Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • R.S.Bakshi
  • Anup Bagai
  • R.K.Makhija
Judges
  • Mr. Mahinder Narain, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • R.S.Bakshi
  • Anup Bagai
  • R.K.Makhija
Judges
  • Mr. Mahinder Narain, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This order disposes of C.M No. 56 of 1991 filed in a revision petition in which a stay of an eviction order against the tenant was sought. On 2.5.1991 the court gave Mr. Makhija further time to produce authorities supporting his contention that, in proceedings before the Rent Controller, a tenant may question the legality and validity of a Will relied on by the owner to establish ownership. Mr. Makhija did not produce any supporting authority by the subsequent date. The revision has been admitted and the question raised will be determined in due course.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, in proceedings before the Rent Controller, a tenant may question the legality and validity of a Will relied upon by the owner to establish ownership of the premises.
  2. Whether a stay of the eviction order should be granted pending the admitted revision.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments (as presented)

  • Counsel Mr. Makhija contended that a tenant may, in Rent Controller proceedings, challenge the legality and validity of a Will relied on by the owner to prove ownership; he cited certain judgments in support.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any opposing party's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
N.N Goswamy, J. (a judgment of this Court, relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Kanta Goel v. B.P Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814) That it is not permissible for a tenant to challenge the legality and validity of a Will. The court relied on this judgment to conclude a tenant may not challenge a Will in Rent Controller proceedings.
Kanta Goel v. B.P Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814 Supreme Court observations on the permissibility of challenging a Will (as relied upon by the court below). Referenced (through the N.N Goswamy judgment) as authority supporting the proposition that a tenant cannot question the legality/validity of a Will.
1977 RCR 464 This citation was relied on by counsel (as authority). The court held it does not relate to the legality and validity of a Will and is not relevant to the matter.
1974 RCR 1 This citation was relied on by counsel (as authority). The court held it does not relate to the legality and validity of a Will and is not relevant to the matter.
1982 SC 1213 This citation was relied on by counsel (as authority). The court held it does not relate to the legality and validity of a Will and is not relevant to the matter.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded as follows:

  1. It afforded counsel time to produce authorities on the point; counsel failed to produce any such authority.
  2. The court noted a judgment of this Court (N.N Goswamy, J.), relying on the Supreme Court in Kanta Goel v. B.P Pathak, holds a tenant may not challenge the legality or validity of a Will.
  3. The other authorities cited by counsel (1977 RCR 464, 1974 RCR 1 and 1982 SC 1213) were found not to pertain to the legality/validity of a Will and thus irrelevant.
  4. On the substantive legal point the court gave two related bases for disallowing a tenant to challenge a Will in Rent Controller proceedings: (a) if a Will cannot be questioned, the tenant cannot contest the owner's status; (b) matters of legality, validity and due execution of a Will are the subject-matter of proceedings under the Indian Succession Act (where a Will is proved and probate granted, or held not proved and probate refused), and the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction under that Act but only under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
  5. The court observed that admission of the revision does not justify staying or frustrating an eviction order passed on the ground of bona fide personal requirement.

Holding and Implications

C.M No. 56 of 1991 is dismissed.

Direct effect: The petitioner is not entitled to a stay of operation of the impugned eviction judgment; the eviction order shall be given effect to. The court indicated the revision is admitted and the question will be determined in due course. No broader precedent or new legal principle was announced beyond the court's application of existing authority.

Appeal dismissed.
Show full summary ...

    Ishwar Dass Rajput v. Chaman Prakash Puri

    Mahinder Narain, J.— This order will dispose of C.M No. 56 of 1991 in a revision petition, whereby stay of eviction order against the tenant is sought. On 2.5.1991, I had given Mr. Makhija further time to bring authorities in support of his contention, that in a proceeding before the Rent Controller it is open to a tenant to question the legality and validity of a Will relied upon by the owner to establish his ownership.

    2. Today Mr. Makhija has not been able to bring any authority in support of his proposition.

    3. In fact, by a judgment of this Court (N.N Goswamy, J.), relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Kanta Goel v. B.P Pathak, (1977) 2 SCC 814, it was held that it is not permissible for a tenant to challenge the legality and validity of a Will.

    4. Other judgments which have been cited by Mr. Makhija, namely, 1977 RCR 464, 1974 RCR 1 and 1982 SC 1213, do not relate to the legality and validity of a Will, therefore, not relevant to the matter before me.

    5. If the Will cannot be questioned by the tenant, then it cannot be contended by the tenant that the respondent is not the owner of the premises from which eviction is ordered. In this view of the mattes, there is no occasion to order stay of eviction.

    6. In any case, there is another reason for it not being permissible to a tenant to question the legality and validity of a Will. The legality and validity and due execution of the Will can only be subject matter of proceedings under the Indian Succession Act. It is in such a proceeding that the Will can be proved to be duly executed, and probate granted; or a Will is held to be not proved, and probate refused. The Rent Controller cannot exercise jurisdiction which is conferred by the Indian Succession Act. The jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is confined to the provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

    7. I do not find any reason why the impugned order of eviction should not be given effect to. The revision has been admitted, and the question raised, will be determined in due course. I do not see how the eviction order passed in a petition for bona fide personal requirement in the instant case, can be frustrated by admission of the revision.

    8. The petitioner is not entitled to stay of operation of the impugned judgment.

    9. C.M No. 56 of 1991 is dismissed.

    Appeal dismissed.
    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Ishwar Dass Rajput v. Chaman Prakash Puri
    (May 14, 1991)