ASHOK BIMAL GHOSH Vs. BEANT KAUR
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BIMAL GHOSH
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)In the suit premises described as C-646, new Friends Colony, New Delhi, the appellant was inducted by the respondent as a tenant for residential purpose on a monthly rent of Rs. 11,500. 00 w. e. f. 1/8/1994. The terms and conditions of the lease are contained in the deed of lease dated 31/7/1984 executed between the parties and registered with the sub-registrar of deeds, New Delhi. It appears that the appellant defaulted in payment of rent and sometime in the year 1986, the respondent initiated proceedings for eviction of the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent before the rent controller under section 14 (1) (a) or the Delhi Rent control Act, 1958. With effect from 1/12/1988, by virtue of Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, clause (c) was added in section 3 of the Act whereby Delhi rent Control Act ceased to apply to the suit premises as the monthly rent thereof exceeded rs. 3,500. 00 per month. In view of the amendment, the rent controller lost jurisdiction over the proceeding and the same was transferred to the civil court. It came to be registered as suit no. 91 of 1993 in the court of additional district judge, Delhi.
(2.)In the written statement, the tenant admitted the plaintiff to be landlady and having been inducted as tenant into the suit premises by her and also having paid rent to her. However, one of the pleas raised in the written statement was that the ownership over the property did not vest in the plaintiff but in the son of the plaintiff and, therefore, the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. When the plaintiff appeared in the witness box, she admitted that so far as ownership of the building was concerned, it vested in her son, but, on account of an internal family arrangement between the son and the mother, the mother was entitled to enjoy the property or the earning thereof during her life time and that is why she had let out the property to the tenant and was entitled to recover the rent.
(3.)The trial court held the plaintiff to be landlady and hence entitled to file the suit. By judgment and decree dated 31/5/1997, the trial court directed the suit to be decreed for recovery of rent and mesne profits as also for recovery of possession over the suit premises.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.