ABDUL MATIN Vs. MOHD. RAFI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order impugned before this court is the order dated 16.08.2011 vide which the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend in a pending petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted a two-fold argument; his first contention is that all the legal representatives of the deceased tenant should have been joined and non-joinder of some of the tenants is erroneous and this has raised a triable issue. This submission of the petitioner has no force. There is no dispute that after the death of the original tenant the tenancy devolves upon the legal representatives as joint tenants and not as tenant-in-common and the eviction petition filed by the landlord against one or the other legal representative of the deceased tenant who is in occupation of the premises is a valid petition. This position has been affirmed by the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this court in RC.Rev. No. 17/2008 titled as in Inder Pal Khanna v. Bhupinder Singh Rekhi, 2008 8 AD(Del) 328; there is thus no force in this submission; it does not in any manner raise a triable issue.

(3.) Second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the landlord has another alternate accommodation and this has been specifically averred by the petitioner in his application for leave to defend and for this submission attention has been drawn to para 15 of the application for leave to defend; in this para it has been stated that the son of the petitioner has a plot in Wazirabad Area; petitioner has also another accommodation in Delhi. Admittedly, the accommodation of Delhi has not been specified by the tenant i.e. the detail of the other accommodation; in the corresponding para of the reply the landlord has specifically denied that he has any other accommodation in Delhi; the landlord has specifically averred that the present accommodation which is with the tenant is the only accommodation which he has in Delhi. Further the submission in reply to para 15 is that it is the son of the petitioner who has a plot in Wazirabad; a plot cannot be equated with a residential house which is the property in question.