It is, however, number certain as to on whose account the rent was deposited.
The rent in respect of the premises had been deposited.
From the judgment and order dated 29.5.1984 of the Delhi High Court in S.A.O. No.
This was refused by learned Judge for which reasons have been given.
The High Court has numbered that admittedly there was numberreceipt in possession of the appellant regarding payment of rent.
He retired in 1973.
It appears from the record that respondent No.
The respondent No.
R. Lalit, Vivek Gambhir, Sanjay Sareen and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant.
However, the landlady was residing out of India and she closed her account when she came back to India and in respect of that the rent was being deposited according to the appellant which appears at page 126 of the Paper Book.
The respondent No.
He retired in 1973.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 29th May, 1984.
In order to appreciate the question it should be numbered on 16.1.67 there was a lease in favour of respondent No.
There was an application made by the widow of Late T.R. Narula to be joined as a party in the suit.
2 of a monthly rent of Rs.350 p.m. in respect of the premises in question in Greater Kailash, New Delhi.
On the one hand, the appellant companytends that the rent was deposited on account of the appellants husband, and after the death of Shri T.R. Narula on account of heirs of said T.R. Narula, deceased individually and number on account of or on behalf of the erstwhile tenant of the premises in question.
The said respondent was at all relevant times represented by her attorney.
1 described himself as a permanent settlee in England.
The respondents did number accept that position.
The rent has been paid since then.
Mrs. Shyamla Pappu, Mrs. Indra Sawhney and N.S. Das Bahl for the Respondents.
1 was in England at the relevant time.
As against these versions of the appellants herein it is asserted that these receipts were number genuine documents put in.
The tenant was a companypany called M s Bharat Carbons Ribbons Manufacturing Company.
2608 of 1984.
The landlady protested by a letter written to the Bank.
The learned Judge of the High Court has numbered that it was the admitted position that M s Bharat Carbons Ribbons Manufacturing Company was the tenant and the appellants husband was an employee of the said companypany.
By the aforesaid order the appellant was refused the prayer of being joined as a party in the proceedings in execution and the order of eviction against the tenant was passed under section 14 1 e of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The husband of the appellant Late T.R. Narula was an employee of the said Company.
128 of 1984.
