YUNUS KHAN Vs. NAWAB UDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Rent Controller, the present revision petition has been filed by the landlord. The eviction petition was filed in the year 1980 under Section 14(1)(c) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. That eviction petition was disposed of after expiry of 11 years on 12.8.1991. Eviction petition was filed on the ground of bona fide requirement. The requirement of the petitioner was considered bona fide by the Additional Rent Controller. However, the petitioner was non-suited on the ground that the purpose of letting was composite as well as also on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The finding with regard to ownership was also in favour of the petitioner/landlord.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Additional Rent Controller had completely lost sight of rent notes Ex. AW 1/4 and Ex. AW 1/13. The former rent note was executed by the respondent in the year 1970 with previous landlord and the later was executed in favour of the present petitioner. Mr. Lonial has contended that the Additional Rent Controller went into the material which was not relevant and germane to the controversy. He has contended that in rent note it was explicitly mentioned that letting was for the purpose of Sakunat and the word "Sakunat" in Urdu language means `residence'. He has further contended that there was a fresh tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent. Father of the respondent was previously the tenant in respect of the property. He died, upon his death a rent note was executed in favour of the respondent. Therefore, respondent had no right to allege that other legal heirs were also necessary parties and in the absence of the other legal heirs, the petition was bad for non-joinder of parties.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent has contended that the finding of the Additional Rent Controller was based on cogent material as the premises were in the tenancy of the father of the respondent from 1910. It has also been contended before me by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is with the knowledge and consent of the previous landlord that the father of the respondent was carrying on the business of dye-making in the premises in question since 1947-48. It has been further contended that there was no implied surrender of tenancy and other legal heirs were necessary parties and has stoutly defended the order of the Additional Rent Controller. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon Jamila Begum & Others Vs. Jumma alias Billu Rehman and others 20 (1981) DLT 445, Munshi Ram Sakhuja Vs. Col. Ram Parshad (Retd.) 20 (1981) DLT 37 and Dattatraya Pandit Kharote Vs. Pandurang Maruti Jadhav 1991 RCR (1) 520.