VINEY KUMAR MAHAJAN Vs. VISHAMBHARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit is listed before the Court, after admission/denial of documents and framing of issues. This Court has considered the submissions of parties, and pleadings in the suit and is of the opinion that the case can be disposed of at this preliminary stage, having regard to the rival averments as well as the materials on record.

(2.) The suit claims a decree for possession against the defendant in respect of the premises shown in a Site Plan attached to the plaint. The plaintiff is owner and landlord of the property known as Regal Theatre, Connaught Place, New Delhi. It is submitted that Regal Theatre was being operated by a firm comprising of several partners (described in para 4 of the suit). The plaintiff claims that the shares in the firm were taken-over by him " a fact recorded in this Court"s order dated 30.11.2006 in CS (OS) 1370/1982. The suit alleges that one Sh. Budh Singh Rawat, working as Peon in the Regal Theatre, used to live in the accommodation provided by the theatre"s management. The premises, provided for him for his residence, is described in detail in para 7. It is submitted that the family of the said employee continued in these premises after his death sometime in 1989. The plaintiff urges that the widow of the said deceased Sh. Budh Singh Rawat started claiming that she was tenant of the premises, and on that basis deposited rent in terms of provisions under the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is submitted that the plaintiff had contested the application and that the Rent Controller, by an order dated 05.02.2007, held that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant, and the application under Section 45 of the Delhi Rent Control Act was not maintainable. The appeal preferred by the defendant was allowed and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

(3.) The plaintiff submits that the relationship of the parties is not one of landlord and tenant, and that the late employee " Sh. Budh Singh Rawat was merely a licensee and that after his death, the defendant cannot continue to occupy the premises, which are to an extent of 1200 sq. feet, and claim to pay only Rs. 100/- or so, as rent/charges when no such relationship exists. The plaintiff urges that on the available material, a decree can be drawn and points to what are termed as admissions in the written statement.