MAHAVIR SINGH DECT Vs. CHANDERWATI RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed against the concurrent judgments: of the Rent Control Tribunal dated 24.1.2012; and the Additional Rent Controller dated 10.10.2011 (an order consequential to the order under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' dated 09.9.2011); by which the eviction petition filed by the respondent (owner/landlady) has been decreed with respect to the suit/tenanted premises bearing no.S-528A, School Block, Shakarpur, Delhi.

(2.) The respondent/landlady filed an eviction petition against the petitioners on the ground of non-payment of rent under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. This eviction petition after trial was decreed in terms of the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller dated 09.9.2011. An eviction decree automatically does not flow after allowing of a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act inasmuch as if the default in payment of rent is the first default, then under Section 14(2) of the Act a tenant gets a right to make deposit of the disputed arrears of rent under Section 15(1) of the Act, and it is only on non-compliance of an order passed under Section 15(1) of the Act that an order is passed directing eviction of the tenant from the suit/tenanted premises. Accordingly, and as stated above, the main petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act was allowed by passing of the judgment in favour of the respondent/landlady by the Additional Rent Controller dated 09.9.2011, and the consequential order of eviction on account of non-compliance under Section 15(1) of the Act, and non-grant of benefit under Section 14(2) of the Act, is in terms of the later order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 10.10.2011, and which order dated 10.10.2011 has directed eviction of the petitioners from the suit/tenanted premises. These judgment and order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 09.9.2011 and 10.10.2011 respectively have been confirmed by the Rent Control Tribunal vide its judgment dated 24.1.2012, which judgment is impugned in the present petition.

(3.) The only issue which is argued before this Court on behalf of the petitioners is that the respondent/landlady is not the owner of the suit/tenanted property, inasmuch as, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners namely Sh.Mahavir Singh was in possession of the suit/tenanted property even prior to the ownership claimed by the respondent/landlady by means of the documents dated 24.12.1986. Be it noted only 'possession' entitlement is claimed as distinguished from any claim of ownership. The petitioners claim that Sh.Mahavir Singh was in fact in possession of the suit/tenanted property even prior to the ownership of the suit property of the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents namely Smt.Mithlesh Kumari (and then her husband Sh.Ram Saran Sharma). The petitioners claim that Sh.Mahavir Singh was in possession of the property around 35 years prior to the filing of the eviction petition and which property is different than the suit/tenanted property bearing no.S-528A.