SANDHYA JAMWAL Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR BHATIA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE learned counsel for caveator/respondent No. 1 is present, caveat stands discharged. CM No. 14209/2006 Allowed subject to just exceptions. + CM (M) No 1648/2006 & CM No. 14208/2006 Respondent No. 1 is the owner/landlord of the entire premises bearing No. R- 141, Greater Kailash Part I, New Delhi. The second floor of the said property was let out to late Shri P.K. Mukherjee at Rs. 225/- per month w.e.f. 01.11.1969. The terms and conditions of the tenancy between the parties are alleged to have been settled orally and subsequently reduced into writing on 04.11.1969. The tenancy was for 11 months.

(2.) THE tenancy was alleged to have been terminated during the lifetime of Shri P.K. Mukherjee even though it had expired by efflux of time. Shri Mukherjee passed away in the year 1987 and it is stated that only his widow, Smt. Preeti Mukherjee inherited the tenancy rights as she was financially dependent upon the deceased. It may be noticed that under the Delhi Rent Control, 1958 (hereinafter to be referred to as, 'the said Act'), residential tenancy is inheritable only by the persons dependent on the deceased tenant. The rent is stated to have been increased to Rs. 247.50 after service of notice dated 16.10.1997 under Section 6A of the said Act providing for statutory increase of rent. Smt. Preeti Mukherjee was alleged to be a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and failed to pay the rent w.e.f. 01.07.2000 resulting in respondent No. 1 filing a petition against her under Section 14(1)(a) of the said Act in May, 2001. The petition was contested inter alia on the ground that the tenancy was inherited also by the other legal heirs of late Shri P.K. Mukherjee. Smt. Preeti Mukherjee also passed away on 01.07.2003 leaving behind one son and two daughters as the legal heirs who were impleaded as parties subject to the objection of respondent No. 1 that they had not inherited the tenancy being not dependent on Shri P.K. Mukherjee.

(3.) THE plea of respondent No. 1 herein was that since Smt. Preeti Mukherjee had passed away, an eviction order is liable to be passed straightaway, while on the other hand, the plea advanced on behalf of the petitioner herein was that the service of notice of termination of tenancy during the lifetime of Shri P.K. Mukherjee had not been proved as Smt. Preeti Mukherjee had also passed away. A further plea advanced on behalf of respondent No. 1 was that after the demise of Shri P.K. Mukherjee, a letter had been sent by Smt. Preeti Mukherjee claiming herself to be the sole tenant and, thus, all other legal heirs had relinquished their right in her favour. Only Smt. Preeti Mukherjee was accepted as a tenant. The office copy of the notice dated 08.03.1976 and the registered cover were placed on record. The trial court found that receipt of the said notice by Shri P.K. Mukherjee had not been proved and since he continued to be a statutory tenant, all his legal heirs became joint tenants. It was held that the eviction order could not be passed straightaway and the case being one of the first default, the tenants were entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the said Act. Thus, an order was passed under Section 15(1) of the said Act for the tenants to pay or deposit in court the entire arrears of rent. This order was passed on 29.09.2004.