RAJ KHANNA Vs. MIRA CHAWLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has filed this suit for possession and damages against the defendants in respect of property bearing No. 3, Sri Ram Road, Civil Lines, Delhi - 110054 (for short, hereinafter referred to as the suit property); more particularly shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the plaint. Defendant No. 1 and 2 are cousins of plaintiff's husband Late Shri Pratap Chand Khanna. Plaintiff has alleged in the plaint that the suit property was originally belonged to maternal grandfather of her husband, namely, Shri Sriram Tandon, who bequeathed the same in favour of her husband-Shri Pratap Chand Khanna by way of a registered Will dated 18th March, 1930. The suit property was put into the stock of Joint Hindu Family by Late Shri Pratap Chand Khanna known as P.C. Khanna and Sons, which comprised of Late Shri Pratap Chand Khanna, plaintiff and their son. On 4th February, 1971, a partition took place amongst the members of Joint Hindu Family and suit property fell in the share of plaintiff and she became exclusive owner thereof. Her name was duly recorded in the records of Municipal Corporation in the year 1978. Even prior to the said arrangement plaintiff's husband had let out the suit property to his parental uncle, namely, Shri B.N. Khanna at monthly rent of Rs. 104.50 for residential purposes only sometime in the year 1948. After the partition of the Joint Hindu Family Shri B.N. Khanna was informed about this fact and was requested to pay rent to plaintiff with effect from February, 1971. Accordingly, Late Shri B.N. Khanna started paying rent of the suit property to plaintiff with effect from February, 1971 and acknowledged her as his landlord. Tenancy was terminated by the plaintiff, vide notice dated 13th February, 1981, with effect from 31st March, 1981.

(2.) Shri B.N. Khanna expired in the year 1992. He was survived by his wife Smt. Prakashvati Khanna and three daughters, that is, defendants. At the time of his death only Smt. Prakashvati Khanna was living with him in the suit property as defendants had already been married and residing in their respective maternal home(s). They were not living in the suit property at the time of death of Shri B.N. Khanna. After death of Shri B.N. Khanna his wife Smt. Prakashvati Khanna continued to occupy the suit property being spouse of Late Shri B.N. Khanna and became statutory tenant. Vide notice dated 20th July, 1993 Smt. Prakashvati was requested to increase the rent of suit property by 10% under Section 6(A) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act, for short). With effect from 1st September, 1993 rent of the suit property was increased to Rs. 330/- per month. Thereafter, again rent was increased to Rs. 363/- per month in the year 1996. Smt. Prakashvati Khanna passed away on 7th June, 1997 and upon her death tenancy automatically came to an end. Defendants did not inherit the tenancy under Section 2(1)(iii) of the Act. After the death of Smt. Prakashvati Khanna defendants did not remove her personal belongings. Suit property was lying locked since the year 1997. After the death of Smt. Prakashvati Khanna plaintiff neither demanded nor accepted any rent from the defendants. Since plaintiff and defendants were closely related they were verbally requested by the plaintiff to remove the belongings of their parents. Defendants sought some time to do so. Defendant No. 1, vide letter dated 2nd February, 2000, categorically admitted that she did not have any claim over the suit property and plaintiff was free to take over the possession. Defendant No. 3 had also written to plaintiff to the similar effect. Defendant No. 2 also promised to hand over the possession. However, finally possession was not handed over by them, hence the present suit.

(3.) Plaintiff has alleged that suit property was capable of fetching rent of Rs. 60,000/- per month and defendants were liable to pay damages amounting to Rs. 21,60,000/- for the period 1st June, 2001 to 1st May, 2004. Apart from this defendants were also liable to pay pendente lite and future damages at the aforesaid rates.