LAWS(DLH)-1992-9-41

SARLA LUTHRA Vs. GADORE TOOLS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

Decided On September 28, 1992
SARLA LUTHRA Appellant
V/S
GADORE TOOLS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question falling for determination in this revision petition filed under section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short the Act. falls in a very narrow campass.

(2.) The petitioner claiming to be the exclusive owner in respect to the ground floor premises of property bearing No. 151, Golf Links, New Delhi, under the tenancy of respondent No. 1, sought eviction of the tenant from the tenancy premises, by invoking the provisions of section 14-D of the Act. The avrments, set out in the eviction petition, as culled from the impugned order, were that late Rai Bahadur Jai chand Luthra was the owner of this property, and landlord of respondent No. 1. in respect to the ground floor premises alongwith one garage and two servant quarters, having let out the same to the said respondent.

(3.) It was further pleaded that the said owner/landlord had bequeathed this, property to his three sons who became co-owners after his death. They were Lt. Col. Manmohan Singh Luthra, Maj. Gen. Surinder Mohan Luthra and Shri Joginder Nath <PG>54</PG> Luthra. The petitioner further alleged that by virtue-of the bequest, the ground floor portion, which was under the tenancy of respondent No. I, fell exclusively to the share of Lt. Col. Manmohan Singh Luthra, husband of the present petitioner, and thus respondent No. I became a tenant under said Lt. Col. Manmohan Singh Lulhra. Lt. Col. Manmohan Singh Luthra having since died, the eviction petition was brought by her as being a widow, claiming to be landlady of the premises, on the plea that her late husband had be queathed this property to her, and after his death,she has become exclusive owner. There was a specific plea that respondent No. 1 has been attorning to the petitioner after the death of her husband. She also pleaded that she had no other accommodation in her occupation in Delhi, and she required the tenancy premises for her residence as well as members of her family dependent upon her for residence.