Court to identify property in question along with complete description while passing Possession Decree to avoid Litigation: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court in the case of Sunita Goel v/s Maman Chand & Anr. ruled that it is the duty of the Court to identify property in question along with complete description while passing Possession Decree to avoid Litigation.
The Respondent landlord, who is the Petitioner in the eviction petition, sought eviction of the another Respondent Mr. Rattan Lal Ram Kumar, the original Tenant from the ‘L’ shaped premises in the property. The said eviction petition was dismissed by the Rent Controller, Delhi. The same was appealed to the Additional Rent Control Tribunal the appeal was allowed by the RCT under section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and the eviction order was passed against the Tenant. The shop was sold by the Respondent to one Smt. Sunita Devi and she further sold it to the Appellant i.e., Smt. Sunita Goel, who also happened to be the wife of the Tenant. Execution proceedings were commenced by the landlord. An execution petition was filed by the Respondent seeking possession of the tenanted portion.
Ms. Manmeet Arora, counsel appearing for the Appellant contended that the green wall identifiable in the site plan attached to the sale deed was always identified as the portion supporting the Appellant’s shop. The Appellant purchased not just the ground floor shop but also the first floor above the shop. Thus, the wall supporting the first floor and the shop ought not to be permitted to be broken down.
Mr. Dhir, counsel appearing for the Respondent, submits that the Appellant is guilty of having encroached upon the wall area and the rear portion, taking advantage of the fact that her husband was a tenant in the property. The eviction decree has to be given its full effect and except the shop the entire remaining portion should be handed over to the Respondent.
The single judge bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh noted that the Tenant is bound to hand over the tenanted portion to the Respondent. The Appellant is only entitled to retain the shop on the ground floor and the first floor, as per the plan attached to the sale deed. To ensure that the decree is implemented in letter and spirit, without disturbing the Appellant’s rights, the handing over of the possession of suit property and the execution of the decree ought to be done under the supervision of this Court. The court ordered that the local commission be executed.
The court added that the Local Commissioner shall seek the assistance from the local SHO to ensure that no disturbance is created in the implementation of the order. If the entire work is not concluded within one day, the Local Commissioner may fix another date with the consent of the parties.
