P JAYANTILAL SHAH Vs. RAMAKANT SANORIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision petition is directed against the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller dated 6.12.1999 declining leave to defend the eviction proceedings filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).

(2.) The landlord claimed in the eviction petition that the property in question was originally owned by M/s. M.L. Sanoriya and Sons, HUF consisting of Shri M.L. Sanoriya and his only son Shri Sajjan Sanoriya. Shri Sajjan Sanoria in turn had three sons, Ramakant Sanoriya, the petitioner in the eviction petition, Shri Suresh Kumar Sanoriya and Shri Hemant Sanoriya. All these persons are stated to be residing in various portions of property bearing No.2/44, Roop Nagar, Delhi. The petitioner, tenant herein is stated to be in occupation of the back side of the first floor labelled as flat No.2. The premises was stated to be let out for residential purposes and it is stated that, in fact, the tenant is no more even residing in the premises and has permanently shifted to Ahmedabad and the tenancy is stated to have been created in the year 1966.

(3.) The landlord claimed that the entire first floor of the property had fallen to his share by way of the mutual partition between the father and the three sons and the oral partition was reduced into a Memorandum of Partition dated 18.1.1988, which was filed in suit No.177/88 before the learned Additional District Judge wherein a decree and judgement has been passed in terms thereof. In pursuance to the partition, the HUF had informed the tenant and the tenant had started paying rent to the sole landlord instead of the earlier HUF.