BIMLA WATI SETH Vs. KASTINGS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Respondent/tenant is seeking review of the order of this Court dated 13th February, 1997 primarily on the ground that while disposing the appeal this Court did not consider the effect of the partition of the property in question. In the suit for partition filed by the respondent and other legal heirs the Civil Court granted a preliminary decree of partition. In view of the preliminary decree this respondent alone could not terminate the tenancy nor could file the petition for ejectment. She being the co-owner and the rights having been determined in the preliminary decree other owner had to be joined in the petition. Having failed to do so eviction petition was not maintainable.

(2.) . I have heard Mr. C.K. Mahajan for the applicant/respondent and Mr.R.K. Saini and Mr. Prag Chawla for respondent/appellant.

(3.) . In order to appreciate the contention s now raised, I would like to recapitulate the relevant facts of this case. Applicant/respondent was inducted as tenant by the late husband of the appellant. Since the applicant did not pay the rent regularly and committed default in payment of rent the appellant Smt. Bimla Wati Seth terminated his tenancy and thereafter filed ejectment proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (in short `the Act'). The learned Additional Rent Controller (in short the ARC), Delhi, on the basis of evidence available on record held that Smt. Bimla Wati was the landlady of the remises in question. That the rent had always been paid to her. Theanaging Director of the applicant/tenant appearing in the witness box admitted that rent used to be paid to Smt.. Bimla Wati landlady of the premises in question. That the cheques used to be drawn in the name of Smt. Bimla Wati. On the basis of this admission coupled with the fact that rent by cheques used to be paid to Smt. Bimla Wati concluded that since after the death of her husband she was receiving the rent from the tenant hence under clause (e) of section 2 of the act she was the landlady of the premises. Moreover for an ejectment petition under section 14(1)(a) of the Act the petitioner need not be an owner of the premises. Such a petition could be filed by landlady alone. Hence petition filed by Smt. Bimla Wati was maintainable. The ARC accordingly allowed her petition. That being first default the order was treated to be passed under Section 15(A) of the Act. However. on appeal the Rent Control Tribunal (in short the Tribunal) reversed the finding of the ARC on the ground that though the rent was paid by way of cheques drawn in the name of Smt. Bimla wati even then petition filed by her alone was not maintainable because some of the receipts and correspondence were issued by her son Shiv Kumar. The Tribunal accordingly drew inference that Shiv Kumar being legal heir and had been issuing rent receipts hence he was co-landlord and co-owner with Smt. Bimla Wati. Moreover, Smt. Bimla Wati being General Power of Attorney of Shiv Kumar was acting as landlady on his behalf also, therefore, she alone was not the landlady of the premises in question. The tribunal after drawing the presumption held that Smt. Bimla Wati being the widow inherited the property alongwith her son Shiv Kumar. Since her son was minor she being guardian was receiving the rent on his behalf as well. Hence Shiv kumar and Bimla Wati were co-landlord and co-owner of the property in question. Being co-landlady she alone could not file eviction petition. Accordingly the Tribunal reversed the finding of the learned ARC. It is in this backdrop that Smt. Bimla Wati filed this Second Appeal.