SULAKHANA MALHAN Vs. SHASHI KAPOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the revision application filed by the landladies.

(2.) Petitioners No. 1 and 2 arc real sisters and own the plot on which the building is constructed. The plot is in Panchsheel Par'k, one of the Posh localities of Delhi, Petitioner No. 3 is the mother of Petitioners 1 and 2 who are the real sisters. They claim that Respondent No. 2 is the maternal uncle of petitioners 1 and 2. Respondent No. 2 is an elderly Advocate practising in this Court. Respondent No. 1 is the son-in-law who is a tenant in the premises. Considering the relationship between the parties and the fact that Respondent No. 2 is a practising Advocate of this Court, I thought that the matter could be amicably resolved between the parties. This was for another reason also. Respondent No. 1 is the present tenant of the single storeyed structure. Another storey can be easily constructed on it. Petitioner No. 2, who is a widow and who has recently came from England, wants to construct a first floor for her personal residence. Respondents initially took let of initiative in the construction. But they do not want that the first storey should be constlucted as it might cause them inconvenience. Respondent No. 2, however, strongly opposed any idea of a mutual settlement. He, in fact, denied all relationship with the petitioners. I had. therefore, to proceed with the hearing.

(3.) Originally the plot was owned by Petitioner No. 1. A single storey structure was constructed on it. Through the intervention of Respondent No. 2, Respondent No. 1, the son-in-law, was inducted as a tenant on 11-10-76. The lease deed was prepared by Respondent No. 2. In the earlier proceedings before this Court, this Court on going through the leasedeed had found that Respondent No. 2 had a dominant role of a sole arbiter in the said lease deed. Respondent No. 1 moved in the premises in January, 1977. By this time petitioner No 2 was overcome by the tragedy of loss of her husband in England. The necessity of constructing the first floor then arose. But since the plot was in the Cooperative Society petitioner No. 2 could not have constructed the first floor unless she was occupied as a member of the Society and shared the said plot and the first floor as an owner. On February 7, 1977, Respondent No. 2 wrote the following letter for permission to transfer to the Chairman of the Society :