GANGA SAHAI RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. MAUJI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Additional Rent Controller granted the respondent an ejectment decree on the ground of bona fide personal requirement under section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. As the case was decided under the procedure prescribed by section 25-B of the Act, the tenant has petitioned this court under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Act. In support of the revision petition it is submitted that there are legal errors and a failure to properly apply the provisions of Section 14(l)(e) of the Act to the facts of the case.

(2.) To understand the case of the petitioner, it is necessary to state some of the basis facts. The tenant is a partnership firm M/s Ganga Sahai Rajinder Kumar. The petitioner before this Court is this firm through Sadha Ram Gupta, one of its partners. Some objection was taken that the revision is not properly filed because Sadhu Ram Gupta was not a partner of this firm when the tenancy was originally created. This point was raised first in reply to the stay application whereby the petitioner had prayed for stay of the eviction decree. It was there stated that the partner of M/s Ganga Sahai Rajinder Kumar at the time the property was let out in 1961 were Rangi Lal, Mata Deen and Chiranji Lal. Sadhu Ram Gupta who had filed the revision petition was not a partner at that time. It was claimed that Sadhu Ram Gupta had become a partner after the eviction order had been passed and, therefore, the revision was not competent as Sadhu Ram Gupta was not a tenant. It was urged in reply that the firm was a tenant and whoever becomes a partner in the firm would also become a tenant. I had heard the contentions of the parties on this point but left the same undecided as it requires assertainment of additional facts. The eviction petition filed before the Rent Controller showed that the tenant is M/s Ganga Sahai Rajinder Kumar and it was stated that Rangi Lal and Banwari Lal were the persons residing in the premises along with their families. This was stated against paragraph 5 of the printed form used for eviction petitions under the Rent Control Act. In reply to the eviction petition, the written statement was filed under the signature of Rangi Lal, who merely denied paragraph 5. There is no mention of Sadhu Ram Gupta in that paragraph. In fact, the pleading is that the premises were residential-cum-commercial and were used for residence-cum-commercial purposes from the very inception by the tenant. A replication was filed on behalf of the landlord stating that the pleas in the written statement were denied and it was reaffirmed that Shri Rangi Lal and Shri Banwari Lal, partners of the firm, were residing in the premises. A considerable number of documents wese fild in the case and I have not been able to find the name of Sadhu Ram Gupta mentioned anywhere.

(3.) It appears that what is stated by the counsel for the respondent is correct and probably Sadhu Ram Gupta was not a partner in the firm when the tenancy was created. However, as the case relates to a partnership firm, I am not in a position to determine whether Shri Sadhu Ram Gupta has also acquired any title in the tenancy or is merely entitled to use the same after having become a partner. I do not over rule the preliminary objection, but I propose to deal with the merits of the case and in case I hold that the eviction petition has been wrongly allowed only then it will be necessary for having an enquiry as to the competency of the revision petition.