UMESH KUMAR SINHAL Vs. CHANDRALATA GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the Rent Controlling Authority rejecting the objection of the petitioner against the claim made by the respondent for eviction of the petitioner on the strength of an unregistered family settlement deed. In fact, the objection with respect to maintainability of such an application for eviction has been rejected by the Rent Controlling Authority.

(2.) FACTS giving rise to filing of this revision are that the respondent claimed herself to be a specified landlord as defined under Section 23-J of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Accommodation Act for brevity), and has approached the Rent Controlling Authority by making an application under Section 23-A(b) of the Accommodation Act. It is contended that in fact the shop was let out to the petitioner on the basis of an agreement dated 1.6.1985. The respondent has four sons. After the induction of the petitioner as a tenant in the demise premises, a family settlement had taken place on 12.11.1988 and the demise premises has fallen in share of the respondent. The husband of the respondent has died on 25.11.1992. Her second son Shailendra Gupta is running a shop of artificial jewellery on a rented shop obtained from his uncle. Since the uncle of the said son of the respondent is demanding the demise shop for his own business, the respondent is in need of the shop in dispute for the purposes of making it available to her second son for starting his own business. It is also said that the youngest son of the respondent is unemployed and he too will be starting his business along with the second son of the respondent in the demise premises after the vacation of the same by the petitioner. On such grounds, an order of eviction is sought for against the petitioner and the application is filed.

(3.) PER contra, it is contended by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the claim is not solely based on such a document. It is contended that there is no question of partition nor any partition has taken place. Undisputedly, the respondent has a share in the undivided Hindu family property and that share is specified by the family settlement deed dated 12.11.1988. It is said that it is only a family settlement recognising the rights of the respondent in the said property and, therefore, it cannot be termed to be a document of partition as defined under Section 2 (15) of the amended Stamp Act. Thus, the impounding of such a document is not necessary for the purposes of admitting the same in evidence. Such an objection was rightly considered and rejected by the Rent Controlling Authority and, therefore, no interference in the order of the Rent Controlling Authority is called for.