KHEM CHAND RAMESH KUMAR Vs. VIJAY MEHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RC. REV. No.347/2014 and C.M. Nos.17682/2014, 17684-86/2014

(2.) (i) It is relevant, at this stage, to state that in the eviction petition a total of eight persons were arrayed as respondents with the present petitioner arrayed as respondent no.6 in the eviction petition. Present petitioner is only an illegal subtenant who was inducted by the tenant/respondent no.6 herein/respondent no.1 in the eviction petition. As per the eviction petition, only the respondent no.1 in the eviction petition was a tenant whereas respondent nos.2 to 8 to the eviction petition were pleaded to be illegal sub tenants. The tenant being the respondent no.1 in the eviction petition filed his leave to defend application, and separate leave to defend applications were also filed by the respondent nos.2 to 8 in the eviction petition; though through the same counsel. Whereas respondent nos.2 to 7 in the eviction petition pleaded that they were independent tenants and not illegal sub tenants as was the case of the landlords, respondent no.8 in the eviction petition claimed that he had become owner by adverse possession and that even his father was owner on account of his being in adverse possession of the portion presently with the respondent no.8 in the eviction petition.

(3.) A reference to the eviction petition shows that the entire suit/tenanted premises were owned by one Sh. Madan Lal (predecessor-ininterest of respondent nos.1 to 5 herein) and who had purchased the same in the year 1967. Sh. Madan Lal had executed a Will dated 16.12.1970 in favour of his wife Smt. Bimla Wati and who after the death of Sh. Madan Lal became the owner of the property. Smt. Bimla Wati had executed a Will dated 10.10.1991 in favour of her two sons, namely Sh. Manmohan (wrongly typed as Madan Mohan in the impugned judgment) and Sh. Jagmohan and these two sons became co-owners of the suit property on the death of Smt. Bimla Wati. Sh. Manmohan died leaving behind the Will dated 17.6.2001 bequeathing his share in the suit property to his wife and who was petitioner no.1 in the eviction petition and the respondent no.1 herein. Sh. Jagmohan had died intestate and his share devolved upon all his legal heirs, the other petitioner nos.2 to 5 in the eviction petition (petitioner no.2 was the widow of Sh. Jagmohan) and who are arrayed as the respondent nos.2 to 5 herein. Accordingly, the five petitioners in the eviction petition were pleaded to be the co-owners of the entire premises.