Skip to content


R.S. Rajan Vs. Jamna Das - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtDelhi High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 243 of 1981
Judge
Reported in1983(5)DRJ70
ActsDelhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 25 and 39
AppellantR.S. Rajan
RespondentJamna Das
Advocates: D.S. Chauhan and; K.L. Sethi, Advs
Cases ReferredSunder Dass v. Ram Parkash
Excerpt:
delhi rent control act 1958 - section 39--when the high court is justified in interfering with the findings in 2nd appeal ? delhi rent control act 1958 - section 25--whether the order refusing stay of dispossion is appealable or revisable? - .....may, 1981 property the learned tribunal has allowed the appeal of the landlord and dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner tenant regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction. (2) the landlord-respondent has filed a petition for eviction and obtained the order of eviction against the petitioner for the eviction in 7th august, 1977 with reepect to the property the dispules. how the property was not vacated, the landlord took out the execution. in execution, the tenant-objector asked for the stay of the dispossession on the ground that he had filed objections to the execution of the decree and one of the grounds taken in the objections is that the decree passed by the additional rent controller was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the property is situated in the revenue estate of.....
Judgment:

Goswamy, J.

(1) This Second Appeal is directed against the order of the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 23rd May, 1981 property the learned Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the landlord and dismissed the objections raised by the petitioner tenant regarding inherent lack of jurisdiction.

(2) The landlord-respondent has filed a petition for eviction and obtained the order of eviction against the petitioner for the eviction in 7th August, 1977 with reepect to the property the dispules. How the property was not vacated, the landlord took out the execution. In execution, the tenant-objector asked for the stay of the dispossession on the ground that he had filed objections to the execution of the decree and one of the grounds taken in the objections is that the decree passed by the Additional Rent Controller was without jurisdiction inasmuch as the property is situated in the revenue estate of Behapur to which the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was not applicable at the relevant time.

(3) The executing court allowed the objections to be raised and permitted the parties to lead evidence on the objections.

(4) It is against that order, the landlord filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal. It cannot be disputed that in order to succeed in the objections. It was necessary for the objector to produce the relevant notifications and connect the property with the said notifications. He, in fact, filed an application for permission to lead the necessary evidence and that application was allowed by the executing court. The Tribunal, while reversing the order of the executing court, relied on the decision of Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Vasudev Bhanji Bhai Modi v. Raja Bhai Abdul Rehaman and others reported as A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1975, the objection in that case was identical to the objection raised in the present case. Their lordships while building that the objection could be raised resultion to the present case of Jurisdiction held :-

'WHEREit is necessary to investigate facts in order to determine whether the court which had passed the decree had no jurisdication to entertain and try the suit, the objection cannot be raised in the execution proceedings'.

The learned counsel for the petitioner before me relies on another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of 'Sunder Dass v. Ram Parkash' reported as : [1977]3SCR60 . A perusel of that judgment shows that it only firms the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and does not go beyond them. All that, is said in that judgment is that in order to find out whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction or the jurisdiction was of the Rent Controller, the court could look into the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

(5) I am of the opinion that the present case is fully covered by the judgment in the case of Vasudev Bhanji Modi v Raja Bhai Abdul Rehaman and others' (Supra) and as much the judgment order appeal is not liable to be interferred with. The appeal is, thereforee, dismissed, but in the circustances of the case. I leave the parties to bear their own costs.


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