JUDGMENT
C.M. Nayar, J.
(1) The present Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th October, 1989 passed by Shri O.P.Dwivedi. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The learned judge allowed the appeal against the order dated :2ndJuly, 1988 passed by Shri M.S. Sabharwal. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, ill reeling the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 45.00 per month with effect from 16th September, 1981 on wards upto date within one month from the date of the order and continue to pay or deposit the future rent month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month. It was further observed by the Additional Rent Controller that in case the respondent complied with the order he shall be deemed to have availed the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in case of default an eviction order shall be denude to have been passed against the respondent under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act.
(2) The brief facts are that on 28th- July, 1983 the appellant filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act alleging that the respondent was a tenant in a portion comprised of a room and Verandah on the ground floor of property No. D-43, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, .shown red in the plan attached with the petition at the rate of Rs. 45.00 per month It was further alleged that the respondent had not paid rent since 16th September, 1981 despite service of the demand notice dated 29th April, 1983. The appellant pleaded that he purchased the property from the previous owner Ram Kumar son of Durjan Lal Sharma vide sale deed dated 16th September, 1981 and a notice of purchase was given to the respondent on 26th October, 1981 but the said respondent did not pay the arrears of rent, as demanded. The eviction petition was contested by the respondent who denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. His version was that his wife had purchased the disputed portion of the property from one Smt. Long shri,Longshiri
widow of Durjan Lal Sharma vide registered sale deed dated 5th May, 1982 and, as such, he was occupying the said premises as family members of his wife Smt. Jai Dai and not as a tenant. He further denied that the appellant was the owner of the disputed portion. It was pleaded that originally plot No. 43-D, Kamla Nagar, measuring 228 sq. yds. was jointly purchased by Durjan Lai Sharma and Jagan Nath from Municipal Corporation of Delhi. A partition took place between them in the year 1951 and they both became owners of the said property in equal shares measuring 114 sq. yds. each and they raised constructions on the respective portions. In 1970 Jagdish Pershad son of Jagan Nath sold the portion measuring 114 sq. yds to the appellant vide sale deed dated 29th April, 1970. The other portion of the plot belonged to Durjan Lal Sharma who died on 12th January, 1975 leaving behind his widow Long shri and a son Ram Kumar Sharma as the only legal representatives. Thereafter Long shri widow of Durjan Lal Sharma sold her half share measuring 57 sq. yds to Smt. Jai Dai wife of the respondent vide registered sale deed dated 5th May, 1982. It was also alleged by the respondent that the appellant appeared to have played some fraud on Ram Kumar Sharma who was mentally retarded and handicapped and, as such, incompetent to effect the transfer of such property. Therefore, it was contended that the alleged sale deed dated 16th September, 1981 executed in favour of the appellant by Ram Kumar Sharma was invalid and of no consequence and the same did not confer any right or title on the appellant to claim rent in respect of the disputed portion
(3) After considering the material on record and arguments advanced by Counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the appellant had purchased the suit properly from Ram Kumar son of Durjan Lal vide sale deed dated 16th September, 1981. He, accordingly, became owner with effect from that date and therefore the respondent who was originally inducted as tenant of Durjan Lal became a tenant of the appellant by operation of law. The order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 22nd July, 1988 directing the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from 16th September, 1981 upto date at the rate of Rs. 45.00 per month within one month from the date of the order and continue to pay or deposit future rent month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month failing which an eviction order shall be deemed to have been passed against him on the ground of non payment of rent.
(4) The respondent impugned the order of the Additional Rent Controller before the Rent Control Tribunal. During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 9th August, 1988 seeking permission to lead some additional evidence. He wanted to produce certified copy of the sale deed dated 5th May, 1982 allegedly executed by Smt. Long shri in favour of Jai Dai wife of the respondent. The respondent also wanted to file certified copy of the ex parte decree passed in civil Suit No. 64 of 1984 by the learned Sub Judge in favour of the respondent’s wife and against the appellant in respect of the disputed portion.
(5) The crux of the matter was that respondent wanted to lead additional evidence to prove his title to the disputed property. The appellant opposed this Application- The Tribunal, however, felt that the application should be allowed as the documents like sale deed executed by Smt. Long shri, judgment passed by the civil Court in respect of the property in question, the municipal record etc. have direct bearing on the questions, as to whether, Smt. Lungshiri really sold the disputed portion of the property to the respondent’s wife. In this background, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed by the Rent Control Tribunal and the respondent was given aii opportunity to produce additional evidence and to examine Smt. Long shri from whom his wife had allegedly purchased the property in question. The order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 22nd July, 1988 was accordingly set aside and the matter was remanded to that Court to take additional evidence and to decide the questions as to existence of relationship of landlord and tenant afresh The appellant was also held entitled to lead evidence in rebuttal, if any.
(6) The appellant felt aggrieved and approached the Court by means of this Second Appeal. The matter was listed for preliminary hearing on 21st November, 1989 when notice to show cause was issued to the respondent and further proceedings pending in the Trial Court were stayed. The appeal has remained pending since that time. The delay has been unnecessarily caused as no proceedings during the intervening period could take place before the Additional Rent Control- ler in view of the interim order passed by this Court. The matter, of course, was adjourned on different dates as the parties were negotiating a compromise. That unfortunately did not take place.
(7) I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The Tribunal has merely allowed the application of the respondent under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure permitting the parties to lead additional evidence to decide the question as to the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant afresh. In view of the averments made by the appellant as well as by the respondent based on purported sale deeds which were separately claimed to have been executed in their favour, this exercise was essential. There is no manifest injustice which is likely to be caused to the appellant as he has also been granted an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal. Further-more the matter was not free from doubt and there was no option for the Tribunal to permit both the parties to prove their respective pleas by leading additional evidence. In the above background, there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the Rent Controller, Delhi on 12th February, 1996 for continuance of further proceedings in the matter in terms of the judgment dated 6th October, 1989 of Rent Control Tribunal. The proceedings have been pending for quite some time as the eviction petition was filed as far back as in the year 1983. The learned Rent Controller shall take into consideration the long delay which has already occurred in the matter and endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year. There will be no order as to costs.
(8) The record of the case shall be sent back to the Court of Rent Controller by special messenger immediately.