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 bonafide requirement. The relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed. Undisputedly , the premises was also let out for residential purpose. The bonafide 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.) SH. J. P. Srivastava had also executed GPA and an affidavit in favour of his younger brother Sh. Mahesh Prasad Srivastava. The learned ARC observed that the landlord had sufficiently proved his ownership for the purpose of Delhi Rent control Act and the tenant was estopped from challenging ownership from the landlord.