MOTI LAL Vs. MANJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision under proviso to S. 25B (8) the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act).

(2.) One Jaswant Singh field an application for eviction under Section 25B on the allegation that he required bonafide the premises with the petitioner tenant. But before the matter could be concluded he died on 31-7-76. The. present application has been filed by Manjit Singh. Inderpal Singh who are sons of Jaswant Singh and Narinder Kaur his widow. This application was filed on 12.10,76. The petitioner tenant filed an application under Sec 25B(4) and (5) for leave to contest the application for eviction. Objection was taken that in view of the earlier application filed by Jaswant Singh the present application was incompetent. Objection was also taken that there was sufficient accommodation to meet the needs of the landlords. It was also pleaded that Narinder Kaur was riot owner and was merely the landlady and not owner and right under the will was given to her merley to collect the rent whereas Manjit Singh and Inderpal Singh were not landlords, but merely owners and as the application for eviction cannot be maintained because'the same must be filed by the owner- landlord. Objection was also taken that there were four rooms with the applicants and this was sufficient accommodation and the requirment was therefore not bona fide;

(3.) The trial court by the impugned order has refused leave. In its order refusing leave it has discussed in detail that the right given to Narinder Kaur under the will to collect reat is in the nature of owner and therefore her position is that of an owner. The trial Court has also noticed that though in the latest decision of the Supreme Court in 1976 Rajdhani Law Reporter 605 the applicants who are the legal representatives of Jaswant Singh could maintain the petition and has held that the mere fact that the aplication could have continued does not mean that a fresh application is malafide. He has also pointed out that the acceptance of rent on 1-10-76 after the tenancy had been determined with effect from 30-9-76 could not amount to withdrawal of notice. As for sufficiency of the accommodation he has proceeded on the assumption that even if four rooms were there with the landlords, as total number of the family are seven, the accommodation is not sufficient.