RENU VIJ Vs. KAUSHIK BHATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the order dated 19th July, 2000 passed by the Court of Additional Rent Control Tribunal, Shahdara, Delhi, allowing appeals of the respondent No.2, against orders dated 29th April, 1999 of the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, holding that petitioner is a necessary and proper party in the eviction proceeding filed by respondent No.2 against respondent No.1. The controversy involved in these tow petitions is the same and, therefore, the same are being disposed of by this common order. CM. (M) 538/2000:

(2.) In this case Jai Parkash (respondent No.2 ) filed a petition for eviction under Sections 14(l)(a) and 14(l)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act against Daljeet Singh Bhatia- respondent No. 1 (hereinafter "the Tenant") in respect of a portion of the property No.355, Gali No.2, Saraswati Bhandar, Gandhi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, consisting one room on the ground floor with common toilet and bath (hereinafter, referred to as 'the suit property'). It is pleaded that he had purchased the said property from its earlier owner Amrit Lal, through a registered Sale Deed dated 10.2.1998; thereafter tenant was asked to pay the rent to him and despite service of notice, rent was not paid. It is also pleaded that tenant was not staying in the suit premises and has sublet, assigned and otherwise parted with possession to some other person and that he was residing in Dayanand Vihar, Delhi. Respondent No. 2 also pleaded about earlier litigation pending between him and the petitioner, in respect to the suit property.

(3.) The tenant filed written statement pleading that he was inducted in the suit premises by Krishan Lal (husband of the petitioner) on the basis of rent agreement dated 11.3.1985. He had been issuing rent receipts to him against payment of rent; he died in October, 1992 and thereafter his widow Smt. Renu Vij (petitioner herein) started collecting rent without objection from any other person. It is pleaded that the suit premises are being used for commercial purposes right from the inception of the tenancy.