ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this petition aggrieved by the order dated 7th April, 1998, passed by the Rent Control Tribunal. The Rent Control Tribunal by the said order dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 1.10.1993, by which the application of the respondent DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd., under Order XXII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, was allowed by the learned Additional Rent Controller. By the said order the learned Additional Rent Controller permitted respondent DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. to be substituted in place of M/s.DCM ltd., who were the original petitioner in the eviction petition.
2. The respondent DCM Ltd. had filed the eviction petition under Clause I of proviso to Section 14(1) and Section 22 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, alleging that the petitioner, by virtue of being in employment of M/s.Swatantra Bharat Mills was allotted quarter No.B-219, Swatantra Bharat Mills Colony, New Delhi. Petitioner had retired from service and ceased to be in employment, yet he continued to occupy the said quarter. M/s.Swatantra Bharat Mills was one of the units of M/s.DCM Ltd.
3. During the pendency of the eviction petition a scheme of arrangement between DCM Ltd. and DCM Shriram Industries Ltd., DCM Engineering Industries Ltd. and Rath Foods Ltd. and their shareholders was formulated. The scheme was approved by the Delhi High Court vide orders dated 16.4.1990. M/s.Swatantra Bharat Mills, was a unit of DCM Ltd. The name of DCM Ltd. was subsequently changed to M/s.DCM Industries Ltd. M/s. DCM Industries ltd., was incorporated on 16.2.1989, changed its name, following the procedure laid down under Section 21 of the Companies Act, to DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. It is at this stage that M/s.DCM Shriram Consolidated applied for substitution in the eviction petition which was filed by M/s.DCM Limited, having the ownership and control of Swantanter Bharat Mills with whom the petitioner was employed.
4. The main contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 under the Scheme of Arrangement approved, does not become owner-landlord. The land in question on which the quarters were built was freehold land and was required to be transferred as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. Learned counsel further submits that there has been no attornment in favour of respondent No.2. It is claimed that respondent No.2 would not come within the definition of ‘landlord’ and there would be no relationship of landlord-tenant and the said respondent does not become the landlord qua the petitioner.
5. The learned Additional Rent Controller, after considering the Scheme of Arrangement, reached the conclusion that in terms of the Scheme of Arrangement, with effect from 1.4.1990 all legal and other proceedings filed by M/s.DCM Ltd. under any statute, pending on the effective date, i.e. 1.4.1990 and relating to the DCM Industries Ltd. were to be continued and enforced by M/s. DCM Industries Ltd. It is not in dispute that eviction petition relates to a quarter belonging to M/s.Swatantra Bharat Mills Unit and DCM Industries Ltd. The petition was liable to be continued by M/s.DCM Industries Ltd. whose name has been subsequently changed to M/s.DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on the proviso in the Scheme whereunder leases and licences, containing restrictions against transfers, were to be transferred with the approval of the respective landlords and other leases and licences were also to be transferred with such permission as may be required at law. The learned Additional Rent Controller after considering the provisions of the Scheme reached the conclusion that provisions of Transfer of Property Act would not apply to the Scheme of Arrangement under which the assets and properties of a company are transfered to another company in terms of the arrangement/scheme. The further submission of the petitioner is that the Scheme of Arrangement was akin to a family arrangement and if it affected the immoveable rights in the property, the same was required to be registered. The said submission is also devoid of merit in as much as the said arrangement cannot be equated to a family arrangement. Besides, the Scheme of Arrangement provides that any pending proceedings by or against the company would be carried out by the transferee company.
7. On a perusal of the orders passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller and the Rent Control Tribunal, I find no infirmity or error of jurisdiction. There is no ground for me to interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.