RAKESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. MEENA BHATIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 22.7.2014 passed by the first appellate court in case titled Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. Meena Bhatia & Ors. in R.C.A. No. 26/2014 which had upheld the judgment and the decree dated 16.5.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Central) in Suit No. 94/2011 titled Meena Bhatia & Ors. vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma.

(2.) BEFORE dealing with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, it may be pertinent here to give brief background of the case. One Shiv Shanker Rustagi, predecessor -in - interest of the present respondents filed a suit for possession and recovery of damages/mesne profits for use and occupation as well as for permanent injunction in the year 2011 against the present appellant/defendant, Rakesh Kumar Sharma. The case which was setup by the respondents/plaintiffs in the plaint was that one Ram Dayal, father of the present appellant, was a tenant in respect of two baithaks on the ground floor of the property bearing No. 5770, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi. Apart from this, he was permitted to use the latrine, bathroom and open courtyard being the common amenities to Ram Dayal as well as other tenants in the premises in question. It was alleged that Ram Dayal's tenancy was terminated vide notice dated 8.2.1993 and Ram Dayal had expired on 15.6.2005. It was alleged that on account of termination of tenancy of Ram Dayal and by operation of law, under Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, his widow Bharpai Devi inherited the tenancy rights of Ram Dayal as she was living with her husband Ram Dayal and was financially independent on him. Bharpai Devi also became statutory tenant as a notice of termination of her tenancy was also issued to her on 5.3.2008 on the ground of non -payment of rent. Bharpai Devi is also alleged to have died on 28.1.2011. Since no legal heir of Bharpai Devi was living with her, consequently, it was alleged that the present appellant, Rakesh Kumar Sharma, inherited the tenancy only for a limited purpose and for a limited period of one year.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the appellant/defendant. He raised objections with regard to non -joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as it was alleged that there were other legal heirs of Bharpai Devi but they have not been impleaded as a party. The jurisdiction of the civil court was also assailed on account of Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. On merits also, it was stated that all the legal heirs had inherited the tenancy rights not for limited period but for unlimited period and they are covered under the protection of the Rent Act.