SATISH KUMAR Vs. MADHUSUDAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is directed against the judgment dated 27th March, 1995 passed by Shri P.D.Gupta, Additional Rent Controller, Delhi. The respondent alleges that he is the owner and landlord of the premises known as 37, Double Storey Quarters, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi and the petitioners are the tenants of the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs.1000.00 which was let out to them in the year 1978. The premises were let out for residential purposes and are being used by the petitioners as such and the said premises are required by the respondent bona fide for himself and his other family members dependent on him. At the time of filing of the petition the respondent was in Government accommodation and subsequently retired from the Government service.

(2.) Therefore, he was required to surrender the accommodation allotted to him by the Government. Petitioner no.1 took the plea that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant and that the respondent has concealed material facts. Originally Quarter Nos.37, 38, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi were purchased in an open auction by Shri Ram Narain father of the respondent and grand father of the petitioners. The said Shri Ram Narain died on 31st December, 1964 but he had executed a Will by which he had given a life interest in both the Quarters to his wife, Smt.Har Kaur and after her death it was desired in the Will that Shri Jagdish Chander shall become owner of Quarter No.38 while Madhu Sudan becomes the owner of Quarter No.37. Smt. Har Kaur, grand mother of the petitioners and mother of the respondent was managing both the Quarters till her death and gave general power of attorney to Shri Madan Mohan for collecting rent and for issuing rent receipts. Thereafter a suit was filed in 1969 when first floor was got vacated. Then the same portion was let out and was again got vacated in 1973. The mother of the respondent and grand mother of the petitioners died on 1st December, 1980. It was alleged that it was mutually agreed between both the brothers i.e. the respondent and father of petitioner no.1 that according to Will of Ram Narain the ground floor portion which was in possession of brother-in-law of the respondent shall become that of the respondent while Quarter No.37 which was in possession of the petitioners shall become the property of Jagdish Chander, father of the petitioners. Smt.Har Kaur, grand mother of the petitioners allegedly created a joint tenancy in Quarter No.37 in favour of petitioner no.1 and his brother Chander Mohan in 1973 at a monthly rent of Rs.50.00 . The brother of petitioner no.1 is not occupying the said portion since 1973. Petitioner no.1 was in exclusive possession of Quarter No.37 and continued to pay rent to Smt. Har Kaur. Shri Jagdish Chander who was named as the owner of Quarter No.38 in the Will in accordance with the compromise and also with regard to the fact that brother-in-law of the respondent was residing in Quarter No.38 never demanded any rent from him. It is next alleged that the respondent has got more than sufficient accommodation and before his retirement in May 1984 he got another employment in Panchkula near Chandigarh from the Department. The petition of the respondent was not maintainable because the sale certificate was executed by the Rehabilitation Department in favour of Jagdish Chander and the respondent only in March 1984 and no petition for personal requirement can be filed before the expiry of five years. Till 1st December 1980 Smt.Har Kaur was managing and recovering rent from petitioner no.1 and thereafter no one has ever claimed any rent. Petitioner no.1 is living at the premises in question in his own right as owner being the heir of Jagdish Chander. Similar pleas have been taken by petitioner no.2. It was, however, also alleged that in view of the oral Will of late Ram Narain, his wife late Smt.Har Kaur is not the land lady of the premises in question by which the first floor premises and ground floor premises of Property Nos. 37, 38, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi will be treated as separate only when the respondent get the ground floor vacated from his brother-in-law Shri S.P.Gandhi. The present petition as a consequence is not maintainable. The premises were let out for residential and commercial purposes and no Order of eviction can be made in respect of the same.

(3.) The petition having been filed under the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the following ingredients have to be proved: