PUSHPA DEVI Vs. LAXMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has impugned the order of the Additional Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ,,ARCT) dated 18.07.2011 which had endorsed the findings of the Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the ,,ARC) dated 04.01.2008 in MC No.05/2007 which was an objection petition under Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the ,,DRCA) preferred by the appellant in the course of the execution proceedings. Relevant would it be to state that vide judgment and decree dated 02.04.1997, the eviction petition of the landlord had been decreed under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA; this was upheld vide the order fo the ARCT dated 15.05.2001. The landlord is Laxman Singh and tenant against whom the order of eviction had been passed was Dharampal. The objection petition under Section 25 (a) had been preferred by the wife of the tenant Dharampal; her contention being that she was a tenant in her own individual right and tenancy had in fact been created in her favour right from the very inception; her husband had no interest in the suit premises. Vide the order of the ARC dated 04.01.2008 these objections had been dismissed. They were confirmed by the judgment pronounced on 18.07.2011 by the ARCT. THIS judgment is now the subject matter of the present petition.

(2.) RECORD shows that Laxman Singh is the landlord of the disputed premises; he had described the disputed premises in the eviction petition as property bearing No. 216-B, Village Humayunpur, New Delhi; it comprised of one room and verandah on the ground floor. The contention of the objector is that this property bears No. 216-E; property No. 216-B and 216-E are two distinct properties; the identity of the suit premises not having been depicted correctly in the impugned judgment, it suffers from an illegality and perversity on this count. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has all along stated that she was a tenant in her independent capacity and even in the written statement in the eviction petition filed by her husband Dharampal contention was that this tenancy had been created in favour of his wife. Both these contentions not having been appreciated in the correct perspective, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

(3.) THE written statement filed in the eviction petition by her husband Dharampal had made a demur that this tenancy had been created in favour of his wife yet this was never pressed and did not become an issue in the eviction proceedings. THE petition under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA had been decreed in favour of the landlord on 02.04.1997 which judgment had been upheld by the order of the ARCT on 15.05.2001. On merits up to now, the petitioner has no objection. It has never been contended that the order of eviction passed under Section 14 (1)(a) of the DRCA for non-payment of rent on account of three consecutive defaults suffers from any infirmity; this is not the subject matter of dispute before this Court. THE only objection is that the tenancy of the Pushpa Devi was independent and Dharam Pal was in fact not the tenant. Dharam Pal as noted supra had never pressed this issue.