Neelam Mehta Vs. P.D. Malhotra and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the case deal with inheritance of tenancy rights in relevance to sub-letting under section 16 of the delhi rent control act, 1958 - she as being exclusive tenant was plead by the petitioner in the lower courts, for the questioned property by virtue of being partner with her deceased father-in-law - it was found that factum of subletting made in the court pleading the permissive possession, was not allowed - hence the second appeal was dismissed - - the civil court as well as the rent controller has determined late ganga ram to be the tenant in respect of the premises. in his lifetime he had introduced the petitioner as well as nand lal as partners, consequent upon the other partners having retired. i see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and law of the rent controller as well as rent control tribunal.vikramajit sen, j. 1. mr. r.k. anand, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, submits that the petitioner, submits that the petitioner, neelam mehta, is the wife of one of the sons of late ganga ram. the civil court as well as the rent controller has determined late ganga ram to be the tenant in respect of the premises. he further contends that late ganga ram was one of the partners of volga ice-cream company. in his lifetime he had introduced the petitioner as well as nand lal as partners, consequent upon the other partners having retired. i this also his contention that on the death of ganga ram his sons and daughters had inherited the tenancy rights as has been clarified by the hon'ble supreme court in gyan devi's case. it is his argument that since the husband of the petitioner, neelam mehta, being one of the sons of late ganga ram is undoubtedly a tenant in the premises by operation of law, the possession of his wife, neelam mehta, cannot be viewed as anything but permissive. it is contended that there is no proof of petitioner paying rent to her husband or any of the heirs of late ganga ram. hence subletting could not be held to have occurred. the argument is attractive. however, on a perusal of the written statement filed by the respondents it is at once clear that this was not the case put forward by them, or by the petitioner in the courts below. it was repeatedly and specifically pleaded that the petitioner was the exclusive tenant in the property in question by virtue of her being a partner along with late ganga ram. it was on the basis of these pleadings that both the courts below concurrently held that, irrespective of the close relationship between the petitioner and her father-in-law late ganga ram, the factum of subletting had been made. it is now not open to the petitioner to attempt a volte face and completely change her defense to that of being in permissive possession by the legal heirs of late ganga ram. i see no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and law of the rent controller as well as rent control tribunal. in any event no question of public importance has arisen in this second appeal. it is hereby dismissed. 2. second appeal dismissed.