Back
2019 Supreme(Del) 2365
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
Sushil Kumar Jain - Petitioner
Versus
Raj Rani & Anr. - Respondents
CM (M) 736 of 2018 & CM APPL. 26464 of 2018
Decided On : 28-11-2019
For the Petitioner:Mr. Girish Chandra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Dhruv Madan, Advocate.
Establishing independent title to the tenanted premises is essential for impleadment in eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Headnote:
Rent Control Tribunal - Impleadment - Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Section 5(3) - Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bablu & Anr. v. Dinesh Chandra Gupta & Ors., Dr. R.S. Grewal v. Chander Parkash Soni, Vidyawati v. Taken Dass, Surayya Begum (Mst) v. Mohd. Usman & Ors., Usha Bhasin v. Competent Authority, Shri Narayan Shamnani v. Shri Rajender Prasad & Ors., Shkuntala Vasant Pahadi & Ors. v. Purushottam Vasant Pethe & Ors.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenges the dismissal of an appeal filed by the Petitioner against an eviction petition. The Petitioner sought impleadment in the eviction petition, claiming inheritance of tenancy and challenging an MOU between the Landlord and the brother of the Petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Petitioner failed to establish independent title to the tenanted premises and that the eviction petition was valid. The court also held that the MOU did not violate Section 5(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Issues: Impleadment of the Petitioner, validity of the MOU under Section 5(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Ratio Decidendi: The Petitioner's lack of knowledge of the eviction petition and failure to assert rights over 20 years weakened the impleadment claim. The court also emphasized the need for establishing independent title to the tenanted premises and found that the MOU did not violate the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, leaving open the Petitioner's remedies against his brother.
JUDGMENT :
Prathiba M. Singh, J.
1. The present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 9th May, 2018, passed by the ld. Rent Control Tribunal, dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner. The appeal arose out of an order passed by the ld. Rent Controller dated 2nd February, 2018, rejecting the application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC filed by the Petitioner.
2. The brief background is that an eviction petition was filed by Respondent No.1 – Ms. Raj Rani, a 92 year old widow, in the year 2011 against Respondent No.2 - M/s Sultan Singh Vinod Kumar through its proprietor Mr. Vinod Kumar, in respect of Shop No.2, Property No. R-4, Green Park, New Delhi-110016 (hereinafter, “tenanted premises”). At the time when evidence had commenced in the petition, an application for impleadment was moved by the Petitioner - Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, who claimed to be the son of Mr. Sultan Singh and the brother of Mr. Vinod Kumar, on the ground that he had inherited the tenancy of his father and hence, he is a relevant and necessary party to the eviction petition.
3. In the said application, it was claimed that the two brothers were not on good terms and hence, the Petitioner was not fully aware of the filing of the eviction petition. The explanation for the delay was also that the Petitioner was never informed of the pendency of the eviction petition. The said application was dismissed by the ld. Rent Controller. The finding of the ld. Rent Controller was assailed in the appeal before the ld. Rent Control Tribunal, which appeal has been dismissed.
4. Ld. counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a proper and necessary party to the eviction petition as the original tenancy was in favour of a partnership firm. At the time of dissolution of the partnership, due to the death of the father, the brother, though he may be running the business, does not automatically inherit the tenancy. The submission is that the Petitioner, being a son, is entitled to inherit the tenancy and hence, establish independent title to the tenanted premises. It is further submitted that during the pendency of this petition, an MOU has been entered into between Respondent No.1/Landlord and his brother i.e., Respondent No.2, by which the Landlord has paid to the brother a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to relinquish the tenancy and the same is contrary to Section 5(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. In support of the contention that Section 5(3) is being violated in the present case, ld. counsel relies upon the following judgments of the Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court:
Sanjay Bhardwaj @ Bablu & Anr. v. Dinesh Chandra Gupta & Ors. [W.P.(C) 5646/2019, decided on 23rd July, 2019]
Dr. R.S. Grewal v. Chander Parkash Soni [Civil Appeal No. 11086/2018, decided on 16th April, 2019]
5. Ld. counsel further submits that as per the settled law, whenever such a situation arises, the tenancy ought to be considered to be a tenancy-in-common and not a joint-tenancy, unless it is proved to the contrary. Reliance is placed on judgments of the Supreme Court and various High Courts to argue that the tenancy was not terminated in accordance with law, as no notice was served upon the Petitioner and hence, the eviction petition itself was not maintainable.
6. The issue raised in the present petition is as to whether the MOU entered into between the Landlord and the Tenant i.e., the brother of the Petitioner, is hit by Section 5(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Reference is made to the MOU entered into between the parties, which shows that a sum of Rs.10 lakhs has been paid as a “goodwill gesture”. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner submits that this amount is nothing but an amount paid for relinquishment of the tenancy, in which the Petitioner also has a right, and is thus, contrary to Section 5(3) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
7. Ld. counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contends that the impleadment of the Petitioner was absolutely essentia
