JAGDISH CHANDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been brought against order dated December 17, 1982, of the District Judge, Delhi, by which he had dismissed the objection petition filed by the appellant under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for annulment and revocation of letters of administration already granted in favour of respondent No. 2-Inderjit Marwah on the basis of a will allegedly executed by Hakumat Rai. The appellant was held to be having no locus standi to challenge the letters of administration granted in favour of respondent No. 2.

(2.) Admittedly, the appellant is a tenant in a portion of house No. 10/2461, Beadon Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Hakumat Rai and his wife had brought an eviction case against the appellant on the ground of bona fide requirement for residence but they remained unsuccessful in that effort upto the High Court. After the death of his wife, Hakumat Rai is stated to have brought another eviction case against the appellant in which he pleaded that his wife had executed a will in his favour. The ground of eviction set up again was bona fide requirement for residence. The Additional Rent Controller negatived the said ground giving the finding that the will has not been proved and Hakumat Rai was not the sole owner of the property inasmuch as there were daughters etc. also co-owners of the property having inherited the property from Hakumat Rai's wife. In appeal the finding was given that Hakumat Rai, being admittedly one of the co-owners, could plead the ground of bona fide requirement but the ground of bona fide requirement was negatived on merits. It must be made clear that Hakumat Rai had died during the pendency of the appeal and respondent No. 2 was substituted in his place on the basis of letters of administration obtained by respondent No. 2 with regard to the estate left by Hakumat Rai. Respondent No. 2 has filed an appeal against judgment of the Rent Control Tribunal and the same is pending in this Court which is S.A.O. No. 363/82. Inderjit--respondent No. 2 has filed another eviction case against the appellant on the ground of non-payment of rent and it has been pleaded in that case that the tenant had already enjoyed benefit of Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in a previous eviction case brought on the ground of non-payment of rent and he is not entitled to have benefit of Section 15(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act again. The appellant has initially filed a petition under Order IX Rule 13. of the Code. of Civil Procedure before the District Judge seeking setting aside of the order dated April 3, 1980, of the District Judge granting probate and letters of administration in favour of Inderjit in respect of the estate of Hakumat Rai. He has filed the objection petition under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act on April 24, 1980.

(3.) It was pleaded in this petition by the appellant that Inderjit is not son of Hakumat Rai, deceased and in fact, he is son of one Shri Prem Nath, who is also one of the tenants in the property in question and no issue was born out of the wedlock of Hakumat Rai and Amrit Rani and Inderjit after practising fraud on the court had contained the aforesaid probate and letters of administration on the basis of a forged will. It was also pleaded by the appellant that no adoption deed of any kind was executed to show that Inderjit was adopted son of Hakumat Rai. It was also pleaded that Hakumat Rai had no daughters but Inderjit had shown Smt. Ajit Chopra and Smt. Madhu Bala as daughters of Hakumat Rai while in fact, Smt. Art Chopra is the real sister of Inderjit while Smt. Madhu Bala is a daughter of Joginder Singh Bhalla (wife's broker of Hakumat Rai). Then reference was made to a statement made by Hakumat Rai in the court of Smt. Kanwal Inder, Additional Rent Controller, in the eviction proceedings that Inderjit was not born from the womb of Smt. Amrit Rani.