GYANENDER KUMAR VERMA Vs. KAILASH CHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi dated 22.10.2001, by which the appeal of the present appellants against their eviction from suit premises viz. shop bearing No. 1793, Dariba Kalan, as ordered by the Rent Controller has been dismissed.

(2.) . The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that Smt. Rajpati, predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 1 herein had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act') against Smt. Sharbati Devi (respondent No. 2) in the present appeal and Smt. Shakuntala Devi, predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants alleging that Smt. Sharbati Devi, the tenant in respect of the shop in question had unauthorisedly sub-let the same to Smt. Shakuntala Devi without the written permission of the landlord. According to the petitioner Smt. Rajpati alongwith other four ladies, namely, Smt. Inderpati, Smt. Laxmi Devi, Smt. Parkashwati and Smt. Taro Devi were the owners of the suit property and it was managed by one Guljari Lal, husband of Smt. Inderpati. A suit for partition bearing S. No. 470/79 was filed by Smt. Inderpati against the other co-owners in the High Court of Delhi and a preliminary decree for partition came to be passed on 23.7.1980, inter alia, declaring that each co-owner had 1/5th share in the said property. During auction, shop in question was purchased by Smt. Rajpati and in the list of tenants filed in the High Court, Smt. Sharbati Devi was shown as a tenant of the disputed shop No. 1793 at a monthly rent of Rs. 155/- per month. As the shop in question fell under the slum area, the said Smt. Rajpati filed an application under Section 19 of the Slums (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1959 seeking permission to file the eviction petition against the said tenant Smt. Sharbati Devi. In those proceedings, Smt. Sharbati Devi acknowledged and confirmed her relationship of landlord and tenant with Smt. Rajpati. Smt. Shakuntala Devi, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10, CPC for impleading her a party before the said Competent Authority (Slum), which application was, however, dismissed. Permission as sought by Smt. Rajpati was granted and on the basis of which eviction petition was filed.

(3.) . Smt. Sharbati Devi, in her written statement filed before the Rent Controller admitted herself to be the tenant of Smt. Rajpati and came forward with the plea that Smt. Shakuntala Devi who was related to her husband had unlawfully dispossessed her from the premises and was thus in unlawful possession of the premises in question. She later absented from the proceedings.