RAM CHAMELI Vs. SUJAN KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the Additional Rent Controller on three counts. At the outset he has submitted that the respondent No. 1/landlady was not competent to maintain the eviction petition as the relinquishment deed by other sons and daughters of respondent No. 1 was only given in the year 1995. This argument is far fetched and absolutely irrelevant. Respondent No. 1 being the widow of Kishan Chand could maintain an eviction petition even if there was no relinquishment deed in her favour by her other sons and daughters. Respondent No. 1 was the widow of Kishan Chand who had purchased the property in the year 1958-59.

(2.) Next contention of the Counsel for the petitioner was that the property was let out for composite purpose and the finding of the Additional Rent Controller that the property was let out for residential purpose was contrary to the record. Additional Rent Controller has recorded in his finding that on the basis of rent receipt issued on which the purpose of letting was residence, no other purpose could be ascribed for letting.

(3.) I do not see any infirmity with the finding of the Additional Rent Controller on the purpose of letting.