Kulwant Singh vs Smt. Lajjawati Devi

Vijender Jain, J.—The landlady obtained a decree of eviction against one Takhat Singh u/s 14(1)(d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The said eviction order was passed on 21.12.1993. After the landlady applied for execution of the eviction order, warrant of possession was issued on 25.2.1994. On 30.3.1994 petitioner filed objections. It was contended by the objector (petitioner) in the objections that he was holding independent title of the tenancy premises No. 2277 A. The Addl. Rent Controller vide its order dated 4.1.1997 dismissed the objections as misconceived. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, which was also dismissed on 5.8.1997.

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in this Court. Mr. Duggal has contended that without holding an inquiry when objection was filed by the petitioner, the dismissal of the objection was beyond the jurisdiction of the Addl. Rent Controller as well as the Rent Control Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed in this regard. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Indira Transport Vs. Rattan Lal, and Noorduddin Vs. Dr. D. L. Anand 57 (1995) DLT 321 (SC). There cannot be any dispute with the proposition of law as enunciated in this authorities. However, in view of the concurrent finding of the courts below that the objection of the petitioner with regard to his allegation that he was holding independent title of tenancy premises No. 2277 A, the document which was filed by the petitioner pertain to property No. 2277. A solitary notice from the MCD will not affect the nature of the material which was brought before the Addl. Rent Controller.

No ground to interfere.

Dismissed.