LACHHMI DEVI Vs. HIRA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Was defendant in the suit for possession and recovery of mesne profits filed by the respondents/plaintiffs who are two in number.

(2.) The suit was filed on 14.9.1972. The plaintiffs alleged that Mr. Ram Sarup-hasband of the defendant was tenant in respect of one room and a Kotha in house bearing No. 4820, Phatak Namak, Hauz Qazi,Delhi,at a monthly rent of Rs. 18.00 . Tenancy of Mr. Ram Sarup was stated to have been terminated with effect from 31.1.1969. Since, as alleged, he did not surrender the tenancy he was merely a statutory tenant. It is stated that some time in January, 1971, Mr. Ram Sarup surrendered possession of the Kotha and promised to surrender possession of the room as well. But he died on 9.11.. 1971 leaving behind the defendant as his widow. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the present suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the defendant. The defendant denied that she a was statutory tenant and stated that earlier the plaintiffs had filed an application under Section 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 seeking permission to file a petition for eviction against her husband which was dismissed by the Competent Authority on 410.1967. An appeal against that was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 30.4.1998. It was stated that Mr. RamSaroup husband of the defendant continued to be the tenant of the plaintiffs. It was also stated that defendant was wrongly deprived of one room by the plaintiffs which act on the part of the plaintiffs was tortious. The trial court framed seven issues and these were : - 1. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. ? 2. Whether the suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are the owners of the property bearing Municipal No. 4820, Hauz Qazi, Phatak Namak, Delhi ? OPP 4. Whether Sb. .Ram Sarup was a statutory tenant at the time of his death as alleged ? If not, to what effect ? OPP 5. Whether defendant is a tenant under the plaintiff ?OPD 6. To what amount, the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant? OPP 7. Relief.

(3.) During the pendency of the suit Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 came to be amended by the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976. In fact the Amendment Act repealed an ordinance which had been issued earlier. Definition of the tenant under Clause (1) of Section 2 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 was amended. Under this the tenancy became heritable and vidow could become tenant provided she was financially dependant on her deceased husband on the date of his death if the deceased husband was a tenant in the premises. The defendant, therefore, amended her written statement and took up the plea that she had been living in the premises with her husband as a member of his family upto the date of his death and had no independent income and thereafter became a tenant in respect of the premises under the provisions of the amending Act, In the replication it was denied that the defendant was financially dependant on her husband at the time of his death. No particulars were given as to how it could be said that the defendant was not financially dependant on her deceased husband at the time of his death.