1. This is a second appeal against order dated 17.9.2001 passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Delhi in First Appeal No. 6/2001 against order dated 20.8,2001 passed by the concerned Recovery Officer of that Tribunal.
2. The appellant claims that he was in possession of a property of the judgment-debtor and has illegally been evicted from the same. He made the same grievance before DRT-II, Delhi by filing an appeal before it impugning the order of the Recovery Officer whereby he was directed to be evicted. Learned Presiding Officer of DRT in the impugned order came to a conclusion that the appeal before him had become infructuous as the appellant had already been evicted from the mortgaged property pursuant to the order of the Recovery Officer dated 20.8.2001. He, however, dismissed the appeal on merit as well saying that the appellant was admitted as a tenant in the property in question in the year 1994, after the preliminary decree for realisation of the debt had already been passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 7.2.1991.
According to learned Presiding Officer, the appellant was only trying to frustrate the said decree and that he could not acquire any right in the said property for which he could be protected.
3. When the second appeal was filed before this Appellate Tribunal, it was urged by the appellant before me that he was still in possession of the front rooms of the ground floor of the property in question. Since, as per the orders of the concerned Recovery Officer, Mr. N.M. Popli, Advocate, was appointed Receiver and had been authorized to break open any lock or door, etc. and to remove any trespassers, it was considered proper to take a report from Mr. Popli, Advocate, about the factual position of the case as from his report dated 17.9.2001, things were not getting clear whether the appellant was still in possession of front two rooms on the ground floor of the property in question. Vide his letter dated 28.9.2001, he clarified the position saying that the words "consisting of in his earlier report of 17.9.2601 be treated as omitted. To that letter, he annexed fresh report, according to which, he had taken possession of ground floor of House No. Chandigarh-89, South Extension Part-II, New Delhi, garage and servant quarter on 15.9.2001. After the report, the appellant had no mouth to say that he was in possession of the front rooms in the ground floor of the said property.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant now only presses a legal plea before me whether under law, the Recovery Officer can evict a person from a property in respect of which a Receiver is appointed. On this legal plea alone, learned Counsels for the parties were heard.
5. The fact is that as per orders of the Recovery Officer, the Receiver is in possession of the property in question. The appellant claims that he was evicted from the said property by the Receiver. I have gone through the order of the Recovery Officer and also the impugned order of DRT-II. In both the orders, I find that the bona fides of the appellant were found to be doubtful. The doubts raised in the said two orders get confirmed before me as well because the appellant here even tried to make false claims before saying that on the date of filing of the appeal, he was in possession of the front rooms of the property in question. That claim hasxbeen falsified by the report of Mr. Popli, Advocate, the Receiver. In this appeal, the appellant wants a direction that he be put back in possession. In my view, the appellant does not deserve this indulgence because of his own bad conduct. Moreover, the appellant claims to be in possession of the property in question on the basis of a lease deed, a copy of which is at page 48 of the paper book of this appeal. On perusal of the lease deed, it is to be found that the lessee mentioned in that deed is M/s. Haryana Estates Pvt. Ltd., B-30, Ansal Chamber-I, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi represented by Mr.
P.C. Gupta s/o Mr. B.L. Gupta (Managing Director of M/s. Haryana Estates Pvt. Ltd.) r/o S-138, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 110 048.
From the lease deed, it would appear that the appellant resided at S-138, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi and the lease deed appears to have been taken for M/s. Haryana Estates Pvt. Ltd. Though the appellant is Director of M/s. Haryana Estates Pvt. Ltd. but there is no averment anywhere that it was M/s. Haryana Estates Pvt. Ltd. which occupied the property in question. The lease was not for private residence of the appellant. It was only M/s. Haryana Estates Fvt. Ltd. through Mr. P.C.Gupta which could raise objections before Recovery Officer for its interests in the property in question. M/s. Haryana Estates Pvt. Ltd. could have been represented through the appellant but the appellant himself in his personal capacity could not make a claim of alleged possession. Therefore, in my view, Mr. P.C. Gupta in his personal capacity has no locus standi in the matter.
6. In view of above, in this appeal, I am not dealing with the legal issue posed. It will be dealt with in any other matter as and when occasion arises.
7. The objections of the appellant have been dismissed by the Recovery Officer and, the appellant under para 11 (6) of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act has the remedy to institute a suit in a Civil Court to establish the right which he may have in the property in question.