Delhi High Court
Amit Goel & Anr. vs State Bank Of India & Ors. on 16 March, 2010
Author: Shiv Narayan Dhingra
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ C.M. (Main) No.1952-1953 of 2006 & C.M. Appl. No.15534 of 2006
% 16.03.2010
AMIT GOEL & ANR. ......Petitioners
Through: Mr. R.K. Saini & Mr. Nikhil Bhalla,
Advocates.
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. S.L. Gupta, Mr. Virender Singh and
Mr. Ravi Shankar, Advocates for R-1 & 2.
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for R-3 to 5.
Date of Reserve: 3rd February, 2010
Date of Order: March 16, 2010
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. Property No.921-922, Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi was owned by Sh. Jai
Narayan Goel. The property was under tenancy of State Bank of India. Sh. Jai Narayan
Goel executed a Will dated 13th September, 1983 and bequeathed the property in
following manner:-
"After my death, my wife Smt. Phoolwati during her lifetime shall remain
owner of the property. After her death, my sons Sh. Prem Chand Goel and
Sh. Madan Mohan Goel shall become owner of the property in equal
share."
2. There is no dispute about the Will executed by Sh. Jai Narayan Goel. Sh. Jai
Narayan Goel died on 18th February, 1985. After his death, Smt. Phoolwati was attorned
as landlord of the premises by the tenant and she started receiving monthly rent from
State Bank of India. Smt. Phoolwati died on 24th October, 2005. Since the Bank was in
arrears of rent, a suit for recovery of arrears along with interest was filed in the year 2005
against the Bank by the present plaintiffs Sh. Amit Goel and Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bansal.
Sh. Amit Goel is son of Sh. Prem Chand Goel, who was to succeed to half of the share.
Sh. Dinesh Kumar Bansal is son of Sh. R.K. Gupta. It is stated that Smt. Phoolwati
during her lifetime transferred her half share in the property in favour of Sh. Amit Goel,
who was duly attorned by State Bank of India as landlord-owner.
3. Sh. Madan Mohan Goel who was the other son of Smt. Phoolwati and was the
owner of half of the property subject to Phoolwati life interest had expired before death of
Smt. Phoolwati. His legal heirs Smt. Asha Rani Goel, Ms. Nidhi Goel and Ms. Pooja
Goel made an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC before the learned Additional
District Judge to be impleaded as parties to the suit for recovery of possession and
recovery of arrears of rent, which was allowed by learned Additional District Judge by
the impugned order.
4. The petitioners have filed present petition on the ground that the applicants were
not necessary parties since the suit was between the landlord and tenant for recovery of
possession and recovery of rent and the applicants were not parties for adjudication of
issues.
5. The bequeathment done by Sh. Jai Narayan Goel by virtue of Will dated
13th September, 1983 makes it abundantly clear that Smt. Phoolwati had only life interest
in the property and what she could sell to anyone was her own interest and she could not
have sold anything more than what she owned. Her interest was to come to an end by her
death, therefore, whatever rights she transferred also extinguished with her death. After
her death, the rights in the property were to go in accordance with the Will of late Jai
Narayan Goel to her two sons, namely, Sh. Prem Chand Goel and Sh. Madan Mohan
Goel absolutely. Since ownership to these two sons was to be absolute after death of Smt.
Phoolwati, right of legal heirs of these two sons after death of anyone of them cannot be
doubted.
6. The plea taken by the petitioner that since Sh. Madan Mohan Goel predeceased
Smt. Phoolwati, the entire share of Smt. Phoolwati would go to other surviving son
Sh. Prem Chand Goel and, therefore, legal heirs of Sh. Madan Mohan Goel, who was
already dead, had no right to inherit the property after death of Smt. Phoolwati is
fallacious. Since Smt. Phoolwati had only limited right in the property, that is, right to
enjoy it during her lifetime even if one of the son had died before her, his legal heirs
would be entitled to the share of the deceased son after death of Smt. Phoolwati and had a
right to claim the rent as well as possession along with other co-owners.
7. The other argument forwarded by the petitioner is that since the dispute was only
in respect of recovery of rent and the petitioner had already been attorned by the Bank
and were receiving rent, the applicants were not necessary party. This argument was
rightly turned down by the trial court. Attornment by the tenant is not a test of the
petitioner being rightful receiver of the rent. If a tenant attorns in favour of some
stranger, he would not become landlord. The person entitled to receive rent needs to have
legal a right to receive the rent either as owner or as successor of the owner/landlord or as
agent of the landlord. The attornment done by Smt. Phoolwati or authority given by
Smt. Phoolwati came to an end with her death and after her death only the persons
entitled to inherit the property in accordance with the Will of Sh. Jai Narayan Goel would
be the landlord/owners.
8. I, therefore, consider that the trial court rightly allowed the application made by
the applicants under Order I Rule 10 CPC for being impleaded as a party. This petition
has no force and is hereby dismissed.
SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
MARCH 16, 2010
'AA'
