RAJIV NAGPAL Vs. SATYA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order of the Rent Controller declining the framing of additional issues. The respondentlandlady had filed an eviction petition against the petitioner-tenant on the ground of personal necessity. In his written statement, the petitioner had accepted that the respondent was his landlady. Further she had pleaded in her eviction petition that she had let out the property to the petitioner on oral tenancy about 20 years ago. To this specific averment, the petitioner had replied to the effect that the property had in fact been let out by the father-in-law of the respondent to him but after his death he had been paying rent to the respondent by account payee cheque. He further pleaded that after the death of the father-in-law of the respondent a written agreement had been executed between the petitioner and the respondent. In her replication the respondent denied the written agreement. Thereafter the case proceeded to trial on the issue of bonafide necessity. The present application was moved in which it was alleged that once the petitioner had taken the plea that in fact the premises had been let out to him by the fatherin-law of the respondent and once the respondent had denied the written agreement with her which was being set up by the petitioner, it would be imperative to frame the following issues:-

(2.) The Rent Controller held that these issues would not arise in view of the categoric and unequivocal acceptance of the petitioner-tenant that the respondent was his landlady.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner-tenant has argued that once the petitioner had taken the plea that he was originally a tenant of the father-inlaw of the respondent and once the respondent had denied the written agreement between the petitioner and her, the issues would be necessary. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Salil Jindal vs. Hans Raj @ Pappu, passed in C.R. No.5172 of 2016, decided on 08.05.2017. In that case, what had happened was that the petitioner in that case i.e. Salil Jindal had filed a rent eviction petition against that respondent alleging that he had purchased the property from the previous owner. The stand of the respondent-tenant was that he was a tenant of the previous landlord but had no notice of transfer of title by the previous landlord in favour of that petitioner and hence that petitioner should prove the same. It was in those circumstances that the issue regarding relationship of landlord and tenant was framed in that case. Subsequently, that tenant tendered the arrears since he did not want to risk being non-suited on the ground of nonpayment and thereafter that landlord had moved an application for deletion of the issue on the ground that the tenant had accepted the relationship. That application having been dismissed he had approached this Court and this Court had declined the prayer. As per the counsel for the petitioner, the present case stands on same footing and therefore the issue regarding relationship should at least be framed.