Delhi High Court
Parvinder Kaur vs Ramesh Kumar Jain & Anr on 22 February, 2012
Author: Indermeet Kaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 22.02.2012
+ CM(M) 223/2012 and CM Nos. 3236-3237/2012
PARVINDER KAUR ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. S.K.Sharma and Mr. Ashok
Kumar, Adv.
Versus
RAMESH KUMAR JAIN & ANR ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Vijay Kumar Wadhwa, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)
CAV 188/2012
Caveator has put in appearance. Caveat has become infructuous.
Dismissed.
CM(M) 223/2012 and CM Nos. 3236-3237/2012
1 Order impugned before this Court is the order dated 17.01.2012
passed by the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) which has endorsed the
finding of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dated 01.06.2011 vide
which the objections filed by the applicant Parvinder Kaur seeking
setting aside of the eviction decree dated 13.08.2009 had been
dismissed.
2 Certain facts are undisputed. The original tenant was Jagjit Singh;
he had died on 17.02.2007; he had left behind one son Jaswinder Singh
as also a widow and a married daughter. The eviction petition had been
filed in the year 2009 arraying Jaswinder singh as a legal representative
of the deceased Jagjit Singh; contention being that he was in occupation
of the disputed shop after the death of his father; in fact Jaswinder Singh
had also filed an application under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control
Act (DRCA) seeking deposit of amount in lieu of premises which was
stated to be under his tenancy. The application seeking leave to defend
filed by the tenant Jaswinder Singh had been dismissed by the ARC on
13.08.2009; eviction decree had fallen in the hands of the landlord. The
revision petition filed against the judgment dated 13.08.2009 was
dismissed by the High Court on 15.01.2010; the contention in the
revision petition was largely to the effect that the petition is bad for non-
joinder of necessary parties as all the legal heirs of Jagjit Singh have not
been impleaded as parties; revision petition was dismissed on
15.01.2010; execution proceedings followed which were filed on
19.02.2010. Three days after i.e. 22.02.2010, the present objections had
been filed by the sister of Jaswinder Singh namely Parvinder Kaur
claiming herself as another legal representative of Jagjit Singh and had
sought a right of hearing independent to that of Jaswinder Singh; her
contention is that impleadment of Jaswinder Singh alone as the legal
representative of Jagjit Singh did not suffice and she was also required
to be heard. These objections were filed by the objector on 22.02.2010.
Pertinent would it be to note that in the entire objection petition, it is not
the case of the objector/applicant that her interest was at variance with
that of her brother Jaswinder Singh or that she has any independent title
or right in the suit property; her contention only being to the effect that
she also being a co-tenant along with her brother, she was also required
to be heard. Oral submissions made by the objector/applicant are to the
effect that she is a married daughter and she was living in a separate
independent accommodation; she was not aware whether her brother
was in occupation of this shop or that he was contesting the proceedings
right up to the High Court; objection petition further states that recently
she came to know about the dismissal of the revision petition in the
High court; how and when she came to know about this has neither been
averred in the objection petition and neither hers counsel is in a position
to this query posed to him.
3 The law is well settled; in a commercial tenancy after the death of
the original tenant, the legal representatives of the deceased inherit the
tenancy as joint tenants; the incidence of the tenancy is the same as that
enjoyed by the original tenant; it is a single tenancy which devolves on
the heirs and there is no division of the premises. This has been
reiterated by the Apex Court in (1989) 3 SCC 77 H.C. Pandey Vs. G.C.
Paul. Notice to one joint tenant is sufficient to terminate the tenancy and
suit cannot be held to be bad for non-joinder of other tenants or the other
legal heirs of the deceased. There is also no quarrel to this proposition.
The objector is also not setting up any independent title or claim in the
suit property; her case also does not fall within the proviso to Section 25
of the DRCA; this is also clear from the objections filed by her, she is
only claiming her right through her deceased father.
4 The conduct of the objector/applicant has also been noted by the
two courts below. It has been noted that the objections have been filed
on 22.02.2010 i.e. less than three weeks after the revision petition had
been dismissed by the High Court which on 15.01.2010; how and from
where the applicant/objector learnt about the dismissal of the revision
petition in the High Court is not known; it is clear that the objector was
acting at the behest of her brother and was only buying more time set up
her alleged claim by filing separate objections.
5 These objections were rightly dismissed as this objector is not
claiming any independent title; she is only claiming as a legal
representative along with her brother Jaswinder Singh; objection petition
also nowhere states that her interest in the suit premises is at variance
with that of her brother Jaswinder Singh. Being a married sister, how
she came to know about the litigation which was being fought by her
brother right up to the High court and within three weeks of the
dismissal of the petition of her brother in the High Court, she had filed a
separate claim has not been explained.
6 These facts which have emanated clearly show that the
applicant/objector was only acting as a stooge of her brother whose
objections already stood dismissed by the High Court; this was nothing
but an attempt to further delay and defeat the eviction petition which has
since attained a finality.
7 The impugned judgment in this background calls for no
interference. Dismissed.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
FEBRUARY 22, 2012
A
