(1.) What are the rights and remedies of an owner of immovable property against an unauthorised occupant and his licensee in respect of the property ? This question arises for consideration in this appeal on the following facts.
(2.) Mrs. Chenoy, Respondent No. 1 is the owner of the premises at 20, Sunder Nagar, the ground floor of which was let out to Dr. Suraj Prakash at Rs. 1000 per month who was alleged to have had consulting medical practice on the premises.
(3.) While a suit by the landlady against Dr. Suraj Prakash for eviction was pending before the Rent Controller, Dr. Suraj Prakash died. The Appellants were brought on record as his legal representatives, but the Rent Controller held that the proceedings for eviction before him abated on the death of the tenant inasmuch as the tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit before the eviction proceedings were filed. Dr. Suraj Prakash had become only a statutory tenant. Therefore, the protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act to him came to an end with his death. As his legal representatives did not inherit either the tenancy or the statutory protection from Dr. Suraj Prakash and as the Rent Controller had no power to order their eviction from the premises, the proceedings before him had abated. Mrs. Chenoy, the owner of the premises, therefore, filed suit No. 456 of 1972 on the original side of this Court against two sets of defendants namely (1) defendants I to 4 who are appellants herein, being the legal representatives of Dr. Suraj Prakash, who are in possession of the premises and (2) Dr. P. K. Kapur defendant No. 5, respondent No. 2 herein, who comes to the premises allegedly to continue the medical practice of Dr. Suraj Prakash after the latter's death. Against the defendants 1 to 4 the suit is for possession. Against defendant No. 5 the suit is for permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit the landlady made an application for the issue of a temporary injunction against the defendants in the following terms namely: