9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include the application for recalling the warrant of possession, the interpretation of Order IX Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.), and the validity of the transfer of tenancy rights by the Official Liquidator. Recalling the Warrant of Possession: The case involved a dispute over the possession of premises between the landlord-appellant and Respondent No. 1, who claimed to be the tenant. The history of the case revealed multiple legal proceedings and transfers of tenancy rights. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act to recall the warrant of possession issued earlier. The Rent Controller initially allowed the application, but it was later reversed by the Rent Control Tribunal. Subsequently, the High Court reversed the Tribunal's decision and restored the Rent Controller's order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. Interpretation of Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C.: The appellant challenged the High Court's findings on two key points related to the application made under section 25. The first point revolved around whether the application was barred due to the dismissal of a previous suit under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. The appellant argued that the principles of Res Judicata or Order IX Rule 9 applied, as there was an adjudication against Respondent No. 1 in a previous suit. The Supreme Court, citing precedent, emphasized that the bar imposed by Order IX Rule 9 extends beyond the particular plaintiff suing on the same cause of action. The Court found that the application was indeed barred by Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. due to the identity of the subject matter being the same. Validity of Tenancy Rights Transfer: The third point of contention was regarding the transfer of tenancy rights by the Official Liquidator to Respondent No. 1. The High Court had ruled that the transfer was involuntary and, therefore, not subject to the Rent Control Act provisions. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the transfer fell within the scope of section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Court reasoned that even if the transfer was involuntary, it constituted an assignment under the Act. The wide language of section 14(b) encompassed not only sub-leases but also assignments or any other mode of parting with possession. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the plaintiff's application under section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The Supreme Court granted the tenant one year to vacate the premises, provided he filed an undertaking within two weeks to hand over peaceful and vacant possession to the landlord by a specified date. Failure to comply with the undertaking would result in the revocation of the granted time. No costs were awarded in the case.
|
