BUNDU KHAN Vs. SNEH MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These proceedings emanate from CS 82664/2016 (Sneh Mehta v. Bundu Khan and Ors.) instituted by the respondent against the appellants. The suit was originally instituted against Bundu Khan but, consequent to his death, he was substituted by his legal representatives who, therefore, are the appellants before this Court. Facts

(2.) The respondent Sneh Mehta claimed ownership in respect of a room on the ground floor of property bearing no. 319-A, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi ('the suit property'), having obtained possession of the property in 1993 under an agreement to sell and registered General Power of Attorney and, subsequently, having obtained title under a registered sale deed, executed in favour of the respondent on 24/12/2003. The plaint asserted that, at the time of purchase of the suit property by the respondent, there were four tenants residing therein, namely Shyam Lal, Sat Paul, Daroga Mal and the original defendant Bundu Khan. The respondent also asserted, in the suit, that the previous owner of the suit property Padam Singh wrote to the aforementioned four tenants namely Shyam Lal, Sat Paul, Daroga Mal and Bundu Khan on 2/3/1993, (consequent on the respondent coming into possession of the suit property under the agreement to sell and registered GPA) directing the said four tenants to attorn to the respondent and pay rent to her.

(3.) It was further averred, in the plaint, that, as Bundu Khan was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent, the respondent, vide notice dtd. 2/6/2003, terminated his tenancy with effect from 30/6/2003. Consequent to the said termination, the plaint asserted that Bundu Khan's status was converted from that of a contractual tenant to a statutory tenant. At the time of death of Bundu Khan on 23/6/2009, Fiaz Ahmad, the son of Bundu Khan alone was residing in the suit property, with the remaining legal heirs of Bundu Khan residing elsewhere. As such, the plaint averred that the remaining legal heirs of Bundu Khan, who are Appellants 2 to 7 in the present appeal, were merely proforma parties, as they were unaffected by the outcome of the litigation.