ORDER :- Since common questions arise for consideration in the 6 abovemen-tioned petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. Facts in brief, pertaining, to the 6 petitions are that a company named M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. filed eviction petitions invoking Section 14(1)(i) and Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 alleging that the premises in question were allotted to the respondent (predecessor-in-interest of some respondents) for residential purposes as a service tenant exclusively by virtue of their being in the service and employment of the said company.

3. That it was a term of allotment that within 4 days of superannuation or cessation of employment, vacant possession would be re-delivered to the company. That, in spite of cessation of employment, vacant possession was not handed over.

4. It was further alleged that by and under a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. L. Anand of this Court, the entire assets of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. stood transferred to M/s. Texmaco Ltd.and therefore said company was the successor-in-terest of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.

5. The petitions were finally pressed under Section 14(1)(i) for the reason due to orders passed by the Supreme Court, manufacturing operations had to be closed down by the company and therefore obviously, requirement of the premises for employees of the company, a ground available under Section 22, ceased to exist.

6. After recording evidence, learned Addl. Rent Controller allowed the eviction petitions which are a subject-matter of CM(M) 64/2005 and CM(M) 92/2005. The eviction petitions which are subject-matter of the other 4 CM (Ms) were dismissed.

7. Appeals filed by the respondents against whom eviction orders were passed were dismissed by the learned Addl. Rent Control Tribunal. The 4 appeals filed by the company against the 4 dismissal orders have been allowed by the learned Rent Control Tribunal.

8. Under-noted is the data pertaining to the date of the original order, the fate of the eviction petition and the date of the appellate order.

Sr. CM(M) Date of Whether Date of

No. order of allowed or order of

ARC dismissed Tribunal

1 64/2005 17-2-04 Allowed 16-10-04

2 65/2005 12-11-03 Dismissed 06-11-04

3 67/2005 12-11-03 Dismissed 06-11-04

4 69/2005 12-11-03 Dismissed 06-11-04

5 92/2005 23-11-02 Allowed 16-10-04

6 101/2005 04-01-03 Dismissed 06-11-04

9. The defence set up in all the petitions was that allotment was not due to the allottee being an employee of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. That the allottee was tenant independent of his status as employee of the company. That the eviction petitions were not filed under a proper authorisation. That M/s. Texmaco Ltd. was not successor-in-interest of M/s. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.

10. Whereas all defences were rejected in the eviction petitions which are a subject-matter of CM(M) 64/2005 and CM(M) 92/2005 and as a consequence, the learned Addl. Rent Controller passed an order of ejectment, which order has been upheld in appeal by the tribunal, eviction petitions filed which are subject-matter of CM(M) Nos. 65/2005, 67/2005, 69/2005 and 101/2005 were dismissed by the learned ARC, inter alia, on the ground that authority of the person who had instituted the petition for eviction was not proved.

11. Said authorisation was held as proved in the other 2 eviction petitions which were allowed and are a subject-matter of CM(M) 64/2005, CM(M) 92/2005.

12. The eviction petitions which were dismissed were filed under the signatures of one Shri P. C. Chhajer.

13. A perusal of the decisions in the various cases where the learned Addl. Rent Controller has held that authority of Shri P. C. Chhajer was not established to file the eviction petitions shows that the learned trial Court has been influenced by the fact that the Executive Director of th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document