Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 250 (DEL)

GURBACHAN SINGH AWLA v. RAJINDER SINGH

2000-03-01

MADAN B.LOKUR

body2000
Madan B. Lokur ( 1 ) THE petitioner is a tenant on the first floor of propertybearing No. F-119, East of Kailash, New Delhi. The respondents claim to be theowners of this property and the landlords of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE respondents had filed an eviction petition under Clause (e) of theproviso to Section 14 (1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred toas the Act ). The case of the respondents was that the suit premises were originallyowned by one Smt. Krishna Kumari. She had sold the entire property to thepetitioners by a conveyance deed executed on 24/10/1996 but the sale waswith effect from 18/11/1992. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed an application alongwith an affidavit before the learnedadditional Rent Controller seeking leave to defend the eviction petition. He deniedthe title of the respondents. According to the petitioner, Smt. Krishna Kumari hadsold the property to Jagdish Arora and Uma Arora. She had sent a notice to this effectto the petitioner. Jagdish Arora had also confirmed the transaction by a notice dated 9/10/1992 sent by his Advocates. The petitioner also stated that as per theeviction petition itself the conveyance deed was executed in favour of the respondents only on 24/10/1996 and as such, in view of the provisions of Section14 (6) of the Act the eviction petition was not maintainable. ( 4 ) BY the impugned order dated 22/10/1999, the learned Additionalrent Controller declined to grant leave to the petitioner to contest the evictionpetition and thereby ordered the eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises. The petitioner preferred a Revision Petition in this Court and by an order dated 1 4/02/2000 I issued notice limited to the question of the maintainability of theeviction petition in the face of Section 14 (6) of the Act. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the parties addressed arguments on 21/02/2000 limited to this question but they had necessarily to advert to the facts of the caseincluding the various documents on record. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the conveyancedeed dated 24/10/1996 which specifically mentions in the penultimateparagraph that the "transfer shall be deemed to have come into force with effectfrom the date of registration of this deed". This is quite contrary to what has beenstated in the eviction petition. ( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the conveyancedeed dated 24/10/1996 which specifically mentions in the penultimateparagraph that the "transfer shall be deemed to have come into force with effectfrom the date of registration of this deed". This is quite contrary to what has beenstated in the eviction petition. It is not clear when the conveyance deed wasregistered but even if it is taken to have been registered on the date of its executionthat is, 2 4/10/1996, in view of Section 14 (6) of the Act, it appears that aneviction petition under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) of the Act could nothave been tiled for a period of five years from October, 1996. Learned Counsel forthe respondents did contend that the conveyance relates back to 18/11/1992. Prima facie, this does not appear to be so, but this is something which will haveto be determined by the learned Additional Rent Controller. ( 7 ) UNDER the circumstances, I think it would have been appropriate for thelearned Additional Rent Controller to have granted leave to the petitioner to contestthe eviction petition because there does appear to be a substantial doubt about thedate of the transfer of the property in favour of the respondents and, therefore, themaintainability of the eviction petition. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 27th October,1999 is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled to grant of leave to defendthe eviction petition filed by the respondents. ( 9 ) IT is made clear that nothing stated hereinabove will be considered as afinding on the merits of the case. ( 10 ) THE petition is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs. ( 11 ) THE parties are directed to appear before the learned Additional Rentcontroller on 13/03/2000.