KUSUM LATA MISRA Vs. SUKHBIR JHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 9.10.2000 a last opportunity was granted to the Respondent to file a Reply within two weeks.Despite the passage of two months no Reply was filed.When the matter came up on 11.1.2001 a final opportunity to file the Reply within four weeks was granted subject to payment of Rs.2000.00 as costs. Neither has the Reply been filed nor have the costs been paid. Mr. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that he has just been engaged by the Respondent. He prays for an adjournment, which prayer is declined because of the Respondent's previous conduct. It is clear that the Respondent is adopting dilatory tactics. In these circumstances, I proceed to dispose off the matter on merits.

(2.) It appears the Respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant into the premises by late Smt. Janki Devi at a monthly rent of Rs.500.00. On her demise, the present Petitioner, namely Kusum Lata Mishra assumed the role of the landlady. She is one of the daughters of late Janki Devi, the other one being her sister Smt.Anar Devi. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No.1 had attorned to Smt. Kusum Lata, since there are admissions in the written Statement that rents were paid to the husband of Kusum Lata. A legal notice dated 2.9.1994 was also issued by the advocate for the Respondent No.1, in which it has been stated as follows: That my client is the tenant under you for which a suit for eviction is pending in the court of Shri P.D. Gupta, A.R.C. Delhi.This notice was issued to the present Petitioner calling upon her to carry out necessary maintenance and repair. Hence, in view of these unequivocal admissions the Court must accept the existence of a Landlord/tenant relationship between these parties.

(3.) Some differences between the two siblings/daughters of late Smt. Janki Devi existed between these two persons. It has been explained by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Estate of Smt. Janki Devi comprises inter alia, one immovable property in Delhi (the property in question) and another property in Aligarh. whilst the Petitioner is in possession of the Delhi property, her sister is in possession of the property in Aligarh. Because of the disputes between the sisters, the Petitioner had filed a probate petition in respect of the registered will of her mother. It appears that the Court of the Additional District Judge had declined to grant a Probate, for reasons which are not relevant for the present purposes.On the passing of the said order declining the grant of a Probate, the Respondent/Tenant filed an application under , Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Additional Rent Controller praying for the dismissal of the eviction petition. This application has been allowed with the consequence that the eviction petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.8.1999.