RAM CHAND PRITHVI CHAND Vs. VIRENDER KUMAR MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition challenging the order ofeviction passed by the Additional Controller dated 19/08/1992. I maymention that the leave to defend application of the petitioner was declinedand the eviction order was passed on the ground of eviction covered byclause (e) of proviso to Sub-section 1 of Section 14 of the Delhi RentControl Act.

(2.) One of the pleas raised in the leave to defend application wasthat respondent is not the owner of the flat in question. The respondenthad produced alongwith his affidavit a photocopy of the memorandum ofpartition allegedly supplied to him which showed that the flat in questionhad been allotted in ownership of R. K. Mittal whereas the respondent hadfiled original memorandum of partition alongwith his petition seekingeviction showing that the flat in question, in fact, had been allotted to himin partition amongst four brothers.

(3.) Originally, the property belonged to H. C. Mittal who died in1988, The respondent is also relying on some note of H. C. Mittal madein 1971 to show that H. C. Mittal wanted that the flat in question should,after his death, go to the share of the respondent.