Service on one tenant is sufficient in the case of a joint tenancy, and the advanced age and capacity of the petitioner may be considered in legal proceedings.

JAYANT NATH, J.

1. This petitioner is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to impugn the order of the Appellate Court dated 1.7.2016 by which order the said court upheld the order of the trial court dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC and declined to grant any interim orders in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) Pass a decree of Declaration in favour of Plaintiff and against the defendant no.1 thereby declaring that eviction order/judgment dated 07.05.2015 passed in RC.REV.65/2015 by the Hon’ble High Court in case titled as “Mallo Mall Malhotra versus Suresh Kumar” and the proceedings related to in the eviction petition bearing nos. E-69/14/12 are null and void as the same have been obtained by playing fraud by Defendant no.1.

(b) Pass a Decree of Permanent Injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants thereby restraining the Defendant no.1 his family members, agents servants, assignees, attorney, associates etc. from operation of the execution of the order/judgment dated 07.05.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in RC.REV. 65/2015 in case titled as “Mallo Mall Malhotra versus Suresh Kumar”

3. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 had inducted the husband of the petitioner late Sh. Krishan Lal now deceased and his son respondent No.2 as tenants in the suit property being the Ground Floor, bearing Nos. 22-F, Kolhapur road, Kamla Nagar, Delhi110007 at a monthly rent of Rs.150/- w.e.f. 10.06.1979. It is urged that respondent No.1 filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) before the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short ‘ARC’) for securing the financial future of his widowed daughter, namely, Ms. Geeta Khattar i.e. respondent No.3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.1 filed the eviction petition impleading respondent No.2-one of her sons only, without making the petitioner a party who is alleged to be the other tenant of the suit property. It is urged that respondent No.1 has cleverly termed the tenancy as ‘Single Tenancy’ whereas the tenancy was a joint tenancy between respondent No.2 and the late husband of the petitioner Sh. Krishan Lal.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that she had four sons of whom two have expired. It is further stated that respondent No.2 was a co-tenant in the suit property with her but has now started independent business from another premises, though he has not left his claim on the tenanted premises. It is further urged that the petitioner never received summons from any court pursuant to the eviction petition filed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 kept the petitioner in dark. It is urged that respondent No.1 and 2 have connived to deprive the petitioner of her valuable rights. Further, it is stated that respondent No.3 the widowed daughter of respondent No.1 is getting handsome amount for her livelihood from the property business being carried out by her and her brother-in-law i.e. respondent No. 4. Hence, it is urged that the order of eviction has been passed fraudulently by not impleading the petitioner who was the real tenant in the premises being the only beneficiary of the suit premises. It is also urged that a fraud has been played by respondent No.1 by getting an eviction order of the said property for respondent No. 3 under the pretext that she has no source of income whereas she has inherited a three storeyed posh house in Pitampura which was purchased in the name of her deceased husband.

5. The perusal of the impugned order would show that the Appellate Court has agreed with the order of the trial court dismissing the injunction application of the petitioner. The Appellate Court in the impugned order held that nothing has been placed on record by the petition