The main legal point established is that the purchase of a share in the tenancy premises by a tenant does not necessarily determine the tenancy, and the tenant, along with family members, may continue to hold tenancy rights in the entire premises.

1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for partition of property No.14/10, Ground Floor, Rear Portion, Shakti Nagar, Delhi as shown in the Site Plan filed with the plaint. The said Site Plan upon being admitted by the defendant during admission/denial of documents, has been given Ex.P-1.

2. Vide judgment dated 7th November, 2012, a preliminary decree for partition, declaring the plaintiff and the defendant to be having half undivided share each in the said property was passed, noticing the undisputed facts as under:

i) One Shri Jai Narain Gupta and one Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal were the owners of the ground floor built on half portion admeasuring 120.575 square yards of property No.14/10, Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007;

ii) The father of the defendant was a tenant of the said ground floor, paying half of the rent to Shri Jai Narain Gupta and remaining half rent to Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal;

iii) Shri Jai Narain Gupta died on 01.01.1998 and the plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of Shri Jai Narain Gupta;

iv) That after the demise of Shri Jai Narain Gupta, the father of the defendant and after his demise the defendant, was paying the share of the rent of Shri Jai Narain Gupta to the plaintiff;

v) That subsequently the defendant stopped paying rent, claiming to have acquired the half share of Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal in the property.

3. It is the case of the defendant that the tenancy rights of his father in the premises have been inherited by him along with his two sisters and mother who are not parties to this suit. On enquiry, it was stated that the two sisters of the defendant are married and not residing in the suit premises and are residing in their matrimonial home; the mother of the defendant is however stated to be residing in the said ground floor, together with the defendant.

4. In the judgment dated 7th November, 2012 passing the preliminary decree of partition, attention of the counsels was invited to Kumar Jagdish Chandra Sinha Vs. Mrs. Eileen K. Patricia D'Rozarie (1995) 1 SCC 164 and Rani Devi (Smt) Vs. Bhole Nath (1992) 1 SCC 61 and Surayya Begum Vs. Mohd. Usman (1991) 3 SCC 114 on the aspect of rights of married daughters of the tenant and to the judgments in Pramod Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Bibi Husn Bano (2005) 5 SCC 492 and Imambi Vs. Azeeza Bee on the aspect of effect of purchase by a tenant of a share in the tenancy premises and the matter was adjourned for hearing on the said aspect.

5. The counsels for the parties have been heard.

6. The counsel for the plaintiff has argued:

(i) that neither the mother nor the sisters of the defendant have ever claimed any tenancy rights and it was the defendant alone who has been paying the rent by way of cheques and the mother and sisters of the defendant are deemed to have surrendered their tenancy rights. Reliance in this regard is placed on Prakash Wati Bali Vs. Manish Diwan 62 (1996) DLT 475 and K.L. Diwan Vs. Mohan Malhotra 158 (2009) DLT 442;

(ii) relying on Abul Alim Vs. Sheikh Jamal Uddin Ansari (1998) 9 SCC 683 it is contended that where one co-owner brother sells the share to the tenant without partition, the tenant acquires co-ownership rights in the property and no more remains a tenant.

It is thus contended that partition by metes and bounds be affected.

7. Per contra, the counsel for the defendant has argued:

(a) that the father of the defendant Sh. S. Kuldip Singh was a tenant in the aforesaid premises since the year 1979 and was paying rent of Rs.375/- per month in equal proportion of Rs.187.50 paise each to Sh. Jai Narain and Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal;

(b) that on the demise of Sh. S. Kuldip Singh on 5th November, 2010, the tenancy rights have been inherited, besides by the defendant also by his mother and his sisters;

(c) that even after purchase by the defendant on 26th March, 2011 of the half share of Sh. Raj Kumar Aggarwal in the said ground floor, the defendant was paying rent of the share of Sh. Jai Narain to Sh. Jai Narain and after the demise of Sh. J