INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of two RSAs i.e. (i) RSA No.237/1982 titled as Padam Chand Anr. Vs. Smt.Lakshmi Devi & Ors. & (ii) RSA No.239/1982 titled Padam Chand Vs. Lakhshmi Devi. These second appeals have impugned the judgment and decree dated 17.7.1982 which had set aside the finding of the Trial Judge dated 6.2.1978. Vide judgment and decree dated 6.2.1978, the suit of the plaintiff Lakshmi Devi had been dismissed. The impugned judgment had allowed the appeals whereby Lakshmi Devi was held entitled to a decree. This judgment shall also dispose of four second appeals against the orders of the Rent Control Tribunal (RCT) dated 5.1.1982 i.e. (i) RC.S.A.No.45/1982 titled as Phool Chand Vs. Padam Chand, (ii) RC.S.A.No.63/1982 titled as Phool Chand Vs. Padam Chand, (iii) RC.S.A.No.64/1982 titled as Phool Chand Vs. Padam Chand and (iv) RC.S.A.No.65/1982 titled as Phool Chand Vs.Padam Chand. The RCT modified the finding of the Rent Controller dated 30.1.1980 thereby holding that the appellants i.e. Padam Chand Jain and Mahender Kumar are the owners/landlords of the disputed premises. Cross objections of Phool Chand (husband of Lakshmi Devi) were dismissed; his tenancy was endorsed.

2. Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is as follows: (i) Ram Rakha Mal (deceased) was married to Ram Piari. He had three sons and two daughters; his three sons were Padam Chand Jain, Madan Lal and Mohan Lal. His two daughters were Lakshmi Devi (plaintiff) and Shakuntla Devi (defendant). The disputed property comprised of a part of house No.7059, Gali Tej Singh, Pahari Dheeraj, Delhi. (ii) Lakshmi Devi was married to Phool Chand Jain in 1952; she was living in this house with her husband. (iii) As per the averments in the plaint on 18.3.1959 an oral partition had taken place between the wife and the children of Ram Rakha Mal. By virtue of this partition the disputed premises had fallen to the share of Ram Piari mother of Padam Chand Jain. (iv) In December, 1973 Shakuntala Devi, sister of Lakshmi Devi who was also occupying a portion of the house no.7059 left the premises; since then Lakshmi Devi was in occupation of the entire disputed portion. (v) On 3.3.1974 Padam Chand Jain and Mahender Kumar (purchasers of the disputed portion from Shakuntla Devi) attempted to dispossess the plaintiff from the premises. Their contention was that they had purchased this property from Shakuntla Devi vide sale deed dated 24.1.1974. (vi) In March 1974, Lakshmi Devi came to know that the disputed premises is being claimed by Shakuntla Devi as its owner; her contention being that she had been gifted this property by virtue of a registered gift deed dated 3.6.1969 executed by her deceased father Ram Rakha Mal. (vii) The contention of the plaintiff was that as per the oral partition dated 18.3.1959 the dispute premises had fallen to the share of Ram Piari; Ram Rakha Mal not being the legal owner had no authority to make a gift in favour of Shakuntla Devi who in turn not being the legal owner had no authority to sell this property to Padam Chand Jain and Mahender Kumar. (viii) In 1971 two eviction petitions were filed by Shakuntla Devi against Phool Chand Jain (husband of Lakshmi Devi) under Section 14(i)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. On an application under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the new owners Padam Chand Jain and Mahender Kumar had been substituted in place of Shakuntala Devi. These eviction petitions were dismissed on 30.1.1980. The Rent Controller held that Phool Chand Jain is a tenant; however, the ownership of Padam Chand Jain and Mahender Kumar had not been established. (ix) Padam Chand Jain and Mahender Kumar filed appeals before the RCT against the orders of the Rent Controller. Cross appeal/objections had also been filed by Phool Chand Jain; the objections of Phool Chand Jain had been dismissed. (x) Phool Chand Jain filed four second appeals i.e. SAO Nos.45