Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Kumar vs Jai Singh (Deceased) Through Lrs on 19 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJESH MALIK,
ACJcumCCJcumARC, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI DELHI.
E No. 375/08/89
Unique Case Identification No. 02404C0007072010
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Ram Kumar,
S/o late Gopi Ram,
R/o WZ613, A/1, Sri Nagar,
Shakur Basti, Delhi - 110 034 .....Petitioner
Versus
Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs
(a) Jai Bhagwan
(b) Hukam Singh
Both sons of Dungar Mall
Both residents of
Village Balyani, District Bagpat,
U. P.
2. Smt. Ratni,
W/o Sh. Surat Singh
3. Smt. Saraswati
4. Sh. Sumit Rathee
5. Ms. Sonika Parhee
E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 1
All residents of
Village & P. O. Kultana,
District Rohtak, Haryana.
6. Ms. Monika Punia,
W/o Sh. Pradeep Singh Punia,
R/o House No. 176, Sector19,
Chandigarh.
7. Sh. Shiv Kumar
.....Respondents
Date of Institution : 18.8.1989
Date when Judgment was reserved : 12.3.2015
Date of Judgment : 19.3.2015
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS: The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 14(1)
(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, seeking eviction of tenant from property No. 121 and 122, situated in village Shakurpur, Delhi, now known as 336, Sri Nagar Colony, Shakur Basti, Delhi, hereinafter referred as "the tenanted premises", from the possession of the respondent being his tenant. According to the petition, the property was let out on 1.5.1988 at the monthly rent of Rs.200/. It is averred that the tenant paid the rent for three months only and thereafter he stopped making payment of rent. Thereafter, the landlord terminated the tenancy of the respondent vide legal notice dated 27.10.1988, calling upon the tenant to pay the arrears of E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 2 rent w. e. f. 1.8.1988 to till date at the rate of Rs.200/ per month and to hand over the possession of the tenanted premises. REPLY OF RESPONDENT:
2. The respondent replied to the demand notice vide notice dated 14.12.1988 stating therein that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. It was further stated that the land in question belonged to Sh. Jage Ram and the respondent was only an employee of Sh. Jage Ram and the respondent had never been a tenant under the petitioner.
3. In the written statement, the respondent has challenged the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also averred that the respondent resides in property No. 335A and not in the suit property. It is also averred that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of house No. 335A and that the respondent is not the tenant of the petitioner. The respondent is not residing in property No. 336 as alleged in the petition. The petitioner has mischievously shown the property No. 335A in the site plan as his property to seek ejectment of the respondent.
APPLICATION UNDER ORDER. 1 RULE, 10 CPC BY ONE OM PRAKASH :
4. During proceedings, one Om Prakash, who claimed to be the E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 3 owner of property no. 335A filed an application under Order. I Rule, 10 CPC to implead as the necessary party on the ground that his employee, namely Jai Singh is in occupation of property no. 335A. It was averred that the petitioner in the present case has brought applicant's Om Prakash property within the contemplation of the present petition and his interest has been vitally affected by the pendency of the present petition. The application was initially dismissed vide order dated 15.1.2001. The applicant, Om Prakash went to Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi remanded back the matter to Ld. ARC to decide the application under Order. I Rule, 10 CPC afresh. Before the decision on the said application, Sh. Om Prakash/applicant died. Thereafter, his LRs pursued the said application under Order. I Rule, 10 CPC and ultimately they were impleaded by Ld. ARC vide order dated 27.11.2010. The petitioner in the present case challenged the said order dated 27.11.2010 before Ld. District & Sessions Judge, NorthWest/RCT, where the petitioner gave his statement that he would not execute the decree, if any, passed by the Ld. Trial Court against property No. 335A, which is the property of the applicants i. e. LRs of late Sh. Om Prakash. Finally, the application under Order. I Rule, 10 CPC was disposed off with observation that decree of Ld. ARC, if any, shall not be executed against property No. 335A. However, the dispute regarding the tenancy of the respondent qua property no. 336, Sri Nagar Colony, Shakur Basti, E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 4 Delhi still remains to be adjudicated.
DEATH OF RESPONDENT:
5. During pendency of the case, the respondent/tenant died and an application under Order 22. Rule, 3 CPC was moved by the petitioner/landlord stating therein that the respondent was unmarried during his lifetime. The respondent fell ill and since there was no one to look after him, he locked the tenanted premises and went to the house of his brother Sh. Hukum Singh and Sh. Jai Bhagwan for treatment, where he died on 14.8.2003. It was further mentioned that the tenancy rights had never devolved upon them as the aforesaid brothers neither resided with the tenant nor they were the class I legal heirs of the tenant and they had no interest in the tenanted premises. It is further stated that the Hon'ble Court has to proceed with the case in the absence of any person representing the estate of the deceased respondent but still for the sake of caution, the present application is filed for necessary orders.
On the application under Order. 22 Rule, 3 CPC, summons was issued to both the brothers of the respondent, namely, Hukam Singh and Jai Bhagwan but both remained unserved. Thereafter, an application application under Order. 5 Rule, 20 CPC was moved and they were deemed to have been served through publication vide order dated 11.8.2009 and accordingly they were proceeded exparte. Thereafter, the petitioner led exparte PE. After evidence, the matter was fixed for final E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 5 arguments.
COURT'S OBSERVATIONS:
6. First of all, I shall decide the fact whether tenancy rights of the respondent, who was unmarried, would pass on to the brothers who were proceeded exparte. To answer this query, I shall refer to the definition of tenant under Delhi Rent Control Act. The definition of tenant has been provided in Section 2(l) of Delhi Rent Control Act. The said Section is reproduced here for proper appreciation of facts :
[2(l)"tenant" means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is,or but for a special contract, would be, payable, and includes -
(i) a subtenant;
(ii) any person continuing in possession after the
termination of his tenancy; and
(iii) in the event of the death of the person continuing in
possession after the termination of his tenancy, subject to the order of succession and conditions specified, respectively, in Explanation I and Explanation II to this clause, such of the aforesaid person's -
(a) spouse
(b) son or daughter, or where there are both son and
daughter, both of them,
E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 6
(c) parents,
(d) daughterinlaw, being the widow of his predeceased
son, as had been ordinarily living in the premises with such person as a member or members of his family up to the date of his death, but does not include, -
(A) any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made, except where such decree or order for eviction is liable to be reopened under the proviso to section 3 of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1976 (18 of 1976);
(B) any person to whom a licence, as defined by section 52 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882 (5 of 1882), has been granted.
Explanation I. - The order of succession in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy shall be as follows: -
(a) firstly, his surviving spouse;
(b) secondly, his son or daughter, or both, if there is no
surviving spouse, or if the surviving spouse did not ordinarily live with the deceased person as a member of his family up to the date of his death;
(c) thirdly, his parents, if there is no surviving spouse, son E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 7 or daughter of the deceased person, or if such surviving spouse, son or daughter or any of them, did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member of the family of the deceased person up to the date of his death; and
(d) fourthly, his daughterinlaw, being the widow of his predeceased son, if there is no surviving spouse, son, daughter or parents of the deceased person, or if such surviving spouse, son, daughter or parents, or any of them did not ordinarily live in the premises as a member of the family of the deceased person up to the date of his death. Explanation II. - If the person who acquires, by succession, the right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, was not financially dependent on the deceased person on the date of his death, such successor shall acquire such right for a limited period of one year; and, on the expiry of that period, or on his death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy shall become extinguished, Explanation III. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, -
(a) where, by reason of Explanation II, the right of any successor to continue in possession after the termination of E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 8 the tenancy becomes extinguished, such extinguishment shall not affect the right of any other successor of the same category to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy; but if there is no other successor of the same category, the right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy shall not, on such extinguishment, pass on to any other successor, specified in any lower category or categories as the case may be;
(b) the right of every successor, referred to in Explanation I, to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, shall be personal to him and shall not, on the death of such successor, devolve on any of his heirs;]"
Thus, the clause 3 of Section 2(l) provides that in the event of death of a person remaining in possession after the termination of his tenancy, the spouse, son or daughter, parents and daughterinlaw being the widow of predeceased sons, acquire the right of tenancy by succession and they have a right to continue in possession subject to the order of succession and subject to other conditions. As per the definition of tenant under Section 2(l) of Delhi Rent Control Act, the brothers of deceased do not inherit tenancy rights.
7. In the present case, both his brothers were not living in the tenanted premises as they were living separately. Therefore, the tenancy E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 9 rights did not devolve upon the brothers. In the absence of devolution of tenancy right to any LRs, the tenancy stood terminated and the right of brothers of the deceased tenant does not exist over the tenanted premises. Accordingly, it is held that no person after the death of deceased tenant has any right to continue in possession in absence of any LRs as specified in Section 2(l) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Accordingly, after the death of deceased tenant, the tenancy of deceased stands extinguished. Hence, no ground to pass any eviction order is made out in the present petition.
8. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court on 19th March, 2015 (Rajesh Malik) ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North Rohini Courts/Delhi E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 10 E No. 175/08/89 19.03.2015 Present : None.
Vide separate judgment announced and dictated in the open court today, it is held that no person after the death of deceased tenant has any right to continue in possession in absence of any LRs as specified in Section 2(l) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Accordingly, after the death of deceased tenant, the tenancy of deceased stands extinguished. Hence, no ground to pass any eviction order is made out in the present petition.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(Rajesh Malik) ACJ/CCJ/ARC/North Rohini Courts/Delhi E No. 375/08/89 Sh. Ram Kumar Versus Jai Singh (deceased) through LRs 11