dismissed by the ARCT vide order dated 06.11.2009.

Thereafter the petitioner filed a review petition against the order dated

06.11.2009, which came to be dismissed by the ARCT vide order dated

04.08.2011. Against this order of 04.08.2011 of the ARCT, the

petitioner filed CM (M) 1358/2011. which came to be dismissed as

withdrawn by this Court on 30.03.2012.

3. Now the petitioner filed objections under section 25 of the Act

read with Section 47 of CPC in the execution petition filed by the

landlord B.D. Dhawan against respondents No. 2 and 3 Ajay Kumar and

Shashi Kumar. The ARC dismissed these objections vide order dated

25th May, 2012. The same was challenged in appeal before the ARCT

in Rent appeal No. 47/2012. The ARCT vide the impugned order dated

6th June, 2012 while directing the ARC to dispose of the objections on

merits, declined to stay the execution proceedings. It is this part of the

impugned order whereby the stay of the execution was declined, that has

been assailed in the present petition.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through

the records.

5. From the facts as noted above, it could be seen that the petitioner

remained unsuccessful in being impleaded as a party in the eviction

petition that was filed by the landlord B.D. Dhawan against respondent

No 2 and 3 Mr. Ajay Kumar and Mr. Shashi Kumar despite his taking

recourse up to this court. The plea on which the petitioner sought to be

impleaded as a party in the eviction proceedings was that he had

purchased the property in question from the original allottee Narain

Dass by an oral agreement to sell. He failed to produce any documents

of title executed by Narain Dass in his favour. In support of his claim

he only filed some DDA challans showing payment of installments with

DDA. Those challans were also not in the name of the petitioner, but in

the name of the original allottee Narain DAss. His case throughout had

been that he had purchased the property by an oral sale from Narain

Dass. The trial court rightly dismissed his plea observing that the

immovable property could not be transferred without registered

document. On the other hand landlord B.D. Dhawan had produced

original documents of title of the property. It was also rightly observed

by the trial court that the possession, if any, of the property by the

petitioner would not make him owner thereof. The petitioner could not

establish his case before the ARC as also before the Tribunal and this

Court. The objections which were raised by him in the execution

proceedings, based on the similar facts, were dismissed by the ARC and

this order of ARC was upheld by the ARCT.

6. It is also noted that the petitioner had also appeared as a witness

RW-3 in the eviction proceedings and it was gathered from the record

that he was brother-in-law of respondent No. 2 Ajay Kumar. The

eviction petition was filed in the year 2007 and came to be decided

against the respondent No. 2 and 3 on 10 th April 2012. The learned

ARCT has rightly observed that in view of the entire factual matrix, the

landlord could not be deprived of the fruits of the eviction order and

consequently the execution proceedings could not be stayed.

7. Having regard to the pleas taken by the petitioner in the

application under order 1 Rule 10 CPC and also in the petition under

section 25 of the Act read with Order 47 CPC, I do not see any

infirmity, illegality or any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.

M.L. MEHTA, J.

JULY 2 , 2012 awanish