Vijay Kumar vs. Managing Committee Arya College, Panipat And Anr

Held

The Court held that the appellant failed to establish a landlord-tenant relationship with the College prior to the filing of the eviction petition. The licenses, including the GST number, were issued after the eviction petition was filed and thus could not substantiate the claimed tenancy. The Court also found that the appellant's objections were an abuse of the process of the court, filed in league with the original tenant, Subhash Chand, to frustrate the execution of the eviction order. The Court noted that the electricity meter was in the name of the College, and the appellant's claim of paying electricity bills was rejected. The Court concluded that the appellant had miserably failed to prove his tenancy and that the litigation was being pursued in a manner that could be termed 'Champerty'. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Courts below and dismissed the appeal.

Facts

The appellant, Vijay Kumar, filed third-party objections challenging the execution of an eviction order against respondent No. 2, Subhash Chand, from a shop owned by respondent No. 1, Managing Committee Arya College, Panipat. The appellant claimed to be a tenant in the shop since 2005, paying rent and electricity dues, and possessing licenses for his grocery business, including a GST number. The College had filed an eviction petition against Subhash Chand on grounds of non-payment of rent and bona fide necessity, which was allowed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority. The College then filed an execution petition. The appellant's objections were rejected by the Executing Court and affirmed by the Lower Appellate Court, leading to the present second appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the appellant has established a landlord-tenant relationship with the College prior to the filing of the eviction petition on 02.04.2011, thereby rendering the eviction order not binding on him? 2. Whether the appellant's objections filed during the execution proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of the court? Petitioner's Arguments: The appellant contended that he has been a tenant since 2005, paying rent and electricity bills, and possesses relevant licenses, including a GST number, for his business. He argued that since he was not impleaded in the original eviction petition, the eviction order is not binding on him. Revenue/State's Arguments: The College argued that the appellant failed to prove any landlord-tenant relationship with them. They asserted that the licenses obtained by the appellant were subsequent to the eviction petition and did not establish the claimed tenancy. The College also contended that the appellant's objections were filed in connivance with the original tenant, Subhash Chand, to frustrate the execution of the eviction order, and that the appellant had already resorted to a civil suit for permanent injunction, making the objections an abuse of process.