JUDGMENT
Mohd. Shamim, J.
(1) This revision petition’s directed against the judgment and order dated November 19,1994 whereby the learned lower court dismissed three applications moved by Shri Alok Jain, petitioner herein, under Order I Rule 10 and unde rorder Ix Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated May – 3,1994, and under Order Xxi Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated October 28,1994.
(2) Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. P.N.Lekhi, Senior Advocate, has vehemently contended that the instant case is a case of fraud practiced on the petitioner as well as on the Court. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is in occupation of the premise tearing No. A-13, West End, New Delhi, as a tenant under the respondent, vide lease agreement dated April 1-,1970. A petition for eviction under Section 14(l)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was filed by Mrs.Sunita Narinder Ahuja, respondent No. 1 herein, against Jaipur Udyog Ltd. wherein the present petitioner was arrayed as- respondent No.2. The address of M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. in the said petition was given as 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The petitioner was never served with any summonses or notices with regard to the suit bearing No. 265/93 entitled Smt. Sunita Narinder Ahuja v. M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. He was never aware of the proceedings pending in the said suit. The respondent in the said suit gave the address of M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. in the plaint as that of Rajasthan and not of Delhi i.e. the address which finds a mention in the lease deed i.e. 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Thus, a fraud was practiced on the petitioner ‘and on the Court also in order to obtain a decree for eviction’
(3) The next contention put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Sub Judge did not have the necessary jurisdiction to pass the impugned decree dated February 22,1994 for possession against M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. and against the petitioner inasmuch as M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. was a sick unit and as such the proceedings in the said suit were hit by S. 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1986. The learned counsel in support of his argument has led me through the authorities reported in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. lagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others, , City of London Corp v. Fell. (1993) 4 All Er 968, and M/s Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association, Madras, .
(4) The learned counsel for the Caveator Mr. Arun Jaitley, Senior Advocate has urged to the contrary.
(5) I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at sufficient length and have very carefully examined their rival contentions. A perusal of the agreement of lease dated March 3,1970 reveals that the property bearing No. A-13, West End, New Delhi ( hereinafter referred to as the suit property) was let out to M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. by respondent No.1. The suit property was taken on rent for the residence of officers and directors of the lessee i.e. M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd., 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi. It is crystal clear from the lease deed that the suit property, though let out to M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd, it was taken on rent for the residential purposes of the officers and directors of the above said com- pany. Hence the petitioner has got to do nothing with the same, no doubt the petitioner was in occupation of the same in his capacity as director of the said company.
(6) The above fact is further borne out from quite a good number of documents placed on record by the respondent. She has filed in connection therewith a copy of the judgment dated January 30,1976 passed by Shri P.S.Sharma, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, in case No. E-343/75 entitled Sunita Narinder Ahuja v. M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. The respondent M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. admitted in their written statement the relationship of landlord and tenant. An order of eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was passed against the respondent. Then there is a photocopy of the petition in Suit No. E-28/80 filed by respondent herein against M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. and the present petitioner i.e. Shri Alok Jain. A perusal of the said petition reveals that Shri Alok Jain is in occupation of the suit premises for and on behalf of M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. The petitioner herein was respondent No.2 in the said proceedings. He filed a written statement wherein he has admitted in unequivocal terms (vide para 5 of his written statement) that the disputed premises. were taken on rent by respondent No.1 i.e. M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. for the residence of the respondent No.2 i.e. the present petitioner as he was not only a director of respondent No.1 but also their share-holder and guarantor. Then there is a copy of the order passed under Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, an order for deposit of arrears of rent was passed against the respondent M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. w.e.f. September 1,1979.
(7) Learned counsel for the respondent has then led me through an order dated September 20,1993 where through the learned counsel for the respondent gave up respondent No.2 as a party to the above said eviction proceedings. Counsel for the respondent has then placed reliance on the Minutes of the Meetings of the Board of Directors held on June 27,1994. A close scrutiny of the same reveals that it was decided that it was of no use to contest the eviction proceedings pending decision before the court of Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sub Judge, since it was not in the interest of the com- pany. It was further resolved that the present petition has got no locus standi to defend the said proceedings and the company declined to bear any expenditure or accept any liability directly or indirectly on the said score. The learned counsel for the respondent has then adverted to the photocopy of the completion certificate in respect of the disputed property. After going through the same I find that the completion certificate in respect of the disputed property was issued on April 10,1970. Thus the disputed property could have been occupied on or nearabout the said order and not earlier thereto. Surprisingly enough the petitioner has stated ( vide para 2 of his grounds of revision ) that the disputed property was let out to him by the respondent in the year 1968. In the above circumstances this is nothing but a white lie. It thus can be safely concluded from above that the petitioner was never a tenant in the disputed property. He was in occupation of the same in his capacity as a director of the company M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Hence he had no locus standi to be imp leaded as a party in the proceedings in the civil suit before the Sub Judge. He has got no such locus standi to be imp leaded as a party even in the proceedings, if any, pending before the Sub Judge. Hence, the learned Sub Judge was right in dismissing the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Similarly, I feel the learned Sub Judge was right in dismissing the application under Order Ix Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code inasmuch as no decree was passed against him. Hence he has got no locus standi to move the application under Order Ix Rule 13 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the impugned decree.
(8) The third application under Order Xxi Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code is also not maintainable inasmuch as the remedy under Order Xxi Rule 97 Civil Procedure Code is available to a decree-holder who is resisted or obstructed by any person in obtaining possession of the property. Thus the said provisions of law are meant for the benefit of a decree holder and not for the benefit of a third party. The only remedy that a third party has is under Order Xxi Rule 99 Cpc who is alleged to have been illegally dis-possessed.
(9) It was then urged for and on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned decree in the Civil Suit No. 265/93 was obtained by fraud inasmuch as the office of M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. as per the lease deed was shown at 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi. However, the service on M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. was got effected intentionally at Sawai Madhopur in Rajasthan since the said registered office at Sawai Madhopur was lying locked and was not operating from there. The contention of the learned counsel is devoid. of any force inasmuch as M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. moved an application before the Additional Rent Controller, Mr. M.L.Sahni, on August 5,1980 under Order Ix Rule 7 Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte proceedings on the ground that M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. was maintaining only liaison office at 5, Parliament Street, New Delhi. The principal office of the company was situated at Sawai Madhopur. The said application was allowed vide order dated November 5,1980 and it was ordered that service be effected at the registered office of the company i.e. at Sawai Madhopur in Rajasthan. It was in the above circumstances that the service was got effected by publication at the above said address. Thus now it is, too, late in the day to object to the said mode of service because the service at the above said address was got effected at the instance of M/s Jaipur Udyog Ltd. Hence it cannot be argued that any fraud was practiced on the petitioner on the said score.
(10) This brings me to the next contention put forwarded by the learned counsel that the present proceedings for eviction were hit by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act,1986. The contention of the learned counsel is devoid of any force, in view of the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court as reported in M/s Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. (supra)…..”Proceedings for eviction instituted by a landlord against a tenant who happens to be a sick industrial company, cannot in our opinion, be regarded as falling in this category”. To the same effect is the view of a Single Judge of this Court as reported in Ved Prakash Khullar & Ors v. M/s Genelec Ltd., 1993(1) Delhi Lawyer 258. In view of the above I do not see any force in the present revision petition. The same is hereby dismissed in liming.