LATA DEWAN Vs. KANTA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE batch of petitions address the issue of eviction in relation to the same premises against the same tenant. The petitions themselves relate to successive periods when the landlord had been complaining that the tenant was in arrears of rent, taking each opportunity constituting a fresh cause of action. The first of the proceedings started with the application filed at the instance of the petitioner Kanta Rani, wife of Jugal Kishore seeking for ejectment of the respondent-tenant M.R. Dewan. On his death, his legal representatives viz his wife, son and daughter had been impleaded. The order of ejectment followed in all the petitions which was challenged in appeals before the Appellate Authority who affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller. Among the grounds urged by the landlord, one of the grounds was non-payment of rent by the tenant at Rs. 1150/- per month. The Rent Controller recorded a finding that the rate of rent was only Rs. 350/- and there was no proof that the rent had actually been raised by the original landlord from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 1150/-. The landlord Kanta Rani had therefore, filed cross appeals. As regards the finding relating to the quantum of rent, the cross appeals were also dismissed affirming the decision of the Rent Controller.

(2.) TO a just rendering of the cases, some more facts are necessary. The original landlord was one Om Parkash. He had shifted out of India to Malaysia constituting Jugal Kishore as his Power of Attorney. Jugal Kishore had a partner in business by name Dalip. Jugal Kishore and Dalip were engaged in the business of real estate. The premises had been rented out to the tenant M.R. Dewan and held by him as tenant since 1981. The property was purported to have been sold in favour of the petitioner by Om Parkash on 17.5.1996 and after the same the tenant became liable to pay rent to the petitioner. After the purchase the petitioner who had been residing in rental premises had sought for eviction on the ground of her personal requirement. The landlord complained that the tenant was not even permitting her to make inspection of the premises and had become a source of nuisance to her. The petition was filed seeking for ejectment on the ground of personal requirement and on the ground of non-payment of rent.

(3.) SINCE the tenant was denying the status of the petitioner and his landlord, the lynchpin upon which the claim for ejectment of the petitioner had been made, the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority directed their addition to establishing the status of petitioner as the owner under the sale deed and whether she could claim the status as landlord to obtain ejectment. The status of the respondent as a tenant under Om Parkash itself was not denied but the denial was only the genuineness of the claim of the landlord to seek for ejectment on the basis of the deed of purchase in her favour. The ejectment claim was made on the contention of the landlord that the tenant had stopped payment of rent from 1.6.1991 to 30.6.1996 and from thence when the petitions had been pending.