VIDYA WATI Vs. TAKEN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since we are concerned primarily with the construction of section 25 and secondarily with that of subsections (1) and (4) of section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter called the Act) it would be best to begin by reading these provisions which are as follows:-

(2.) The questions which arise for decision on the facts to be stated later are as below, namely :-

(3.) One Pishori Lal was the tenant of the landlord Takan Dass in respect of these premises. Pishori Lal died in 1957. His heire under the Hindu law are the widow Vidyawanti (appellant herein), three sons of which the eldest was Tarlochan Lal and three daughters. The landlord filed a petition for eviction in 1964 against Tarlochan Lal alone alleging that he alone was the tenant. In the eviction petition, no reference was made to the fact that the original tenant was Pishori Lal. Nor was any reference made to the fact that Pishori Lal had left heirs other than Tarlochan Lal. On April 12, 1967, the landlord obtained an order for eviction against Tarlochan Lal. The first and second appeals filed by Tarlochan Lal against the order for eviction. were dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal and the High Court. Time to vacate the premises had been given to Tarlochan Lal till June 12, 1970. On May 7, 1970 another son of Pishori Lal filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the landlord but the suit was dismissed, and the appeal and the revision against the dismissal also failed. The widow Vidyawanti then filed a civil suit against the landlord for injunction. It was averred that after the death of Pishori Lal, the tenancy was inherited by all his heirs including the widow Vidyawanti. As Tarlochan Lal did not pull on well with the other heirs, a partition took place by virtue of which Tarlochan Lal was allotted some other premises while the present premises fell to the share of the other heirs of Pishori Lal on September 9, 1958. The landlord was thus not justified in filing an application for eviction against Tarlochan Lal along in 1964 as at that time Tarlochan, Lal had no interest in the premises at all. Order for eviction obtained by the landlord against Tarlochan Lal was not, therefore, binding on the other heirs of Pishori Lal who were the real tenants of the premises. During the pendency of the suit) an application for temporary injunction restraining the landlord from taking possession was made by the plaintiff Vidyawanti. That application was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal against the said dismissal was also rejected by the first appellate Court. Vidyawanti then filed a revision under section 115 Civil Procedure Code in the High Court. The said revision came up for hearing before one of us (Deshpande, J.) and was dismissed with the following observation:-