R S GUPTA Vs. R C BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is a tenant in the first floor of the property in suit. By an agreement dated 1st April, 1993, the premises was let to the petitioner by respondent No. 2, wife of respondent No. 1. The premises was let for purposes of residence on a rent of Rs. 2,000/ - per month. Initially, the period for which the premises was let was 24 months, however, the same could be extended by mutual consent of the parties. In July, 2000 the respondents filed a petition for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the premises was required bow fide by the respondents for themselves and for the members of their family dependant upon them. While the premises was let by respondent No. 2 it was submitted in the petition that respondent No. 1 was the owner of the property and respondent No. 2 had been added as a party to the petition as the premises was let by her. It was alleged in the petition that the respondents were in possession of two bedrooms and a drawing room on the ground floor be sides W.T. bathroom and kitchen, etc. and one drawing room and a bedroom on the 2nd floor. It was also stated in the petition that family of the respondents comprised themselves and two sons, one of whom was Chartered Accountant and the other was carrying on business and was also using part of premises for promotion of his professional work. It was also stated that brothers of respondent No. 1 were all well placed and were also visiting there but they cannot stay in the premises because of shortage of accommodation. On notice of the petition having been served on the petitioner, he filed an application for leave to defend the petition. By the impugned order the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application of the petitioner and passed an order of eviction against him granting him six moths time to vacate the premises. Aggrieved of the order of the Additional Rent Controller, the present petition is filed by the petitioners.

(2.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent No. 1 inasmuch as the premises was let by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner and consequently respondent No. 1 could not maintain the petition for eviction of the petitioner. It is also the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petition is wholly mala fide inasmuch as not only that the rent was increased from time -to -time but it was a counter blast to the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 44 of the Delhi Rent Control Act against the respondents. It is also the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that during the pendency of the petition an additional room was constructed by the respondents on the ground floor of the property and consequently there was no bona fide requirement of the respondents to occupy the premises in suit. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment reported as Raj Bahadur v. Narinder Singh, 1996 Rajdhani Law Reporter (Note) 129, to contend that where the rent was being paid to landlord's brother, the landlord could not file the petition for eviction claiming himself to be the owner of the property.

(3.) have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the judgment cited by him but I have not been able to pursued my self to agree with him. The judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case. In the aforesaid case there was a dispute amongst the brothers about the ownership of the premises and the litigation was also going on between them. It was in these circumstances that the Court held that when the ownership of the premises was disputed and the rent was being paid to one of the brothers, normally leave to defend the petition for eviction should be granted to the tenant. In the present case, there is no dispute that respondent No. 1 is the owner of the property and respondent No. 2 is the wife of respondent No. 1. In the petition itself it is mentioned that respondent No. 2 was made only a Performa party to the petition as the premises was let by her. It clearly shows that the premises was let by respondent No. 2 with the consent and permission of respondent No. 1. Under the Rent Control Act the landlord necessarily need not be the owner. Owner can authorize another person to collect rent on his behalf. That being the position there was no reason to hold that respondent No. 1 who was admittedly the owner of the property could not maintain the petition for eviction against the tenant.