OM PARKASH GUPTA Vs. BANARSI DAS PERHIAD RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question involved in this second appeal is about the scope of section 15, of of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, herein called 'the Act.'

(2.) Messrs Banarsi Dass Prahlad Rai, respondent No. 1 was a partnership firm cosisting of two partners, viz. Prahlad Rai and Mool Chand. Certain premises in property No. 5066, Rui Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi were under the tenancy of the said firm. The partners could not pull on together and they partitioned the premises. Portion shown as red in the plan attached to the eviction petition fell to the share of Prahlad Rai, who continued to carry on his business in the said firm name of Banarsi Dass, Prahlad Rai, as its sole proprietor ; while the remaining portion of the tenanted premises fell to the share of Mool Chand, father of 0m Parkash Gupta, the appellant. The partners also agreed to share amongst themselves the rent of the Premises. Accordingly respondent No. 1 started paying rent for his portion at the rate of Rs.56/ 56 per month. The balance amount was paid by Mool Chand. Mool Chand died sometime thereafter and Om Parkash Gupta, the appellant, occupied the portion which had fallen to his share. Subsequently, Om Parkash Gupta purchased the entire property and became the owner thereof. Respondent No. 1 as a result of this purchase becama a tenant under the appellant.

(3.) 0m Parkash Gupta, the appellant, then brought a petition for eviction of the respondents from the premises in dispute on the ground, inter alia of non-payment of rent. According to him, respondent No. 1 was the tenant under him on a monthly rent of Rs. 56.56 and had not paid rent with effect from September 6, 1968 in spite of registered notice of demand. Respondent No. 1, on the other hand, pleaded in reply that he was a tenant of the entire shop bearing Municipal No. 5066 including the portion comprised of one small room and a part of the Chabutra which has been allotted to Mool Chand and which had been reconstructed in the meantime. The Petition was said to be for partial eviction and, therefore, not maintainable. Mool Chand was said to be a mere licensee, who was allowed by respondent No. 1 to carry on business in a small room and a part of the Chabutra. The appellant had occupied that portion on the death of Mool Chand on July 5. 1964 A sum of Rs. 105.00 per month was the agreed rent of the entire premises As a portion of the tenanted premises had been taken away from the possession of Respondent No. 1, the latter was entitled to suspend payment of rent.