NAUBAT RAI AHLUWALIA Vs. SHYAM SUNDAR KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is tenant's appeal under Section 39 of the Delhi Rent Controller Act, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the; Act') Challenging the judgment and order of the Rent Control Tribunal confirming the order of eviction passed by the Additional Controller against the appellant under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act :

(2.) The appellant has raised two points ;

(3.) The appellant, Naubat Rai Ahluwalia became a tenant from 28/6/1962 under Kishori Lal Khanna with respect to the suit premises. Kishori Lal Khanna died in 1968 leaving behind his son Shyam Sunder Khanna, respondent No. 1, Widow Smt. Phool Rani, respondent No. 2, two daughters Usha Rani and Smt. Sudershan Kumari, respondents 3 and 4 and two children of a deceased daughter respondents 5 and 6. In 1962 Kishori Lal Khanna filed an an application for evictioof the appellant under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act. This application was dismissed by the Additional Controller oil the ground that notice of eviction was not valid. The landlord filed an appeal but died during its pendency. His heirs as mentioned above were allowed to be substituted by the Tribunal where the appeal was pending. The Tribunal remanded the case and the Additional Controller after remand held that substituted persons required the premises bonafide for their occupation. The tenant-appellant appealed before the Tribunal but failed. He filed Second Appeal in this Court which was accepted on the ground that the right to sue did not survive to the heirs of the landlord Kishori Lal Khanna which judgment is reported as Kaubat Rai Ahluwalia vs. Smt. Phool Rani & others, 1971 R.C.R. 797. On appeal the judgment of this court was upheld by the Supreme Court and it was held that the right to sue did not survive to the legal representatives under Section 14(1) (e) of the Act. The Supreme Court judgment is reported as Phool Rani & others vs. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, 19 73 S.C. 21 10. I may, however, mention that this judgment was not approved by the Supreme Court in its subsequent judgment in Shantilal Thakordas and others'. Chimanlal Maganlal Telwala, AIR 1976 S.C. 2358. It appears that Kishori Lal Khanna made a registered Will dated 8/12/ 1963 when-in he bequeathed the property in suit under the tenancy of the appellant to Shri Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha Punjab, Bhupindra Bhawan, Paharganj, New Delhi. Subsequently he executed another registered Will dated 15/6/1965 by which he revoked the said previous Will dated 8/12/1963 and bequeathed the suit property to his only son Shyam Sunder Khanna, respondent No. 1. On 29/5/1973 eviction application under Section 14'J)(e) of the Act, out of which this appeal has arisen, was filed by Shyam Sunder Khanna alone. But subsequently on the objection of the appellant other heirs of Kishori Lal Khanna were added as respondents to the eviction application. The other heirs i.e. respondents 2 to 6 in their written statement admitted that Shyam Sunder Khanna son of Kishori Lal Khanna is the sole owner of the suit property under the Will dated 16/6/1965. It was also admitted by them that Kishori Lal Khanna executed a Will while he was in sound and full disposing mind and got the same registered. It thus appears that there is no dispute about the execution of the Will dated 16/6/1965 by Kishori Lal Khanna bequeathing the property in suit to Shyam Sunder Khanna, respondent No. 1. The appellant however in his written statement raised the plea that Shyam Sunder Khanna is not the sole owner of the property in dispute and therefore has no right to initiate proceedings of his own. The appellant by this Court in S.A.O. No. 178 of 1970 reported as Naubat Rai Ahluwalia (Supra). The relevant passage is as under :