1. RC-Rev.4/2004 is directed against the judgment dated 22.7.2003 of the Additional Rent Controller, Delhi, (for short 'Controller') in Eviction No. 45/99 decreeing the petition filed by the respondents herein under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short 'the Act').
2. Brief facts of the case, as noted by the learned Controller, are as under :
"Premises in question is situated at property No. 165, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi. According to the petitioner, suit premises had been rented out to respondents vide written agreement dated 15.7.76. Letting purpose has been claimed to be residential. It has been alleged that petitioner is staying with his wife and two children in one room set situated at Barsati floor of the same building. He has claimed that he is having only one room, one toilet and one make-shift kitchen. He has claimed that he has no other residential accommodation. It has also been mentioned in the petition that suit building was previously owned by Smt. Saroj Mohan. Smt. Saroj Mohan had executed a registered Will, Agreement to sell, GPA, SPA and receipt and first floor and second floor portion of the suit building were sold to the petitioner. Petitioner has, thus, prayed for eviction of respondents on the ground that he does not have sufficient residential accommodation for himself and for his family members.
Both the respondents filed separate written statements.
Respondent No.1 has claimed that its name has been wrongly shown as Plastic Chemical company and it has been claimed that the exact name of the firm is M/s PlastiChemical Company. Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has also been seriously agitated. It is admitted that premises were owned by Smt. Saroj Mohan but it has been claimed that petitioner is not competent to file and pursue the present eviction petition as he is not legal heir of Smt. Saroj Mohan. It has been claimed that Smt. Saroj Mohan had only authorised petitioner to collect rent and he was simply a Rent Collector. It has also been claimed that such authorization had already come to an end with the demise of Smt. Saroj Mohan. It has also been claimed that the company had taken the premises on rent through respondent No.2 who acted as its Manager/Representative/agent. It has been claimed that respondent No.2 had simply signed the lease deed as Manager of respondent No.1 company and he was not himself a tenant in the suit premises. It has been claimed that respondent No.2 remained in the suit premises as simply an employee of respondent No.1 and he was not there in the capacity of tenant or co-tenant. It has also been claimed that petitioner was having sufficient accommodation at the ground floor of the suit building and there were three bed rooms and one drawing-cum-dinning room on the ground floor besides necessary amenities and, thus, petitioner was having more than sufficient accommodation.
Respondent No.2 has also claimed in his written statement that petitioner had no locus standi to file and institute the present petition. It has been claimed that property was owned by Smt. Saroj Mohan and petitioner was not the owner of the suit premises. Respondent No.2 has claimed that he along with the respondent company was a co-tenant and they were having separate specified portions of premises with them. He also claimed that there was no case of bona fide requirement as the petitioner was also using the entire ground floor and he was residing there along with his family members and his family was living jointly and they were having a common mess.
Replication was filed by the petitioner reiterating the averments made in the petition and controverting the stand taken by the respondents.
Parties were directed to adduce evidence.
Petitioner Ashit Chadha has entered into witness box and has not examined any other witness.
From the side of respondents, Sh. S. Anand, partner of respondent NO.1 firm has entered into witness box. The respondents have examined no other witness.
It will not be out of place to mention here that respondent No.2, I.P. Chadha, stopped appearing before the court and he was accordingly proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 13.2.02. He has neither himself entered into witness box nor any witness has been examined by him."
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had no locus standi to maintain the petition as he was not owner of the premises. He also submits that the Will has not been proved and, even otherwise, since it was an irrevocable testament, the same cannot be treated as a Will passing on title to the respondent.
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully examined the judgment under challenge as also the material on record. As regards the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner challenging the Will, the law has since been crystalised by the Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma vs. Smt. Ved Prabha, as also in Sheela and others vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, . Once the landlord has been able to show that there is a testament in his favor, the landlord is deemed to have discharged his burden of ownership, vis-a-vis, the Rent Control Act. In the present case, the landlord has been able to prove that a testament has been made in his favor by the previous owner which, at best, could be challenged by the heirs of Smt. Saroj Mohan and certainly not by the tenant. In this view of the matter I hold that the objection of the petitioner herein to the maintainability of the eviction petition by the landlord is frivolous.
5. The question of bona fide requirements was not seriously canvassed although I have gone through the reasoning of the learned Controller. I find that the judgment under challenge suffers from no infirmity, impropriety, perversity, illegality and/or jurisdictional error. RC-Rev. 4 of 2004 & C.M. Appl. 554/2004 are dismissed. No order as to costs.