RAJ KUMAR BANSAL Vs. DINA NATH SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dina Nath Sharma, respondent herein (petitioner before Trial Court) sought eviction of his premises under the tenancy of the petitioner herein under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act). Leave to defend was sought, inter alia, on the ground that the respondent herein was not the landlord/owner of the premises in question nor he let out the premises, that the premises was let out for residential-cumcommercial purpose, that the landlord had sufficient accommodation in his possesion. By the impugned order dated 25th September, 1996 the learned Additional Rent Controller declined to grant the leave to defend, hence this petition.

(2.) The landlord in the eviction petition had pleaded that the poperty in question was in the name of his mother. His mother made a 'Will' and bequeathed this property in his name. That by virtue of the 'Will' dated 12th January, 1991 he succeeded to the estate of his mother Smt. Ram Wati. That the tenanted premises formed part of the estate left behind by his mother. He thus became owner of this property. The petitioner herein in the leave to defend application specifically pleaded that the probate obtained by the present respondent had already been challenged by other legal heirs of late Smt. Ram Wati. It was further specified that the execution and operation of that probate had been stayed by the Court concerned. In this view of the matter the ownership right of the present respondent (petitioner before the Trial Court) was under challenge. Until that was decided he could not call himself the owner of this premises. Since his ownership was disputed, therefore, petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was not maintainable.

(3.) In the reply affidavit, this respondent admitted that after the grant of probate by the Court of the District Judge, Delhi some persons challenged the grant of probate in his favour. He, however, took the plea that the said challenge was not made by any legal heir of late Smt. Ram Wati. He admitted that the proceedings regarding that probate were pending before the District Judge, Delhi. He asserted that his right over the property was not violated because he inherited the property by virtue of the 'Will'.