Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1037 (DEL)

JAINSONS WESTEND v. TARJIT SINGH

2008-11-07

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

body2008
1. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 19th September, 2007 whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed an application under Section 151 for stay of the proceedings. 2. The respondent has filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,06,120/- against the present petitioner. The petitioner wanted that the trial of the suit should be stayed in view of the fact that there was a dispute regarding ownership of the premises and the respondents right to recover rent from the petitioner could not be there till petitioner was held to be an owner. The Trial Court observed that the suit for recovery of rent was filed in 2003 whereas the suit disputing title was filed in May, 2005. Since the present suit was earlier in time, the suit could not be stayed. 3. Counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the order of this Court dated 25th July, 2006 inter se parties in respect of the premises, the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of rent could not continue till the ownership issue was settled. 4. A perusal of order dated 25th July, 2006 passed by this Court in CM(M) No.2465-70/2008 would show that this Court had earlier stayed eviction proceedings against the present petitioner filed by respondent on the same ground observing as under :- The respondents have received full consideration and entered into a settlement with petitioner no. 2 to 6 with their eyes open. The fact that petitioners no. 2 to 6 filed a suit for specific performance and withdrew the same would have no material bearing since the suit was filed on account of the registered documents not being executed in favour of petitioners no. 2 to 6. The power of attorney executed by the respondents in favour of an authorised representative was utilised to perfect the titles of petitioners no. 2 to 6 and, thus, they withdrew the suit without any adjudication being called for. Till such time the respondents succeed in their suit seeking a declaration that the sale deeds executed in favour of petitioners no. 2 to 6 are liable to be cancelled, petitioners no. 2 to 6 are entitled to enjoy all rights in the suit property as owners and the liability of petitioner no. 1 for payment of rent is to petitioners no. 2 to 6. 2 to 6 are liable to be cancelled, petitioners no. 2 to 6 are entitled to enjoy all rights in the suit property as owners and the liability of petitioner no. 1 for payment of rent is to petitioners no. 2 to 6. It may be noticed that all the petitioners form part of a group and are not at lis amongst each other. The question of the respondents continuing with any proceedings under the said Act against petitioner no. 1 pending that suit, thus, does not arise since petitioner no. 1 stands attorned as a tenant of petitioners no. 2 to 6. The locus of the respondents as landlord or owner itself does not exist till such time as the respondents succeed in their suit filed for declaration of the documents executed in faour of petitioner no. 2 to 6 as invalid. The compromise decree has apparently not been challenged and as to whether the subsequent sale deed can be declared null and void and what would be the effect thereof in view of the compromise decree subsisting will be for that Court to examine. 5. The above order of this Court has attained finality. I consider in view of this order no suit against the petitioner for recovery of rent can proceed till such time the respondents succeed in their suits seeking declaration in respect of the sale deeds executed on behalf of the respondents by the attorney in favour of present owners. I therefore consider that the proceedings in the suit are liable to be stayed. The order of the Trial Court is reversed. The petition is allowed. The proceedings before the Trial Court shall remain stayed till the disposal of the suit regarding sale deeds.