HANUMAN GIRI Vs. BHURE LAL
LAWS(DLH)-1995-1-87
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on January 09,1995

HANUMAN GIRI Appellant
VERSUS
BHURE LAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

GOPAL KISHAN VS. NIRMALA DEVI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-4-223] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

C.M.Nayar,J. - (1.)The present Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th October, 1989 passed by Shri O.P.Dwivedi. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. The learned judge allowed the appeal against the order dated :2ndJuly, 1988 passed by Shri M.S. Sabharwal. Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, ill recling the appellant to deposit the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 45.00 per month with effect from 16th September, 1981 on wards upto date within one month from the date of the order and continue to pay or deposit the future rent month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month. It was further observed by the Additional Rent Controller that in case the respondent complied with the order he shall be deemed to have availed the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and in case of default an eviction order shall be deenud to have been passed against the respondent under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act.
(2.)The brief facts are that on 28th- July, 1983 the appellant filed an eviction petition against the respondent under Section 14(l)(a) of the Act alleging that the respondent was a tenant in a portion comprised of a room and Verandah on the ground floor of property No. D-43, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, .shown red in the plan attached with the petition at the rate of Rs. 45.00 per month It was further alleged that the respondent had not paid rent since 16th September, 1981 despite service of the demand notice dated 29th April, 1983. The appellant pleaded that he purchased the property from the previous owner Ram Kumar son of Durjan Lal Sharma vide sale deed dated 16th September, 1981 and a notice of purchase was given to the respondent on 26th October, 1981 but the said respondent did not pay the arrears of rent, as demanded. The eviction petition was contested by the respondent who denied the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. His version was that his wife had purchased the disputed portion of the property from one Smt. Longshri, widow of Durjan Lal Sharma vide registered sale deed dated 5th May, 1982 and, as such, he was occupying the said premises as family members of his wife Smt. Jai Dai and not as a tenant. He further denied that the appellant was the owner of the disputed portion. It was pleaded that originally plot No. 43-D, Kamla Nagar, measuring 228 sq. yds. was jointly purchased by Durjan Lai Sharma and Jagan Nath from Municipal Corporation of Delhi. A partition took place between them in the year 1951 and they both became owners of the said property in equal shares measuring 114 sq. yds. each and they raised constructions on the respective portions. In 1970 Jagdish Pershad son of Jagan Nath sold the portion measuring 114 sq. yds to the appellant vide sale deed dated 29th April, 1970. The other portion of the plot belonged to Durjan Lal Sharma who died on 12th January, 1975 leaving behind his widow Longshri and a son Ram Kumar Sharma as the only legal representatives. Thereafter Longshri widow of Durjan Lal Sharma sold her half share measuring 57 sq. yds to Smt. Jai Dai wife of the respondent vide registered sale deed dated 5th May, 1982. It was also alleged by the respondent that the appellant appeared to have played some fraud on Ram Kumar Sharma who was mentally retarded and handicapped and, as such, incompetent to effect the transfer of such property. Therefore, it was contended that the alleged sale deed dated 16th September, 1981 executed in favour of the appellant by Ram Kumar Sharma was invalid and of no consequence and the same did not confer any right or title on the appellant to claim rent in respect of the disputed portion
(3.)After considering the material on record and arguments advanced by Counsel for the parties, the learned Additional Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the appellant had purchased the suit properly from Ram Kumar son of Durjan Lal vide sale deed dated 16th September, 1981. He, accordingly, became owner with effect from that date and therefore the respondent who was originally inducted as tenant of Durjan Lal became a tenant of the appellant by operation of law. The order was passed by the Additional Rent Controller on 22nd July, 1988 directing the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent with effect from 16th September, 1981 upto date at the rate of Rs. 45.00 per month within one month from the date of the order and continue to pay or deposit future rent month by month by 15th day of each succeeding month failing which an eviction order shall be deemed to have been passed against him on the ground of non payment of rent.
;


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