SURAJ PRAKASH SHARMA Vs. SHAKUNTLA RANI DIWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The premises appear to have been let out to the tenant (who has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution) in 1982 by Shri Sheetal Prashad Diwan. In 1993 Mr. Sheetal Prashad Diwan entered into an maintenance agreement with his wife Smt. Shakuntla Rani Diwan giving her the right to recover rent from the tenant, who attorned to her without any demur.

(2.) A Notice dated 26.4.1993 was issued by Smt. Shakuntla Rani Diwan to the tenant complaining of the non-payment of rent. The Notice appears to have been ignored thus necessitating, the filing of a petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), on the grounds of non-payment of rent. Two years thereafter an Order under Section 15 (4) of the Act was passed against the tenant. On non-compliance of this Order, on 17.7.1997, the defence of the tenant was struck off. It is the case of the tenant that at this stage he had entered into a Purchase Agreement with Shri Sheetal Prashad Diwan and that various documents were executed between them. Significantly, a Sale Deed had admittedly not been executed. The eviction petition was decreed on 25.9.1999, and since compliance of the Order had not been made, the benefit of Section 14 (2) of the Act was not extended. The tenant appealed against this eviction order and the Appeal was dismissed on 7.1.2000. The tenant again unsuccessfully assailed the said judgment before the High Court and thereafter by a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In this first stage, therefore, the tenant had comprehensively lost.

(3.) On 13.11.1999 Shri Sheetal Prashad Diwan died. This event is sought to be pressed by the tenant for claiming title under the Will. It has been argued that the landlady/widow Smt. Shakuntla Rani Diwan ought to have taken legal action for declaring this will non est. In Pamela Manmohan Singh v. State & Ors, 2000 3 AD (DEL) 945, I have held that it is to expected that a will should be probated if it was clearly evident that it was likely to be disputed. This finding had been arrived at keeping in view the legal position that in Delhi it was not mandatory for obtaining a Probate of wills. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of tenant has been unable to show any direct evidence that the widow had accepted the genuineness of the documents sought to be relied upon by the tenant as proof of ownership.