A.K. NAYAR Vs. MAHESH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Revision Petition was preferred by the petitioner against an order dated 17th November, 1999 of ARC allowing an Eviction Petition of landlord. At the time of filing of the petition on 24th April, 2000, the petitioner had contended that there was no record to show that respondent was owner of the premises. He was only attorney of the owner and had no right in the suit premises. The notice was issued to the respondent limited to the question of ownership of the suit premises.

(2.) THE petition for eviction in respect of property no. C-3/2, Janak Puri under Section 14 (1)(e) DRC Act was filed by Sh. Mahesh Prasad Srivastava, respondent, on the ground of his bona fide requirement. The relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed. Undisputedly , the premises was also let out for residential purpose. The bona fide requirement of the landlord was established through cogent evidence. However, the tenant had taken an objection that Sh. Mahesh Prasad Srivastava was not the owner of the premises. He was only an attorney of the owner and the petition under Section 14(1)(e) was not maintainable. Whereas, the contention of the landlord was that this property was initially purchased by his elder brother Sh. J.P. Srivastava as karta of the family and Sh. J.P. Srivastava had duly authorized him to let it out at that time. Later on, by way of a family settlement, the property fell in his share. He proved the record of family settlement deed as exhibit AW-1/1 and affidavit of his elder brother Sh. J.P. Srivastava executed in his favour, as AW-1/2.

(3.) THE petitioner assailed the order of the learned ARC on the ground that the learned ARC erred in holding that the property was purchased by Sh. J.P. Srivastava as karta and a family settlement was made. The respondent no. 1 had failed to prove that there was an HUF or Sh. J.P. Srivastava was karta of HUF. It is further argued that there were contradictory findings given by the learned ARC. On one hand, ARC observed that Sh. J.P. Srivastava had executed a GPA and an affidavit by virtue of which the ownership rights were transferred and on the other hand, it was stated that there was a family settlement. It is argued by the tenant that there was an effort on part of Sh. Mahesh Prasad Srivastava to grab the property of his brother. The family settlement relied upon by the landlord was not registered document. The rent receipt executed by the landlord shows that he had signed the rent receipt as attorney of Sh. J.P. Srivastava. The plea taken by the landlord that he was owner was a baseless plea.