VINOD BEDI Vs. MAHA PRABHU P SINGHANIA
LAWS(DLH)-1983-1-20
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 07,1983

VINOD BEDI Appellant
VERSUS
MAHA PRABHU P.SINGHANIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

S B NORONAH VS. PREM KUMARI KHANNA [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. INDER SAIN MINOCHA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PUKH RAJ JAIN VS. PADMA KASHYAP [LAWS(DLH)-1989-5-48] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B.Wad - (1.)This is the landlord's petition against the order ofAdditional Rent Controller, passed on 29/08/1981. The order waspassed in the execution proceedings for possession under S.21 of the DelhiRent Control Act. The learned Rent Controller held that the evictionorder was contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.B. Noronah v.Prem Kumari, XV (1979) D.L.T. 305. The Rent Controller dismissed land-lord's execution application.
(2.)The impugned order is challenged on the following grounds :
(a) The Rent Controller has not correctly appreciated the judgmentof the Supreme Court in the above case. The Division Benchjudgment of this Court reported in Vijay Kumar v. Inder Sain,XX (1981) D.L.T. 515 (D.B.) has "correctly construed the saidjudgment.(b) The Rent Controller has failed to appreciate that on the date ofthe execution the petitioner was already transferred to Delhi, hiswife had taken up a job in Delhi and his sons were admitted toDelhi school. The justification for the shorter tenancy of twoyears was fully established on the date of the executionapplication.(c) The objections filed by the tenant against the execution applica-tion were barred by the principles of resjudicata. The tenanthad refused to accept the notice of the execution application.When he was proceeded exparte he made an application for thereview of the said order. That application was dismissed by theRent Controller. The said order has become final.

(3.)In reply the counsel for the tenant submits that the landlord hasnot stated any specific reason why a shorter tenancy for two years was beingcreated in 1978. He further submits that ever since the house was constructedthe landlord has never stayed in it. It was let out from time to time athigher rents. The eviction order was secured by the landlord fraudulently.The Rent Controller was right in holding that the eviction order was contraryto the decision of the Supreme Court in Noronah's case.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.