RAHUL INT MKTING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. JAI GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally petitioner took premises for 2 years u/S. 21 of DRC Act. On expiry of period landlord applied for possession against petitioner no. 2 who was residing in premises. Objection was that no. 2 was not tenant. Landlord then wanted to apply against Petitioner no. 1 but he was non-suited on the ground of limitation of 6 months. Landlord then filed instant petition u/S. 14 (i)(e) of DRC Act against both petitioners No. 2 was M.D. of no. 1. Landlord was living in a tenanted premises at Daryaganj and his landlord had sued him for eviction. Tenant denied ownership of landlord contending that premises was let for residential-cum-commercial purposes and that premises was not bonafide required by landlord. ARC decreed landlord's claim and tenant filed CR.l After detailing above. Judgement is.

(2.) First let me deal with the question of ownership. According to the landlord the President of India had granted a perpetual lease in his favour with respect to the plot on which the suit property is constructed. The perpetual lease deed is dated 5th July 1974. The original lease deed is Ex. A-l. This leaves no doubt about the fact that the respondent herein, i.e. Jai Gopal Guglani was the owner of the property. I am using the word 'was' because during the pendency of the present proceedings Jai Gopal Guglani died and his legal reprentatives have been brought on record vide an order passed by this court.

(3.) Apart from the fact that the document Ex. A-1 is sufficient to clinch the issue of ownership of the property in favour of the respondents, the plea of the tenants in this behalf is also such that the tenants are nut entitled to raise any controvesy on this point. They have only pleaded that Jai Gopal, the petitioner in the eviction petition was not the owner of the property in suit They have nowhere suggested that who else was the owner of the property, if not Jai Gopal Guglani. Further this fact was not disputed that rent was paid to him. It is also to be noted that the legal position about proof of ownership in petitions u/S. 14 (l)(e) of the Act is now clear. The landlord is not required to prove ownership in the sense one is required to do so in a contest based on title to property. Therefore tenants in such cases normally do not claim title to the property. Therefore, it is not a contest based on title to property. The tenants have been encouraged to deny ownership only in view of this statutory provision which uses the word 'owner'. By denying ownership the tenants try to ensure that at least the case goes on for trial. It is basically this reason for which the plea of denial of ownership is raised by the tenants in case u/S. 14 (1)(e)ofthe Act.