(1.) This is a suit for possession under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Parties are relations. Deceased Smt. Kiran Wati was the owner of property No. 64, Gobind Park, Gali No. 22, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. She died on 26-3-1992 leaving behind a son Komal Krishan Gupta and two daughters, namely, Mayawati and Vijay Bansal. Komal Krishan also died on 12-5-1992 and defendants are his heirs, defendant No. 1 is widow and defendants 2 to 4 are his sons. Plaintiff is the son-in-law of the deceased Smt. Kiran Wati being the husband of her daughter Mayawati.
(2.) Case of the plaintiff is that he was a tenant of the deceased in part of the aforesaid property at a monthly rent of Rs. 200; he had been in possession and paying rent to Smt. Kiran Wati. He had also deposited rent in her name in the Court of an Additional Rent Controller, Delhi and the rent for subsequent period upto February, 1992 was tendered to the deceased by money orders and after her death he paid rent for the months of March to July, 1992 to Smt. Archna Singhal against receipts who became the owner of the property by virtue of a Will of the deceased in her favour; that the defendants had unsuccessfully tried to disposses him on several occasions; however, on 18-7-1992 when he was out of station, he has been dispossessed and his goods and valuables removed in collusion with the police, and the police has not taken action on his complaints. He accordingly filed the suit for restoration of the possession.
(3.) Defendants have filed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is denied that the plaintiff was a tenant or any rent was paid by him to the deceased or he was in possession or was dispossessed from the premises on 18-7-1992 or his goods were lying there and removed as alleged; the deposit of rent was made on false grounds and objections were filed denying the relationship of landlord and tenant and this deposit under section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act does not create the relationship of landlord and tenant. Payment of rent to the deceased by money orders is also denied. It is claimed that the deceased had executed in Will on 13-11-1991 in favour of her son, Komal Krishan Gupta to the exclusion of other heirs and the defendants are heirs of Shri Komal Krishan Gupta; the alleged Will in favour of Smt. Archna Singhal is false; she is not entitled to receive any rent and receipts, if any, issued by her are collusive and meaningless. The defendants are owners and are in exclusive possession of the suit property after death of Shri Komal Krishan Gupta on 12-5-1992. This suit is false and filed in collusion with Smt. Archna Singhal to usurp the property unlawfully, no cause of action arose and is not maintainable. That on 10-7-1992 Shri V.D. Singhal (husband of Smt. Archna Singhal) had hired Goondas to take possession forcibly for which FIR No. 230/1992 was registered against him. On 11-7-1992 Smt., Archna Singhal and her husband had tried to break open the locks; defendants are in possession of the premises.