PRAKASH CHAND GUPTA Vs. INDER SEN GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order of dismissal of eviction petition under Section 14(l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by the Additional Rent Controller on 21st March, 1987, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition. The Additional Rent Controller held that the petitioner was not the owner of the premises in dispute. All the brothers including the petitioner were owners of the property bearing No. E-152, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. Even the purpose of letting was held to be composite one. The requirement of petitioner was considered to be not genuine on the basis that the petitioner was not the sole owner of the suit premises and taking in totality the total number of family members, accommodation was sufficient with the petitioner.

(2.) Mr. Ravi Gupta, Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Additional Rent Controller erred in not appreciating that the property at Kamla Nagar was purchased by the father and the mother of the petitioner although the money for the construction was spent by the mother. Counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the cross examination of petitioner-AW-4 in this regard. Thereafter property was partitioned among the brothers by the mother in terms of AW4/1.

(3.) He further contended that admittedly the property stands in the name of the petitioner and after the family partition, he became the absolute owner of the suit property. The respondent was inducted by the petitioner in the suit premises. Mr. Gupta further contended that the Rent Controller failed to appreciate that the 1966 family arrangement became insignificant after the memorandum of family arrangement was signed by four brothers including the petitioner Ex. AW4/1 and on the date of filing of the petition, admittedly, the petitioner was the owner of the premises in question and competent to file the eviction proceedings. He has further contended that during the pendency of the petition on 11.2.1986 the ownership was decided in favour of the petitioner while rejecting the application of respondent under Order 6, Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code and holding that in view of the Partition Deed Ex. AW4/1 property in suit fell to the share of the petitioner and the said finding could not have been reversed by the Additional Rent Controller as the same would operate res-judicata between the parties and in support of his submissions has cited Y.B. Patil and Others v. Y.L. Patil, AIR 1977 SC 392, Prahlad Singh v. Col. Sukhdev Singh, 1987 RLR (SC) 151 and 1986 JT(1) 541.