PARVINDER KAUR Vs. RAMESH KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER impugned before this Court is the order dated 17.01.2012 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) which has endorsed the finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 01.06.2011 vide which the objections filed by the applicant Parvinder Kaur seeking setting aside of the eviction decree dated 13.08.2009 had been dismissed.

(2.) CERTAIN facts are undisputed. The original tenant was Jagjit Singh; he had died on 17.02.2007; he had left behind one son Jaswinder Singh as also a widow and a married daughter. The eviction petition had been filed in the year 2009 arraying Jaswinder singh as a legal representative of the deceased Jagjit Singh; contention being that he was in occupation of the disputed shop after the death of his father; in fact Jaswinder Singh had also filed an application under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) seeking deposit of amount in lieu of premises which was stated to be under his tenancy. The application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant Jaswinder Singh had been dismissed by the ARC on 13.08.2009; eviction decree had fallen in the hands of the landlord. The revision petition filed against the judgment dated 13.08.2009 was dismissed by the High Court on 15.01.2010; the contention in the revision petition was largely to the effect that the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties as all the legal heirs of Jagjit Singh have not been impleaded as parties; revision petition was dismissed on 15.01.2010; execution proceedings followed which were filed on 19.02.2010. Three days after i.e. 22.02.2010, the present objections had been filed by the sister of Jaswinder Singh namely Parvinder Kaur claiming herself as another legal representative of Jagjit Singh and had sought a right of hearing independent to that of Jaswinder Singh; her contention is that impleadment of Jaswinder Singh alone as the legal representative of Jagjit Singh did not suffice and she was also required to be heard. These objections were filed by the objector on 22.02.2010. Pertinent would it be to note that in the entire objection petition, it is not the case of the objector/applicant that her interest was at variance with that of her brother Jaswinder Singh or that she has any independent title or right in the suit property; her contention only being to the effect that she also being a co-tenant along with her brother, she was also required to be heard. Oral submissions made by the objector/applicant are to the effect that she is a married daughter and she was living in a separate independent accommodation; she was not aware whether her brother was in occupation of this shop or that he was contesting the proceedings right up to the High Court; objection petition further states that recently she came to know about the dismissal of the revision petition in the High court; how and when she came to know about this has neither been averred in the objection petition and neither hers counsel is in a position to this query posed to him.

(3.) THESE objections were rightly dismissed as this objector is not claiming any independent title; she is only claiming as a legal representative along with her brother Jaswinder Singh; objection petition also nowhere states that her interest in the suit premises is at variance with that of her brother Jaswinder Singh. Being a married sister, how she came to know about the litigation which was being fought by her brother right up to the High court and within three weeks of the dismissal of the petition of her brother in the High Court, she had filed a separate claim has not been explained.