SRICHAND LONGANI AND SONS Vs. MALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IMPUGNED judgment is dated 10.4.2012; the application filed by the tenant in pending proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA had been dismissed. Eviction petition filed by the landlord had been decreed. Record shows that the present eviction petition had been filed by Mala Devi seeking ejectment of her tenant Srichand Longani & Sons, partnership firm from the disputed premises i.e. a shop in property No.5267/XII, New Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi on the ground of bonafide requirement.

(2.) THIS petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the DRCA). Contention was that the petitioner is the owner and landlady of the disputed premises; this factum is not in dispute. Her submission in the eviction petition is that she is a widow and along with her two daughters wishes to start some kind of business; she has two daughters and with their help she will be able to use this shop at Gandhi Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and to carry out the business; this is the need for herself and her two daughters; further contention being that she has no substantial source of income; eviction petition had been filed accordingly. Averments made in the application seeking leave to defend have been perused. Contention is that the landlord has sufficient accommodation with her and in fact she has 13 shops; there is no reason as to why she requires this particular shop; further contention being that the permission under the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 has not been taken. On this issue it has been pointed out to the learned counsel for the tenant that in view of the judgment of Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. Ratan Lal Bhargava, AIR 1984 SC 367 permission under Section 19 of the Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 is not required for a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA; in this context the Apex Court had held as follows:

(3.) THIS argument is now no longer pressed before this Court. Further contention in para 15 is that the daughters of the petitioner are both married and are living happily in their matrimonial home; the submission of the landlord that she has no sufficient accommodation is wrong; she has also 13 other shops from where she is getting rent. Further submission is that there are no specific denials to these averment made in the reply filed by the landlord. Orally, it has been urged before this Court that this petition has been filed against a dead man as the eviction petition had arrayed Srichand Longani as proprietor of M/s Srichand Longani & Sons; even on the date of the filing of the petition Srichand Longani was a dead man. Record shows that this was not known to the petitioner and when it was brought to the notice of the trial court; the trial court on 06.10.2010 had directed the tenant to disclose the name of the legal heirs of Srichand Longani; on an application under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code in which names of the legal heirs of Srichand Longani as detailed in para no.2 of the said application (page no.225 of the paper book) the said legal heirs had been taken on record. There is no dispute to this factum. Argument urged before this Court is that Srichand Longani is in fact partnership firm and all the partners should have been brought on record; this contention was not urged before the trial court and that is why this submission is missing in the order dated 06.10.2010 wherein the trial court had only directed the tenant to disclose the names of the legal heirs of Srichand Longani which were then taken on record by allowing the landlady to file the amended memo of parties. In this context the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even after the legal heirs of Srichand Longani had been brought on record by way of amended memo of parties yet all of them have not been served and only the petitioner Nand Kishore is contesting the petition and other tenants should have been served separately. Apart from the fact that this submission was never a part of the pleading in the trial court it is even otherwise devoid of any merit. The eviction petition discloses that M/s Srichand Longani & Sons was the original tenant; this was a proprietorship firm of Srichand Longani; if this was a partnership firm, it was the incumbent duty of the tenant to have brought it to the notice of the trial court. Today certain documents to support this factum had been filed on record but not being a part of the trial court this submission now being urged before this Court at this stage cannot be appreciated. Thus what can be deciphered is that Srichand Longani was the original tenant; after his death his legal heirs became joint tenants; they were not tenants -in -common. Impleadment of one tenant is sufficient in the eyes of law. In this context a co -ordinate Bench of this Court in Inder Pal Khanna Vs. Bhupinder Singh Rekhi reported in, 2008 VIII AD (Delhi) 328 as held as follows: