SUBHASH SHARMA Vs. ANIL KUMAR SOOD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) ONLY two points have been urged before me. The first is in the context of issue No.6 and the second in the context of issue No.2, framed by the Rent Controller. Issue No.6 was ­ whether the petitioner (respondent herein) is not the specified landlord? With regard to this issue, the case of the petitioner- tenant is that the respondent, at best, is one of the co-owner and not a person who would receive rent in his own account. On this basis, the finding and conclusion, reached by the Rent Controller, is sought to be assailed.

(3.) NO doubt, the rent was collected by the mother of the respondent, but not in her individual capacity as sole owner of the property or for that matter on behalf of some other family member. She was collecting that rent as one of the heir of the original landlord Bishamber Lal. It has come on record that the respondent was one of the heirs of Bishamber Lal and, therefore, had become co-owner of the property by succession. In that case, the exposition of the Single Judge of this Court in the case of Subhash Gupta versus N.K.Bansal1 would squarely apply to the fact situation of the present case. Thus, understood, I find no substance in the challenge to the finding and the conclusion reached by the Rent Controller on the factum whether the . respondent is or is not a specified landlord.