RAJ RANI Vs. VED PRAKASH
LAWS(DLH)-2007-9-280
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on September 27,2007

RAJ RANI Appellant
VERSUS
VED PRAKASH (DECEASED) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ANIL KUMAR, J. - (1.) The Petitioner has impugned the order dated 17th March, 2005 passed by Rent Control Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 17th February, 2005 passed by the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the objections of the petitioner against the order of eviction dated 15th October, 1996 passed against petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
(2.) To comprehend the controversy, the following facts are relevant. Shri Ved Prakash, predecessor of the respondents, filed an eviction petition being E-32/85 titled Ved Prakash vs. Smt. Raj Rani under Section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 contending that he is the owner/landlord of the premises No.WZ-40/A, Krishna Puri, New Delhi, which was let out to Shri Ajit Ram at a monthly rent of Rs.15/- and a rent deed dated 26th August, 1984 was executed. Shri Ved Prakash s/o Shri Kunj Lal, landlord was in financial difficulties and therefore he had taken a loan of Rs.1700/- from Shri Ajit Ram and executed an agreement to execute the mortgage deed on 22nd September, 1972. Under the agreement it was categorically stipulated that the possession is not being given to mortgagee. Shri Ajit Ram had agreed to give a loan of Rs.2000/- and since only Rs.1700/- was given, he had to pay another amount of Rs.300/-. The original sale deed of the house and original mortgage deed was alleged to be handed over to Shri Ajit Ram who, however, continued to be a tenant in the house. According to late Shri Ved Prakash, though an amount of Rs.1700/- was returned to Shri Ajit Ram, who was suffering from Cancer, even after paying the mortgage money he could not get the documents back. Shri Ajit Ram, the tenant who had given a loan of Rs.1700 to his landlord, ultimately died in 1977. After his death, the premises was let out or continued to be under the tenancy of his widow at the rate of Rs.25/- per month. The widow of Late Shri Ajit Ram also left for U.K. in 1979 and thereafter, the tenancy was transferred in the name of the petitioner who is the daughter of late Shri Ajit Ram. The tenancy was transferred in her name and rent was increased to Rs.40/- per month.
(3.) Since late Shri Ved Prakash, owner/landlord of the premises, predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 3 had retired from a Government office and he did not have suitable residential accommodation available to him for his residence and his family members, therefore, he filed an eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement. The petition filed by Shri Ved Prakash, deceased, was contested by the petitioner contending that her brother is also a legal heir of late Shri Ajit Ram and a necessary party and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them. The petitioner contended in the earlier eviction petition that Shri Ved Prakash had mortgaged the premises with possession in favour of her father, Shri Ajit Ram for Rs.2000/- out of which Rs.1700/- was paid to late Shri Ved Prakash on 27th September, 1972 and Rs.300/- remained to be paid which was to be given to late Shri Ved Prakash at the time of registration of the mortgage deed. However, Shri Ved Prakash did not get the mortgage deed executed and registered in favour of her father. It was also contended that a sum of Rs.300/- was sent to Shri Ved Prakash by money order which was received, however, the mortgage deed was not got registered.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.