RAMESHWAR DASS Vs. SHANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition is at the instance of a tenant, who has been ordered to be evicted on a plea by the landlord that she required the premises for her adopted son. According to her, the adopted son was her grandson through her daughter and the adoption was brought about through a registered instrument dated 18.07.1983. The landlord's contention was that the grand was unemployed and he had been brought up by her right from his infancy and she wanted to set up a business for him at the demised premise. The tenant entered a contention that adoption deed was a fabrication and that in any event, it cannot be valid, for, admittedly the so called adopted son was more than 15 years of age at the time when the document was brought about. The tenant would, therefore, contend that there could not have been a valid adoption. The further contention was that the grandson was actually associated in a saree business with her brother-inlaw but he had abandoned the same only for claiming possession of the suit property and the requirement cannot be pressed for the benefit of such a grandson.

(2.) The Rent Controller found that the adoption had been established and brought an inference under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act to observe that a registered instrument which brings about an adoption must presume the validity of the ceremonies of adoption if such an adoption is brought through a customary mode. The Court also observed that the document of adoption had been brought about more than 14 years prior to the institution of the petition and there could have been no occasion for the parties to fabricate a document only for the purpose of petition. The Court held that adoption had been established and considering the fact that landlady had expressed that the property was necessary for the purpose of his grandson who was unemployed, the requirement of the landlord must be taken as having been established. The Appellate Court affirmed that finding and made also reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Joginder Pal Vs. Naval Kishore Behal, 2002 5 SCC 397 that contained an expansive meaning for the expression "his own use" as contained under Section 13 (3)(a)(iii) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner points out to me several circumstances to show that an adoption cannot valid. The counsel refers to Section 10 of the Adoption and Maintenance Act which states in Clause 4 that the person adopted should not have completed the age of 15 years, unless there was a custom or usage applicable to the parties which permitted persons who had completed the age of 15 years from being taken in adoption. The counsel would argue that there was no such custom established and would also refer to the other circumstances to show that the adoption could not be valid. In the college records which was summoned before the Court, it was revealed that the grandson had been still referred to as the son of his biological father subsequent to the so-called adoption and in yet another transaction of a complaint registered against the grandson, he had been referred to only as the son of the natural father. According to him, the grandson himself did not take the witness stand and that was sure pointer to the fact that so-called adoption could not be true.