Judgment:
ORDER
Vikramajit Sen, J. (Oral)
1. On 9.10.2000 a last opportunity was granted to the Respondent to file a Reply within two weeks. Despite the passage of two months no Reply was filed. When the matter came up on 11.1.2001 a final opportunity to file the Reply within four weeks was granted subject to payment of Rs.2000/- as costs. Neither has the Reply been filed nor have the costs been paid. Mr. Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that he has just been engaged by the Respondent. He prays for an adjournment, which prayer is declined because of the Respondent's previous conduct. It is clear that the Respondent is adopting dilatory tactics. In these circumstances, I proceed to dispose off the matter on merits.
2. It appears the Respondent No.1 was inducted as a tenant into the premises by late Smt. Janki Devi at a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. On her demise, the present Petitioner, namely Kusum Lata Mishra assumed the role of the landlady. She is one of the daughters of late Janki Devi, the other one being her sister Smt. Anar Devi. It is not in dispute that the Respondent No.1 had attorney to Smt. Kusum Lata, since there are admission in the Written Statement that rents were paid to the husband of Kusum Lata. A legal notice dated 2.9.1994 was also issued by the advocate for the Respondent No.1, in which it has been stated as follows:
That my client is the tenant under you for which a suit for eviction is pending in the court of Shri P.D. Gupta, A.R.C. Delhi.
3. This notice was issued to the present Petitioner calling upon her to carry out necessary maintenance and repair. Hence, in view of these unequivocal admissions the Court must accept the existence of a Landlord/tenant relationship between these parties.
4. Some differences between the two siblings/daughter of late Smt. Janki Devi existed between these two persons. It has been explained by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Estate of Smt. Janki Devi comprises inter alia, one immovable property in Delhi (the property in question) and another property in Aligarh. Whilst the Petitioner is in possession of the Delhi property, her sister is in possession of the property in Aligarh. Because of the disputes between the sisters, the Petitioner has filed a probate petition in respect of the registered will of her mother. It appears that the Court of the Additional District Judge had declined to grant a Probate, for reasons which are not relevant for the present purposes. On the passing of the said order declining the grant of a Probate, the Respondent/Tenant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the code of Civil Procedure before the Additional Rent Controller praying for the dismissal of the eviction petition. This application has been allowed with the consequence that the eviction petition was dismissed by the impugned order dated 19.8.1999.
5. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Additional Rent Controller was undoubtedly, and unnecessarily and overwhelmingly influenced by the rejection of the probate petition.Quite obviously, these proceedings had been initiated by the Petitioner because of some differences of opinion between the two sisters. These seem to have been resolved since no claim to the rent or possession of the demised premises has been raised in the past decade by Smt. Anar Devi. The Additional Rent Controller has unfortunately completely lost sight of the fact that the tenant had recorded clear admissions not only in the Written Statement but also in other documents including the notice dated 2.9.1994. Since the Petitioner was a natural and legal heir of her mother late Janki Devi, it was not necessary for her to prove her ownership of the premises, since for the purposes of Section 14(1)(a) and (b) the Petitioner need not be the owner. Both these Sub-sections use the word 'landlord' in contra-distinction to the use of the word 'owner' in section 14(1)(e). Having attorney to the Petitioner by paying rent to her husband on her behalf, the relationship of landlady and tenant had been established, in addition to the admissions contained in the pleadings and the notice, For these reasons, the factum of the probate petition having been dismissed, did not inexorably lead to the conclusion that the Eviction Petition should be dismissed.
6. Even if the defense of the Respondent/Tenant is to be considered, it was expected of him to avail of the provisions of Section 15(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and make it deposit of the rent ordered under Section 15(1) of the said Act with the reservation and qualification that the rent be not released to the Petitioner, since there was a dispute inter-se to two sisters. This action had not been taken and it is palpably clear that the Respondent is only desirous of protracting the proceedings. Rent is already in arrears.
7. At this stage, Learned Counsel for the Respondent states that the order under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act had been complied with. This only fortifies the position that at no stage did the Respondent actually controvert or Contest the ownership of the Petitioner. It has also been explained by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that a copy of the Civil suit filed by the Respondent had been placed before the Additional Rent Controller. In this suit, there was a specific averment to the effect that the present Petitioner was the landlady. The relief was against the husband of the present Petitioner praying that the tenant be not dispossessed from the property in question without due process of law. The consistent conduct of the Respondent is an acknowledgment of the relationship of landlady and tenant between the parties.
8. In these circumstances, it is clear that the Additional Rent Controller had committed a grave jurisdictional error in dismissing the eviction petition on the grounds of the rejection of the probate petition. Even de hors the WILL the Petitioner was a joint owner of the demised property by the laws of succession. It will also be relevant to mention that this dismissal had been ordered at the time when the case was fixed for the Petitioner's evidence. It would have been more appropriate for the Additional Rent Controller to continue with the evidence, and if she still entertained doubts as to the title of the Petitioner, these doubts could have been voiced and given effect to at the final stage of the litigation.
9. In these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the Court of the Additional Rent Controller who shall resume the proceedings at the stage at which they were at when the impugned order was passed.
10. It is stated that the Respondent has discontinued paying the rent. For that the Petitioner has her own remedies under the Act. However, since the matter has been pending for a considerable period of time, it is expected that the Petition will be disposed off expeditiously.
11. In addition to the costs of Rs.2000/- imposed on 11.1.2001, as there has been a further delay in the proceedings and a Reply has not even been filed, the Petition is disposed off with costs, adjudicated at Rs.2000/- in favor of the Petitioner and against the Respondent.
12. Parties to appear before the Additional Rent Controller on 14th May, 2001.