TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1976 (11) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mily, dependent upon him. It was further alleged that the respondent-landlord is a Chief Engineer, Metropolitan Transport Project Ministry of Railways and in that capacity had been allotted bungalow No. 28, Railway Colony, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi and the landlord has been notified by the Central Government to vacate and surrender possession of the Government accommodation by December 31, 1975 and that the petitioner has no accommodation in his possession. It was also alleged in the petition that Shri N.D. Karkhanis, husband of Mrs. P.N. Karkhanis, was a statutory tenant. His tenancy was determined by notice dated June 18, 1973 sent by registered A.D. post. A reply to this notice, dated June 28, 1973 was also received. It was also averred that under the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Ordinance, 1975 (No. 24 of 1975), only Mrs. P.N. Karkhanis had become the tenant in place of Mr. N.D. Karkhanis. It was also pleaded that a notice dated December 7, 1975 terminating the tenancy of Mrs. P.N. Karkhanis had been duly served on her and all other heirs have also been asked to deliver the possession. (3) On summons being served on the petitioner in accordance with the form specified i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... tenancy in the demised premises has devolved upon Mrs. P.N. Karkhanis and her children, in accordance with the general law of inheritance : (3) that in view of the above ground, the petition is had for nonjoinder of necessary parties : (4) that the respondent is neither the owner nor the landlord : (5) that since the respondent is neither the owner nor the landlord, the ground for eviction under section 14(1)(e) of the Act, as amended, is also not available to the petitioner." (6) Shri P.N. Chopra filed a reply dated April 27, 1976 to the application of the petitioner, for leave to defend and he challenged the right of the petitioner to be granted the leave to defend the eviction petition under section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act, as amended. (7) In reply, it was submitted that late Shri N.D. Karkhanis had throughout been receiving receipts from him through his general attorney Shri A.N. Chopra. All notices had been issued on his behalf through his general attorney, Shri A.N. Chopra "The contents of the alleged agreement were not admitted. It was also pleaded that the agreement is not admissible and is unregistered. Late Shri N D. Karkhanis had been regularly paying re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh officially the market rent would be Rs. 1,415.37 per month. This rent of Rs. 1,415.37 is now being deducted out of the salary of the respondent and is being realised by the Railways. A certificate of this effect issued by the Office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Metropolitan Transport Project, dated March 5, 1976 was also filed. This reply was also supported by an affidavit of Shri P.N. Chopra and Along with the affidavit the respondent also filed the postal registration receipt and postal A.D. card of the notice dated June 18, 1973. The original counter-foils of the receipts issued were also filed and it was stated that the last counterfoil receipt for the month of May, 1975 was signed by Anil Karkhanis son of late Shri N.D. Karkhanis. This reply in affidavit on behalf of the respondent was filed on April 27, 1976 which was the date fixed by the Rent Controller for filing of his reply, documents and arguments. This case was, thereafter adjourned to April 29, 1976 for arguments. On the date of arguments, the petitioner filed an application under Order Vi, rule 17 Civil Procedure Code for amendment of her application filed under section 25-B(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent and against the petitioner and directed the petitioner to deliver vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the respondent within two months from the date of this order. (11) While refusing the application for leave to defend the eviction application, the Rent Controller held that the plea of the petitioner that the respondent landlord is not the owner or the landlord is without force. The Rent Controller further held that the respondent was the landlord and the owner that Shri A.N. Chopra was the attorney of the respondent and has been issuing rent receipts and has been corresponding with Shri N.D. Karkhanis and the printed receipts were issued in the name of the respondent as is evident from the counterfoils of the receipts on record, which are signed by late N.D. Karkhanis for the period from 1971 to 1975. The Rent Controller also held that in view of the photostat copy of the registered general power of attorney executed by the respondent in favor of his father Shri A.N. Chopra, registered in fiftees, Shri A.N. Chopra was patently acting on behalf of the respondent. The Rent Controller also held that since the respondent was the landlord, the contractual tenan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th essential ingredients. (iii) Such landlord should be required by the Central Government or any local authority who has allotted such accommodation to vacate such residential accommodation by general or special order or in default to incur certain obligations on the ground that landlord owns in the Union Territory of Delhi a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child and (iv) From the date of the aforesaid order, the cause of action accrues to such landlord as mentioned above. (13) During the hearing of the revision petition the ownership of the premises in dispute by the respondent was not contested on behalf of the petitioner. (14) What was contested, as stated above, was the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties out of the aforesaid essential prerequisites for the application being made under section 14A(1). I shall deal with this ground a little later. I propose to deal first with ground reiterated before this Court, namely, the alleged defect in the notice dated June 18, 1973 for the purpose of showing that the contractual tenancy not having been properly determined, the petition was had for nonjoind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....into the question of validity of the notice, not with the idea of probing whether it is essential or not to give such a notice for a petition under section 14A(1) but only because of the point that unless the contractual tenancy is determined it is heritable and if it is determined it becomes statutory and is heritable only as per the provisions of section 2(L) of the Act which defines 'tenant." The notice of termination of tenancy being valid, the petitioner only inherited the tenancy after the death of Shri N. D. Karkhanis : and there is no merit, whatsoever, in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petition is bad for non-joinder of proper parties. There is no dispute about the receipt of this notice or sending the reply thereto by Shri N. D. Karkhanis, dated June 28,1973. (17) Coming to the question of the purpose of letting, this plea was raised on behalf of the petitioner in her application dated April 29, 1976 for amending the application filed on her behalf for leave to contest the application. The plea, as stated above, was that the premises were let out for and were being used for office-cum-residential purpose by the late Shri N.D. Kark....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dlord and tenant between the parties and even if all the conditions of section 14-A(1) are satisfied, it would be of no avail to the respondent unless he was landlord of the premises, apart from being owner, vis-a-vis the tenant. (19) The provision of Section 25B(5) of the aforesaid amending Act are in some way similar to the provisions of Order 37 rule 3(1) Civil Procedure Code Under rule 3(1) of Order 37 of the Code, the court is required to grant the application for leave to defend the suit based on a negotiable instrument, if the affidavits disclose such facts as would make it incumbent on the holder to prove consideration or to give such other facts as the court may deem sufficient to support the application. Under the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 25B the Controller is required to give leave to the tenant to contest the application if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the premises. In this way, if the language of the provisions of rule 3(1) of Order 37 and subsection (5) of Section 25B is compared, the latter part of Rule 3(1), namely "or such other fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lord or that Shri P.N. Chopra was receiving the rent as landlord. Strictly speaking, the court could not look into any other fact except those which are disclosed by the tenant in her affidavit in support of application for leave to contest the eviction application. (21) In spite of the aforesaid difficulty, learned counsel for the petitioner, referred me to the moss of correspondence exchanged between late Shri N.D. Karkhanis and Shri A.N. Chopra, father of P.N. Chopra and the various receipts passed on by Shri A.N. Chopra towards rent. It was submitted on the basis of these documents that Shri A.N. Chopra was the landlord and it was only with Shri A.N. Chopra that late Shri N.D. Karkhanis dealt with and the present respondent was a complete stranger to him or to the petitioner and these facts are sufficient for grant of leave to defend the eviction petition. In this connection, learned counsel also pointed out that the cheques for payment of rent were all being sent in the name either of Shri A.N. Chopra, father of the respondent or Shrimati Matwali Devi, mother of the respondent. It was submitted that had the respondent been the landlord of the premises, all these payments wo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... original receipts to which these counterfoils related though she chose to file rent receipts right from August, 1962 to December, 1968. Even no Explanation was given in the re-joinder filed on her behalf to the reply affidavit of the respondent to these counter-foils of rent receipts. The counter-foil rent receipts were not even denied. (25) Shri Bhandare, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that these counter-foil receipts, if at all, merely show that the respondent became landlord for the first time since April 1, 1971 and that is not the case of the respondent. It was submitted that the application for eviction in column No. 14, the date on which the premises were let out was described as 1-6-62 and, Therefore, these counter-foil receipts from 1-4-1971, if at all, merely show a case of novation of original letting contract between Shri A.N. Chopra and Shri N.D. Karkhanis to between Shri N.D. Karkhanis and Shri P.N. Chopra, the respondent. I am afraid this is a new point which is being urged in the revision petition. The case of the respondent has always been that he is the landlord from the very beginning when the premises were let out. It was not his case....