Skip to content


Madan Mohan Vohra Vs. Sharwan Kumar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberReview Application No. 26 of 1988
Judge
Reported in42(1990)DLT271; 1990(19)DRJ153
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)
AppellantMadan Mohan Vohra
RespondentSharwan Kumar
Advocates: N.M. Popli and; J.N. Verma, Advs
Cases ReferredGopal Ram & Others v. Lachimi Misir
Excerpt:
delhi rent control act, 1958 - section 14(1)(a) --whether the change in ownership of the suit property affect the rights of the parties--it was held that it docs not, because the petition on grounds of non-payment of rent can be filed by a landlord who may not necessarily be the owner of the property. - - (7) it is submilted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the review petitioner was not aware of the sale of the said properly and it is only after this court bad dismissed the second appeal that the review petitioner came to know about the sale......madan in the year 1978. the payment in consideration of the,sale was made by march 1981, the sale deed was however registered in the year 1986 and thus as provided under section 47 of the indian registration act, the sale became effective from the date of the agreement itself. the review petitioner has filed along with the review petition a copy of sale deed dated 7-2-1986 entered into by the respondent with smt. shakun madan. this sale deed was registered on the same date i e. 7-21986. (4) it is contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that since the whole amount of consideration of rs. rs. 20.000.00 was paid on 18-3-1981 and a separate receipt was duly registered with the sub-registrar, delhi, the sals deed relayed back to 18-3-1981. learned counsel relied on.....
Judgment:

Sunanda Bhandare, J.

(1) A second appeal against the judgment of Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 8-12-1987 was filed by the appellant tenant in the year 1988 it came up for hearing before this Court on 24-5-88 after hearing, the appeal was dismissed in liming and the following observation were made:

THEREare concurrent finding of fact of both the Courts that the appellant deliberately refuse to accept the notice. There is no merit in this appeal The same is dismissed. The appellant is, however granted one year's time to vacate the premises subject to his filing an affidavit, in this Court within two weeks from today, giving an undertaking that he will hand the peaceful vacant possession of the premises in question to The respondent. on or before May 31, 1989 and will continue to pay the compensation for use and occupation of the premises by 15th of each month and will not part with possession of the premises in question to any third person during this period.'

(2) Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for review on 13-9-1988 which was admitted by order dated 7-4-1989 and the following two important questions were framed :-

1.What is the effect of the change in ownership of the premises , the eviction petition filed by the respondent?

2.Whether even a subsequent change in ownership has any effect on pending proceedings ?

(3) The main issue raised by the review petitioner in the review petition was that on the date the eviction petition was filed by the respondent the property had changed hands and he was no longer the owner of the property in dispute. According to the review petitioner, an agreement to sell the property was arrived at between the respondent and Smt. Shakun Madan in the year 1978. The payment in consideration of the,sale was made by March 1981, the sale deed was however registered in the year 1986 and thus as provided under Section 47 of the Indian Registration Act, the sale became effective from the date of the agreement itself. The review petitioner has filed Along with the review petition a copy of sale deed dated 7-2-1986 entered into by the respondent with Smt. Shakun Madan. This sale deed was registered on the same date i e. 7-21986.

(4) It is contended by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that since the whole amount of consideration of Rs. Rs. 20.000.00 was paid on 18-3-1981 and a separate receipt was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi, the sals deed relayed back to 18-3-1981. Learned counsel relied on Gopal Ram & Others v. Lachimi Misir & Others : AIR1926All549 in support of his contention.

(5) I have gone through the sale deed. Annexure I to the review petition I find that though the payments were made by Smt. Shakun Madan on 29-11-1978 and 18-3-1981, the sale deed was executed only on 7-2-1986. From paragraph 8 of the said sale deed it also appears that the sale permission was obtained from the office of Land and Development only on 17-1-1986. Obviously, the sale deed could not have been executed before the permission was obtained from the office of Land & Development. Thus, in my view, even if the payment was made in the year 1981 it would have no effect on the ownership of the property.

(6) The property could be transferred in the name of vendee Smt. Shakun Madan only on the execution of the sale deed and the registration thereof. The point raised by the review petitioner is, thereforee, without any merit. It may be pertinent to note that the review petitioner had not raised the question of ownership before the Addl. Rent Controller.

(7) It is submilted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that the review petitioner was not aware of the sale of the said properly and it is only after this Court bad dismissed the second appeal that the review petitioner came to know about the sale. The petition filed by the respondent- landlord was one under Section 4(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for non-payment of the rent by the review petitioner. Such a petition can also be filed by a landlord though he may not be an owner of the property. The appellant/review petitioner has not placed anything on record to show that the respondent was not the landlord when he filled the eviction petition.

(8) The review petition is, thereforee, without any merit and is dismissed. In the circumstances, however the review petitioner is granted two months lime to vacate the premises. No costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //