Sanjeev Kumar & Ors v. Jashu Bala

ORDER %

31.10.2011 The order impugned before this Court is the order dated 07.05.2011. The application for leave to defend filed by the tenant in a petition under Section 14 (l)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) had been dismissed. The disputed premises are the first floor of property No. 16/29-A, Moti Nagar, New Delhi. The premises had been let out by the mother of the landlord to the father of the tenant; it is not in dispute that the property was originally owned by the Shanti Lai; after his death he had bequeathed it to his wife Leela Wati who is mother of the present landlord. Thereafter Leela Wati and her two daughters had executed a deed of relinquishment in favour of the present petitioner whereby she had become ihe sole owner of the suit property; mutation had also been effected in the L & DO. The only ground taken in the leave to defend which as per the tenant makes out a triable issue is that the petitioner was not the owiier of the said premises; contention being that Shanti Lai had bequeathed this property in favour of his Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. wife Leela Wati to tlie exclusion of all other children and slie is the owner. Leela Wati has since died. It is not in dispute that an earlier eviction petition filed by Leela Wati under Sections 14 (l)(a), 14 (l)(e) and 14 (1)(D) of the DRCA qua the suit propertyreply had beenfiled by the tenant whereinhe had admittedthat the presentpetitionerJashuBalais a co-ownerin the suit property;even todaybeforethis Court it is not in disputethat Jashu Bala is a co-owner; the oily objection being that Jashu Bala is a co-owner of the suit propertywith her other two sisters i.e. after the demise of Leela Wati, the property had devolve upon all the three sisters equally and Jashu Bal is alone the owner; the present petition is not maintainable in the present form. The petitioner is admittedly the co-owner in the suit property. Even presuming for the sake of argument that thd petitioner is not the exclusive owner and is a co-owner with her other two sistersthe eviqtionpetitionfor bonafiderequirementcan be filed by a co-owner also; there is no bar. The present petitioner had pleaded the ground of bonafide requirement; her submission feeing that she is residing in a tenanted premises and wanted to shift in her own premises; there is also no dispute to this factum. She had pleaded herself a complete owner; even otherwise, a co-owner can also file an eviction petition under Section 14 (l)(e) of the DRCA. This being the only issue raised by the tenant/petitionerand not amqunting to a triable issue; petition has no merit; it is dismissed. OCTOBER 31, 2011 a INDERMEET KAUR, J

$- o o O J * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 433/2011 SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS Petitioners Through Mr. Pratyaksh Kumar, Advocate. versus JASHU BALA Respondent Tlirough Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR