Dismissed

Sarla Rani v. Mithlesh Devi

Delhi HC3 Jul 2018RSA/95/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two regular second appeals challenging ejectment decrees were dismissed as withdrawn by the appellants. The court accepted the appellants' undertaking to vacate premises and pay mesne profits, holding they are entitled to reasonable time to do so. Appeals stood dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Regular second appeals dismissed as withdrawn. Notices issued for granting time to vacate.

Sarla Rani Vs Mithlesh Devi — Landlord and Tenant | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

Signature Not Verified Signing Date:18.10.2024 16:47:39 Certify that the digital and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file an d no page is missing.

¶2

RSA 95/2018. RSA 96/2018 & RSA 97/2018

¶3

These three Regular Second Appeals, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), impugn the separate but near identical judgments [all dated IT^ May, 2018 in RCA Nos.20/2017,22/2017 and 21/2017, all of the Court of Additional District Judge (ADJ)-04, South-West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi] of dismissal of First Appeals under Section 96 of the CPC preferred by the appellant in each of these appeals, against the judgments all dated 19"^ January, 2017 in suits, being CS Nos.27022/2016, 27023/2016 and 27024/2016 filed by the respondent in all these appeals against each of the appellants herein of ejectmentof each of the appellantsfrom the shop in their respectivetenancy in property No.WZ-12B, Gulab Bagh, Nawada, New Delhi-110059.

¶4

The counsel for all the three appellants has been heard. 5. The respondent had filed the suits, from which, these second appeals arise, claiming (i) that the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 did not extend to the locality where the property aforesaid in which the shops in the tenancy of each of the appellants was situated; and, (ii) that the respondent was not desirous of continuing with the tenancy of each of the appellants and was entitled to eject each of the appellants and to recover mesne profits from the appellants.

¶5

Each of the appellants though contested the suit by filing written statement, but did not dispute the relationship of landlord and tenant with the respondent. 7. The respondent filed applications under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for decree on admissions and which applications were allowed and a decree for ejectment passed in favour of the respondent and against each of the appellants with respect to the shop in the tenancy of each of the appellants.

¶6

- The first appeal preferred by the appellants as aforesaid remained unsuccessful.

¶7

Page 2 of 5

¶8

The counsel for the appellants contends that the appellants having paid pagdi for becoming tenant in the shops in their respective tenancy, the tenancy in favour of the each of the appellants is a permanent one and the appellants are not liable to be ejected and the respondent is not entitled to determine the tenancy of the appellants by filing the suit for ejectment.

¶9

I have enquired from the counsel for the appellants as to how the appellants, even if prove to have paid pagdi for becoming a tenant in the shop in their respective possession / tenancy, can claim permanent tenancy or tenancy for , any fixed period, in the absence of a registered lease deed. 11. The counsel for the appellants obviously has no answer in view of settled legal position.

¶10

The only other argument is, that as per the respondent also, the father of the appellant in RSA No.97/2018 was inducted as a tenant in the shop subject matter thereof and the appellant, against,whom the suit was filed, is only one of the legal heirs of his father and that the other legal heirs also ought to have been impleaded. 13. The said question is also no longer res integra. Supreme Court, in H.C. Pandey Vs. G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77 held that on death of a tenant, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs - it is a single tenancy which devolve on the heirs; there is no division of the premises or of rent payable therefor; the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants; thus notice served on some of the heirs was enough. In accordance with the said principle, the suit against one of the heirs only, is also sufficient. Supreme Court, m Surayya Begum (Mst.) Vs. Moltd. Usman (1991) 3 SCC 114 has held that the* principle of representation of interest of a person through a named party is not unknown. It is not the case that the interest of appellant in RSA No.97/2018 is adversorial to the other legal heirs of his father or that the said appellant is in collusion with the respondent. Rather, the very factum

¶11

Page 3 of5

¶12

of the appellant contesting the suit and preferring this appeal shows that the appellant is acting bona fide. It is also not the case that save for the said appellant, any other heir of his father is in possession of the shop or has paid rent thereof or asserted any rights.

¶13

No other argument has been urged by the counsel for the appellants.

¶14

When I was about to start dictating the judgment of dismissal of these second appeals, the counsel for the appellants, under instructions from the appellants in RSA Nos.96/2018 and 97/2018 and under instructions from Mr. Inderjeet, husband of the appellant in RSA No.95/2018, all stated to be present in Court, states that the appellants do not press these appeals and withdraw the same and only desire time of one, one and a half years to vacate the shops. The counsel for the appellants also states that the appellants in RSA No.96/2018 and 97/2018 and the husband of the appellant in RSA No.95/2018 are duly authorized in this regard and undertake to this Court to, upon the respondent agreeing to grant of time, vacate the premises and deliver vacant peaceful physical possession of the shops subject matter of each of the suits to the respondent on or before the date till when time to vacate is granted.

¶15

¶16

¶17

On enquiry, it is stated that though the appellant in RSA No.97/2018 is only one of the legal heirs of his father who was the originaltenant, but the said appellant alone is in possession and none of the other legal heirs are interested in the shop or have ever claimed any right in the shop which is in the exclusive , tenancy of the appellant in RSA No.97/2018. It is further stated that the appellant in RSA No.97/2018 is in a position to give an undertaking with the knowledge that in the event of any other legal representative of his father making a claim in future, he would be liable therefor. ,

¶18

Page 4 of5

¶19

On enquiry,it is further stated thatthe appellantsin the three appeals have paid an amount of Rs.13.60/-,Rs.l760/- and Rs.1300/-per month respectivelyto the respondenttill date and the prevalentlettingvalue of each of the shop is at the rate of Rs.7,000/-per month and the appellantsare willingto pay mesneprofits at the said rate.

¶20

The appeals are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

¶21

The aforesaid undertakings of the appellants in RSA Nos.96/2018, 97/2018 and of husband of the appellant in RSA No.95/2018 are accepted and binding them thereto, issue notice limited to the aspect of grant of time to the respondent, by all modes including dasti as well as through the advocate for the respondent beforethe Trial Court, returnableon 12"' July, 2018.

¶22

RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J

¶23

JULY 03, 2018 'gsr'..

¶24

h A ,

Sarla Rani v. Mithlesh Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarla Rani v. Mithlesh Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anurag Ojha Vs Union of India and Anr.

Ms. Jyoti Vs Directorate of Education and Anr.

Rajkumar & Anr. Vs Managing Committee of Maharaja Agarsain Public School & Anr.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Prakash & Ors.

The New India Assurance Oc. Ltd. Vs Bibi Mariam & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Matta Vs Mithlesh Devi