Court No. - 18

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 141 of 2022

Revisionist :- Sanjay Singh

Opposite Party :- Kapil Bansal And Another

Counsel for Revisionist :- Archit Mehrotra,Sr. Advocate

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Rishabh Agarwal

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Heard Sri Archit Mehotra, learned counsel for the revision

applicant and Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the

opposite parties.

Learned counsel for the revision applicant submits at the very

outset that the execution proceeding instituted to get the decree

dated 30th May, 2022 executed, the premises in question has

stood delivered to the landlord-respondent. However, he would

assail the decree on the ground that there was no tenant-

landlord relationship between the parties and, therefore, suit

itself was not maintainable for arrears of rent and ejectment.

He argued that petitioner never paid rent nor, he was to be

treated as a tenant. He has drawn the attention of the Court

towards the compromise entered between the parties in a suit

being O.S. No. 878 of 2017 and compromise was placed before

the court below.

He, therefore, argues that the finding returned by the Judge,

Small Causes Court to hold the petitioner to be a tenant and that

he ran in arrears of rent was erroneous and perverse finding. He

would submit that once the parties had agreed in an injunction

suit to continue the petitioner in occupation of a part of

premises in question, his status would be of a licensee.

Per contra, it is argued by Sri Rishabh Agarwal, learned

counsel for the respondent-landlord that in the written statement

there is a clear admission on the part of the present petitioner

tenant that he was a tenant of one Mr. Radha Mohan Gupta and

Smt. Asha Gupta and he used to pay rent @ 6,000/- per month

beginning since 20th June, 2014. He disputed the claim of the

respondent-landlord only on the ground that he was being

wholly illegally evicted or was under the threat of eviction by

the new transferee, namely, the landlord respondent and hence

he instituted a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction being

O.S. No.- 878 of 2017.

He submits that further alleged compromise which is stated to

have been filed in pending O.S. No. 878 of 2017 never attained

any finality because the suit has not been decreed on the basis

of the compromise filed, so compromise cannot be considered a

valid compromise as such between the parties to bind them by

virtue of decree if passed in an injunction suit.

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

their argument raised across the bar and having gone through

the judgment passed by Judge, Small Causes Court holding the

petitioner as tenant in arrears of rent and thus in default that led

to the passing of the decree for ejectment and after carefully

going through the written statement, I find that in paragraphs 18

and 19 of the written statement the petitioner had very

unequivocally admitted himself to be tenant of erstwhile owner

namely, Mr. Radha Mohan Gupta and Smt. Asha Gupta. He

would refer the transfer of the property in favour of the landlord

respondent on 31st July, 2016 as alleged transfer and disputed

the claim of landlord and hence instituted suit for permanent

prohibitory injunction.

On a pointed query being made as to what was the instrument

by which the property stood tranferred in favour of the

landlord-respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner very

fairly admitted that it was registered instrument of sale.

In such above view of the matter, therefore, it goes without any

challenge that Mr. Radha Mohan Gupta and Smt. Asha Gupta

were the landlord and they had every right to transfer the

property by way of sale to a third party. The petitioner who was

a tenant of Mr. Radha Mohan Gupta and Smt. Asha Gupta

would not by any stretch of imagination be taken to have

stepped into the shoes of the landlord and the owner of the

property. His status continued to be of a tenant ev