VINOD KUMAR VERMA Vs. MANMOHAN VERMA & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner challenges the order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi in E-141/07/02 dated 1.9.2007 whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (the Act) has been allowed and an eviction order has been passed against the petitioner-tenant. The only point urged before me by the petitioner is that the respondents were not the owners of the suit premises and consequently they were not entitled to invoke the ground of eviction as contained in Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. It is contended that during the course of hearing before the learned ARC, after the parties had led and closed their respective evidence and the matter was at the stage of arguments the petitioner had moved an application to lead further evidence, namely some documents referred to in the Will dated 18.12.1974 executed by Late Shri Bhagwan Dass in favour of Shri Shibbo Mal the father of the respondents. This application was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the decision of this Court in Munni Devi v. Manmohan Verma and Ors., 2006 134 DLT 298decided on 1.9.2006 pertaining to the same document, namely the Will dated 18.12.1974 executed by Shri Bhagwan Dass and the partition deed dated 17.6.1990 which has been relied upon by the respondent in the present case.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondents submits that this Court has already gone into the aspect of ownership of the respondents in relation to the same property bearing No. 3468-3470, Gali Bajrang Bali, Chawri Bazar, Delhi in the aforesaid decision with regard to another portion of the said property in the tenancy of another tenant viz. Triveni Prasad. It is also contended that in other proceedings filed by the petitioner-tenant, he had in fact admitted that the respondent No.2 and Shri Shibbo Mal were the landlord of the suit premises.

(3.) Having considered the arguments of the parties, I am not inclined to agree with the submissions of the petitioner. The order whereby the application of the petitioner seeking to place on record additional document was rejected on 23.8.2006, has not even been impugned by the petitioner. Though a ground has been taken that the petitioner should have been allowed to place the additional document on record, that order is not even place on record. Moreover, from the decision rendered in Munni Devi , it is clear that this Court has already ruled on the aspect of ownership and has held that on the basis of the Will dated 19.12.1974, the partition deed dated 17.6.1990 and the release deed executed by the two sisters of the respondents on 12.4.1997, that the respondents could be considered as owners for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. The relevant extract from the said decision reads as follow: