MADHU RANDEV Vs. BHUPINDER SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed against the order of the Appellate Authority granting time of two months to the tenant to deposit the rent. The facts are that the petitioner had filed a petition for eviction of the respondent No.1-tenant on the ground that the rent was Rs.3000/- p.m. which the respondent No.1 had stopped paying since 2007. In reply the respondent No.1 took the plea that he had taken the premises on rent from the father of the petitioner and after the death of the father of the petitioner one nephew of the petitioner had started taking rent from him and he was paying the same to him in good faith. Thereafter, he came to know that Sh. Bal Mukand (grand-father of the petitioner) had executed a Will in favour of Shailender Sharma (nephew of the petitioner) and even a petition for grant of probate of the Will was filed by him which was dismissed and against that the appeal was pending in the High Court. In these circumstances, the tenant claimed that in view of that dispute between the family members he did not pay the rent to the petitioner.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that both the Courts below have found that in fact the father of the petitioner is the landlord and therefore the finding of the Rent Controller that, since the respondent was fully aware of the fact that Late Sh. Suraj Parkash Sharma (father of the petitioner) was one of the son of original owner Bal Mukand Sharma he was not entitled to any leniency, was the correct view in law and the order of the Appellate Court granting time of two months to the respondent No.1 to deposit the rent, was wrong.

(3.) The Appellate Authority held that in the face of the dispute between the family members of Late Sh. Bal Mukand Sharma the issue raised by the respondent No.1 was a triable issue and therefore granted time to the respondent No.1-tenant to deposit the assessed rent from the date claimed by the petitioner. In Rakesh Wadhawan and others vs. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002 3 Civil and Rent Judicial Reports 387, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.6 has held as follows:-