MANGE RAM DECD Vs. CHHUTTAM LAL DECD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) and (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act was Mr. Rawal, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant has not given up right to possession and in the absence of any finding or evidence on record that right to possession has also been surrendered by the appellant, eviction order could not have been passed by the Additional Rent Controller. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that case of the appellant would not fall in the mischief of "assigning, parting with or sub-letting" occurring in Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Another contention raised by Shri Rawal was that Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not taking subsequent event pursuant to which an application under Section 151 was filed by the appellant bringing to the notice of the Tribunal that there was a dispute inter se between the heirs of deceased Chhuttan Lal-Landlord.

(2.) It seems that during the pendency of the proceedings both Chhuttan Lal-Landlord and Mange Ram-Tenant died. There legal heirs were brought on record. Mr. Rawal has further contended that in the written statement it was specifically pleaded that Gopi Ram, son of Mange Ram was not in exclusive possession of the property in dispute. It was contended that plea taken by the respondent was that the respondent were in joint possession of the shop in question and appellant and his son Gopi Ram were tenants running their joint business. Mr. Rawal has further contended that on the basis of the cross-examine of Chhuttan Lal dated 14.1.1983 he had stated that Gopi Ram used to sit with Mange Ram. Lastly Mr. Rawal has contended that there is nothing on record to show that parting of the possession was in lieu of some compensation or rent paid by Gopi Ram to Mange Ram. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Dipak Banerjee Vs. Smt. Lilabati Chakraborty AIR 1987 SC 2055. The relevant paras are as under :

(3.) Mr. Rawal in his support has also cited Delhi Stationers & Printers Vs. Rajendra Kumar 40 (1990) DLT 446 and has contended that mere occupation is not sufficient either to infer sub- tenancy or parting with possession. Relevant para is as under :