LAWS(DLH)-1999-7-75

ATMA RAM Vs. PREM CHAND

Decided On July 21, 1999
ATMA RAM Appellant
V/S
PREM CHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) File of this case was missing. I have ordered that the photo-copy of the appeal be taken on record.

(2.) Aggrieved by the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller on 6.9.1991, the petitioner filed the present petition. The main ground of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant and the Addl. Rent Controller erred in coming to the conclusion that the eviction petition was maintainable as all the co-owners of the premises were impleaded. Mr. Duggal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Addl. Rent Controller committed a grave error in observing that as power Will Ex. AW 2/1 read with admission made by the opposite party in the written statement that respondents 1 to 7 became co-owners of the property in question after the death of original owner Chhamu Mal. Mr. Duggal took great pain in assailing the order of the Addl. Rent Controller on the ground that the Addl. Rent Controller ought to have rejected the Will as Hem Chand who appeared to identify the signature of the witnesses had deposed that there was no person at the time of execution of the Will and has contended that Ex. AW 2/1 was not duly proved. Yet another contention of the Counsel for the petitioner was that no order under Section 14(1 )(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act could have been passed when the contention was raised on behalf of the petitioner that respondents 8 to 11 were lawful sub-tenants in this respect of the premises and provisions of Section 25B and Section 14(1 )(e) were not applicable.

(3.) Mr. Duggal has relied upon the judgment of SAO No. 280/68 which was filed in this Court when a previous eviction petition was filed by the owner in 1960 to canvass in his support that original Rent Note executed in 1943 has not been withdrawn by the respondent. The finding of the Addl. Rent Controller that the premises were let out for residential purposes was contrary in view of the decision in SAO 280/68.