MAHESH AHUJA Vs. SAVITRI MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by an order dated 28. 4. 2008 passed by learned ARC whereby an application of the petitioner for leave to contest filed by the respondent-landlady under section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control act was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner's contention is that an eviction order had been passed against petitioner; whereas the original tenant was one Megh Raj. The tenancy was created in the year 1973 and after the death of Megh Raj, since he was un-married, his mother Smt. Laxmi Ahuja became the tenant. (Smt. Laxmi Ahuja is the mother of petitioner as well ). It is submitted that the eviction petition was not filed against Smt. Laxmi Ahuja who was the actual tenant but it was filed against her legal heirs including the present petitioner and the eviction petition was not maintainable without Smt. Laxmi Ahuja being a party and should have been dismissed. The other ground taken is that an eviction order under section 14-D cannot be passed in summary manner merely on assumptions without any documentary and testamentary evidence establishing relationship of landlord and tenant and ownership of the landlord. It is submitted that the premises was initially let out by late husband of the respondent No. 1 in the year 1973. After death of late Shri Ram Parkash Malhotra, husband of the respondent, the rent was being regularly paid to Shri Rajan Malhotra, his son by an account payee cheque, he being the landlord and Smt. Savitri Malhotra w/o sh. Ram Parkash Malhotra, was not the landlord.

(3.) IT is undisputed fact that Smt. Laxmi Ahuja, mother of the present petitioner had expired on 19. 1. 2006. If it is presumed that she was the tenant, after her death her legal heir would be the joint tenants in the premises and eviction petition filed against the legal heirs would be maintainable. Since Smt. Laxmi Ahuja is no more in this world the petition filed against LRs could not have been dismissed. Since the petitioner filed leave to contest under section 25-B, the issue whether Smt. Laxmi Ahuja should have been made a party does not survive now. The other plea raised in this petition is that original tenant was Shri Megh Raj. This plea is also futile because in leave to defend the petitioner himself stated that Smt. Laxmi Ahuja was the original tenant. It was not his case that Shri Megh Raj was the tenant. As far as the issue of ownership is concerned, none of the other legal heirs of Shri ram Parkash Malhotra, who were made respondents in this petition, claimed to be owner of the property nor laid any claim about ownership. Presuming that after death of Shri Ram Parkash Malhotra, all his legal heirs became joint owners of the property, still the respondent Smt. Savitri Malhotra would be one of the co-owners of the property and as a co-owner and widow of late Shri Ram Parkash malhotra, she had a right to invoke section 14-D and seek eviction from the premises for her requirement. A co-owner of the property, so long as the property is not partitioned, has a right over the entire property and a co-owner for his own requirement can file an eviction petition against a tenant. Even if the rent was being paid by the petitioner by cheque in the name of the son, that was on behalf of all the legal heirs of Shri Ram Parkash Malhotra who inherited the property. Therefore, this ground is not available to the petitioner. No other ground is pressed during arguments.