JAGDISHLAL AGGARWAL Vs. BALDEV RAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant felt aggrieved by the impugned order of the RentControl Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) dated 11/10/1979. By the impugnedorder the Tribunal while reversing the order of the Additional Rent Controller (inshort the ARC) held that there did not exist any relationship of landlord/tenantbetween the appellant and the respondents.

(2.) The questions for consideration in this appeal are (1) Whether respondentsare tenants in the property in question; (2) Whether the property in dispute wasbequeathed to Shri Hukanri Chand Jain by virtue of a Will and/or being the adoptedson of Smt. DroptiDevi.(3) Whether Dropti Devi had no right to execute a Willbecause it is alleged that the property was alienated by her to a Trust by registeredTrust Deed.

(3.) In order to determine the above questions, the brief facts of the case are thatrespondents Baldev Raj and Mohan Lal are residing in property bearing No. 771-772, Chabi Ganj, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. The appellant herein Shri Jagdish RaiAggarwal purchased this property from Hukam Chand Jain stated to be the ownerand landlord of the property in question. The appellant filed eviction petitionagainst respondents hereinon 23/01/1963 on the ground that they haveacquired respondents have acquired vacant possession of their own houses and onthe ground that they damaged the property. The petition was filed under Section14(1 )(h) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short the Act), It was further the caseof the appellant that respondents were residing in the tenanted premises as subtenant of Mr. S.N. Bhatnagar who was the tenant in the suit property. It was Mr.Bhatnagar who inducted Mr. Baldev Raj as sub-tenant. Respondent No. 2 is thefather of respondent No. 1. After 20/02/1958 they became direct tenantsof the appellant i.e. his predecessor in interest. It was also pleaded that therespondents recognised, in earlier suit for ejectment filed by Hukam Chand Jain,that he was owner and landlord of the premises in question. After purchase of thisproperty by the appellants, they stepped into the shoes of Hukam Chand and thusbecame owner/landlord of the premises. The petition for eviction filed by theappellant against the present respondents was dismissed by the learned are sofar as relief of eviction under Section 14(l)(h) and (j) are concerned. He, however,held that there existed relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Therespondents felt aggrieved with this finding of learned ARC, therefore, preferredan appeal. In the appeal as mentioned above, the Tribunal reversed these findings.