Delhi District Court
Harpreet Singh vs Vimal Kumar Pathak on 5 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-2: NORTH ROHINI COURTS
COMPLEX: DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-014736-2024
MCA DJ No. 18 - 2024
HARPREET SINGH VS. VIMAL KUMAR PATHAK
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Harpreet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Kripal Singh,
R/o - D-9/9, Model Town,
Delhi - 110009 ........Appellant
VERSUS
Sh. Vimal Kumar Pathak
S/o Late Qimat Rai Sharma
R/o - 175, Ceder Avenue,
Suit 512, Richmond Hill, Ontario,
Canada-L4C9V3 .....Respondent
MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 1 of 25
Date of institution : 05.10.2024
Date of Conclusion of Argument : 29.10.2024
Date of Order Judgment : 05.11.2024
APPEAL UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC FOR SETTING ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 14.08.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ROHINI COURTS, DELHI IN CIVIL SUIT NO.
1453/2018 TITLED AS 'VIMAL KUMAR PATHAK VERSUS HARPREET
SINGH' WHEREBY THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 12 RULE 6
CPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN WAS ALLOWED AND
THE PETITIONER HEREIN WAS DIRECTED TO VACATE THE SUIT
PREMISES AND HAND OVER THE POSSESSION OF SUIT PREMISES
TO THE RESPONDENT AND THE LD TRIAL COURT ALSO
DISMISSED THE APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XIV RULE 5 READ
WITH SECTION 151 CPC OF THE PETITIONER.
JUDGMENT
1. By the present Judgement, this court shall decide the appeal u/s 96 of CPC filed by appellant/tenant against impugned order dated 14.08.2024 MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 2 of 25 passed by Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi vide which tenant has been directed to hand over possession to plaintiff//respondent after allowing application under order 12 Rule 6 CPC filed by plaintiff/respondent.
FACTS
2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts are that Sh. Vimal Kumar Pathak filed a suit with a prayer for possession and recovery of mesne profits against Sh. Harpreet Singh.
3. The property in dispute is bearing no. D-9/9, Model Town, Delhi- 110009 (herein after referred to as a suit property). It is plaintiff's case that the property was owned by Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma, father of the plaintiff. Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma died on 03.02.2006. He executed a will dated 05.01.1990 in favour of his son i.e. the plaintiff. Suit property was bequeathed to the plaintiff. Mutation was entered in name of the plaintiff.
4. Late Sh. Kripal Singh was the tenant in the suit property with effect from 01.06.1981. Father of plaintiff had let out the entire suit property except Miani in the staircase to Late Shri Kripal Singh, father of defendant for a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/- P.M w.e.f. 01.06.1981.
MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 3 of 25
5. As per the plaintiff the contractual tenancy of Sh. Kripal Singh was terminated in his lifetime vide the notice dated 06.12.2007. Sh. Kripal Singh continued in possession despite the notice. Sh. Kripal Singh expired on 13.02.2011. A notice for increase in rent was given on 26.03.2011 to defendant. The defendant and his mother claimed tenancy after death of Kripal Singh. In reply to legal notice they further claimed that tenancy of Sh. Kripal Singh had never been terminated.
6. Notices dated 26.03.2011 and 26.02.2014 were given by the plaintiff seeking enhancement of rent. However, plaintiff had clarified that they should not be treated as waiver of the notice issued on 06.12.2007.
7. It is case of the plaintiff that defendant and his mother Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur continued to tender rent in their joint names. Later on the plaintiff came to know that Smt. Kamaljeet Kaur had expired. It is plaintiffs case that in terms of provisions of Section 2 (l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 the defendant could not continue as a tenant. Defendant is in unauthorized occupation.
8. On the basis of these averments suit with the prayer of possession and recovery of mesne profits was filed.
MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 4 of 25
9. The written statement was filed by the defendant. Application u/o 6 Rule 17 CPC for amendment of written statement was allowed. Amended written statement of defendant was taken on record vide order dated 29.03.2022 by learned trial court.
10. An application u/o 12 Rule 6 CPC was pending. Same was decided vide the impugned order.
Summary of finding returned by Trial Court in impugned order
11. Learned Trial Court returned findings that notices dated 26.03.2011 and 26.02.2014 were given by the plaintiff seeking enhancement of rent. However, plaintiff had clarified that they should not be treated as waiver of the notice issued on 06.12.2007.
12. Further finding was returned that present suit is for eviction and recovery of mesne profits. Title or ownership of the property is not in question in the present suit. No legal heirs of Late Qimat Rai Sharma have come forward to claim ownership of the suit property.
13. A Further finding was returned that mother of the defendant and defendant have tendered rent to the plaintiff. Now they cannot dispute that plaintiff is not the landlord.
14. On the basis of these admissions application filed on behalf of plaintiff MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 5 of 25 U/o 12 rule 6 CPC was allowed. Defendant was directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over the possession to plaintiff. Matter was listed for trial/inquiry regarding mesne profit/damages.
ARGUMENTS BY COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES
15. Learned counsel for appellant contends that the Learned Trial Court erred in not considering the amended written statement of the tenant / appellant. It is argued that plea in the amended written statement is taken that notices dated 26.03.2011 and 26.02.2014 were given by the plaintiff seeking increase of rent after every three years as per Section 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act. New tenancy has been created and earlier notice dated 06.12.2007 served upon Sh. Kripal Singh stands waived. It is further argued that in the amended written statement, a further plea is taken that plaintiff is neither owner nor landlord of premises. A Will by late father of the plaintiff in his favour, is relied upon. Same is not even filed with the plaint. It is argued that Triable issues are raised as the plaintiff is required to prove the Will in terms of the Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act.
MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 6 of 25
16. Per contra concerning this above argument counsel for plaintiff/ respondent contends that the impugned order has also been passed on the basis of admissions made in the amended written statement. Amended written statement has been considered in the impugned order. In Para 3 (f) of the amended written statement, there is an admission regarding receipt of notice and deposit of rent in favour of plaintiff. On this basis, it is argued that landlord tenant relationship and receipt of notice is clearly admitted, even in the amended written statement.
17. Further, regarding not placing on record of the Will alongwith the plaint executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff, it is argued that in a dispute between landlord and tenant, the question of ownership, is not relevant and the tenant is estoped from denying the title of the owner (Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act/ Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is relied). Reliance has been placed upon case titled as D. Satyanaryana vs. P. Jagadish reported in 1987 (4) SCC 424 to contend that tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord.
18. Learned counsel for appellant next contended that plaintiff is claiming ownership on the basis of Will and suit has not been filed as legal heir of late Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma.
MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 7 of 25
19. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff contends that the status of the plaintiff as legal heir of late Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma has not been denied by the tenant / appellant. Reference is made to petition u/s 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, filed by the tenant wherein the parentage of the plaintiff is admitted as Vimal Kumar Pathak S/o late Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma.
20. Learned counsel for appellant next contends that in earlier a petition u/s 14 of DRC Act was filed by Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma against Sh. Kripal Singh. That in the said petition, it is averred that notice dated 04.08.1994 was given. It is argued that one the notice dated 04.08.1994, subsequent notice dated 06.12.2007 could not have been given.
21. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff contends that if this argument by the appellant is accepted the plaintiff will be left without any remedy and cannot seek steps for eviction of tenant. In short, the tenant can enjoy the property till eternity.
22. Learned counsel for appellant contends that before passing Judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, a clear and unequivocal admission is necessary. It is submitted that amendment was allowed and amended written statement was taken on record. It is submitted that in the amended written statement, there is no clear and unequivocal admission.
MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 8 of 25
23. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff argues that there is admission regarding landlord tenant relationship, an admission regarding service of notice. It is argued that the appellant is not a tenant as defined in Section 2 (l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is argued that original tenant Sh. Kripal Singh. After his death, his widow Smt. Kanwal Jeet Kaur was the tenant. Her right was personal in terms of clause b of explanation III of Section 2 (l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is argued that Smt. Kanwal Jeet Kaur died on 02.10.2018 and after her death, being a 'personal right', Sh. Harpreet Singh will not inherit the tenancy so provision of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, shall not apply. It is submitted that Provision of Transfer of Property act apply.
24. Learned counsel for appellant next contended that the Learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for framing of additional issues which clearly arose out of the amended written statement which was taken on record.
25. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff argues that genuineness of both the issues raised, was considered by the Learned Trial Court in the impugned Judgment. Firstly, regarding waiver of notice, it has been held that there was no waiver of notice even after giving a subsequent notice dated 26.03.2011 MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 9 of 25 and notice dated 26.02.2014. Reliance placed upon Section 6 A of the Delhi Rent Control Act to contend that Revision of rent provision is not limited to contractual tenant and a tenant in possession after termination of tenancy is also a tenant. Thus, the notice is dated 26.03.2011 and 26.02.2014 were rightly given and are not waiver of earlier notice dated 06.12.2007. Secondly, the question regarding ownership of plaintiff has also been discussed in the impugned order Reliance is also placed upon case titled as Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and Others reported in (1976) 4 SCC 184 wherein, it has been held that a co-owner can succeed in eviction petition without impleading other co-owners. Absolute ownership is not necessary. It is further argued that no legal heir of late Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma has come forward from objecting plaintiff from pursuing the present case. It is further argued that it is not even the plea of tenant that any other legal heir has approached them for rent. It is also argued that tenancy cannot be created in vaccum. Once, a plea of new tenancy was taken, there is an admission of landlord tenant relationship. SCOPE OF INTERVENTION BY THE COURT IN APPLICATION U/O 12 RULE 6 C.P.C. :
MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 10 of 25
26. Case titled as Anupama Bansal v. Suraj Bhan Bansal RFA(OS) 46 of 2019 and C.M. No. 21578 of 2019 of our own High Court of Delhi has dealt with scope of judgment on admission. It has summarized the law on the subject, to quote : 19 to 25:
"19. We may first examine the provision of Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC that is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"Order XII - Admissions XXX XXX XXX Rule 6:- (1) Where admissions of fact have been made either in the pleading or otherwise, whether orally or in writing, the Court may at any stage of the suit, either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without waiting for the determination of any other question between the parties, make such order or give such judgment as it may think fit, having regard to such admissions. (2) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under sub- rule (1), a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with the judgment and the decree shall bear the date of which the said judgment was pronounced."
MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 11 of 25
20. The law on the aspect as to what should constitute "pleadings or otherwise", the words used under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, for passing a judgment on admission, is well settled. There are a line of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and the High Courts that if there is sufficient material on record including express/implied admissions, that can validate passing of a decree on the basis of such admissions, there is no impediment for the Court to accelerate the suit proceedings to a closure by passing a decree on admitted claims.
21. The scope and ambit of Order XII Rule 6 CPC was discussed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Uttam Singh Duggal and Co. Ltd. Vs. Union Bank of India reported as AIR 2000 SC 2740, where it was observed as under:-
"12. As to the object of the Order 12 Rule 6, we need not say anything more than what the Legislature itself has said when the said provision came to be amended. In the objects and reasons set out while amending the said rule, it is stated that „where a claim is admitted, the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on admitted claim. The object of the MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 12 of 25 rule is to enable the party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. " We should not unduly narrow down the meaning of this rule as the object is to enable a party to obtain speedy judgment. Where other party has made a plain admission entitling the former to succeed, it should apply and also wherever there is a clear admission of facts in the face of which, it is impossible for the party making such admission to succeed."
(emphasis added)
22. In ITDC Ltd. Vs. M/s. Chander Pal Sood and Son reported in 84 (2000) DLT 337 DB, a Division Bench of this Court interpreted the provisions of Order XII Rule 6 CPC in the following words:-
"17. Order 12 Rule 6 of Code gives a very wide discretion to the Court. Under this rule the Court may at any stage of the suit either on the application of any party or of its own motion and without determination of any other question between the parties can make such order giving such judgment as it may think fit on the basis of admission of a fact made in the pleadings or otherwise whether orally or in writing...."
MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 13 of 25
23. Another Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to interpret the expression, `otherwise" used in Order XII Rule 6 CPC in Rajiv Srivastava vs. Sanjiv Tuli and Anr. reported as 119 (2005) DLT 202 (DB) and observed as below:-
"10. The use of the expression "otherwise " in the aforesaid context came to be interpreted by the Court. Considering the expression the Court had interpreted the said word by stating that it permits the Court to pass judgment on the basis of the statement made by the parties not only on the pleadings but also dehors the pleadings i.e. either in any document or even in the statement recorded in the Court. If one of the parties " statement is recorded under Order 10 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the same is also a statement which elucidates matters in controversy. Any admission in such statement is relevant not only for the purpose of finding out the real dispute between the parties but also to ascertain as to whether or not any dispute or controversy exists between the parties. Admission if any is made by a party in the statement recorded, would be conclusive against him and the MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 14 of 25 Court can proceed to pass judgment on the basis of the admission made therein. ............."
24. In Delhi Jal Board vs. Surendra P. Malik reported as 104 (2003) DLT 151, a Division Bench of this Court had laid down the following tests for pronouncing a judgment on admission:-
"9. The test, therefore, is (i) whether admissions of fact arise in the suit, (ii) whether such admissions are plain, unambiguous and unequivocal, (iii) whether the defense set up is such that it requires evidence for determination of the issues and (iv) whether objections raised against rendering the judgment are such which go to the root of the matter or whether these are inconsequential making it impossible for the party to succeed even if entertained. It is immaterial at what stage the judgment is sought or whether admissions of fact are found expressly in the pleadings or not because such admissions could be gathered even constructively for the purpose of rendering a speedy judgment." (emphasis added)
25. As can be seen from the above discussion, the aim and object of enacting Order XII Rule 6 CPC is to empower the court to MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 15 of 25 pronounce a judgment on admission, when such admissions are considered sufficient to entitle the plaintiff in a suit, to a decree. The underlying object of enacting the said provision is to ensure speedy justice and save the parties from undergoing the travails of a protracted trial. Such admissions can be in the form of pleadings or otherwise, i.e., in the documents, correspondence etc. placed on record. Admissions can be oral or in writing. They can be constructive admissions without being specific or expressive, which fact can be inferred from vague and evasive denials in the written statement, while responding to specific pleas taken in the plaint.
FINDINGS
27. Court has carefully considered the rival submissions, counsel have been heard at length and record has been perused. Following findings are hereby returned.
BRIEF RECAPITULATION OF THE FACTS
28. Tersely put in chronological order, the facts of the case as projected by plaintiff are as under:
MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 16 of 25 Date Event On 01.06.1981 The suit suit property i.e. D-9, Model Town, Delhi - 110009 was owned by Shri Qimat Rai Sharma, father of the plaintiff. It is further submitted that Shri Qimat Rai Sharma had let out the suit property to Shri Kripal Singh, the father of the defendant w.e.f. 01.06.1981.
On 03.02.2006 It is further submitted that Shri Qimat Rai Sharma expired & 05.01.1990 on 03.02.2006 leaving behind the Will dated 05.01.1990 bequeathing the suit property to the Plaintiff exclusively. It is further submitted that the property has already been mutated in the name of the Plaintiff. It is further submitted that the Plaintiff informed Shri Kripal Singh about the death of his father Shri Qimat Rai Sharma.
On 06.12.2007 It is further submitted that the tenancy of Shri Kripal Singh was terminated vide notice dated 06.12.2007.
The receipt of notice dated 06.12.2007 is not in dispute. On It is further submitted that in fact Shri Kripal Singh sent 13.02.2011 reply dated 20.12.2007 to the said notice through his MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 17 of 25 counsel. It is further submitted that Since the rent was less than Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand five hundred only) per month after termination of his tenancy, Shri Kripal Singh continued in possession of the said property as a statutory tenant.
On 13.02.2011 Shri Kripal Singh expired on 13.02.2011 In accordance with Section 2(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958, his widow Mrs. Kanwaljit Kaur succeeded to his rights. It is submitted that protection under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 that was available to was personal only during the life time of Mrs. Kanwaljit Kaur, mother of defendant.
02.10.2018 It is further submitted that Mrs. Kanwaljit Kaur expired on 02.10.2018 The defendant has become unauthorized occupant of the suit property MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 18 of 25 CONSIDERATION OF CONTENTIONS RAISED
29. The submission of learned counsel for appellant that the Learned Trial Court erred in not considering the amended written statement of the tenant / appellant before it wherein triable issues are raised, is rejected. The further argument that a plea in amended written statement is taken that notices dated 26.03.2011 and 26.02.2014 were given by the plaintiff seeking increase of rent after every three years as per Section 6A of Delhi Rent Control Act, so a new tenancy has been created and earlier notice dated 06.12.2007 served upon Sh. Kripal Singh stands waived is also rejected. The further argument that in the amended written statement, a further plea is taken that plaintiff is neither owner nor landlord of premises,so triable issue is raised is also rejected. A further plea raised in amended written statement that taken that plaintiff relies upon Will by late father of the plaintiff in his favour but the same has not been not filed with the plaint, so triable issue is raised also deserves rejection.
30. The gist of these arguments is that on basis of pleas in amended written statement, triable issues are raised as the plaintiff is required to prove the Will MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 19 of 25 in terms of the Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. The submission that triable issues are raised is rejected for reasons below:
31. Impugned order has been passed on the basis of admissions made in the amended written statement. Amended written statement has been considered in the impugned order. In Para 3 (f) of the amended written statement, there is an admission regarding receipt of notice and deposit of rent in favour of plaintiff. Thus the landlord- tenant relationship and receipt of notice is clearly admitted, even in the amended written statement.
32. Three requirements for decreeing the suit for possession exists in the present case:
Firstly the relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. Secondly issue with respect to notice of termination of tenancy having been served stands settled by the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jeevan Diesels and Electricals Ltd. Vs. Jasbir Singh Chadha (HUF) & Anr. 183(2011) DLT 712 (i.e. suit plaint itself can be taken as a notice terminating tenancy) Thirdly and finally the appellant-plaintiff cannot have protection of the Delhi Rent Control Act in as much as appellant is not a tenant as defined in Section MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 20 of 25 2 (l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958. Original tenant was Sh. Kripal Singh. After his death, his widow Smt. Kanwal Jeet Kaur was the tenant. Her right was 'personal' in terms of clause b of explanation III of Section 2 (l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Smt. Kanwal Jeet Kaur died on 02.10.2018.
After her death, being a personal right Sh. Harpreet Singh will not inherit the tenancy. Thus, provision of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , shall not apply. Provision of Transfer of Property act apply in facts of present case.
33. Further not placing on record of the Will alongwith the plaint executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff does not dent case of plaintiff. Present case relates to a dispute between landlord and tenant, the question of ownership, is not relevant. The tenant is estoped from denying the title of the owner (Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act / Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 is relied). Reliance has rightly been placed by plaintiff upon case titled as D. Satyanaryana vs. P. Jagadish reported in 1987 (4) SCC 424 wherein it has been held that tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord.
34. The next submission by counsel for appellant that plaintiff is claiming ownership on the basis of Will and suit has not been filed as a legal heir of late Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma and thus triable issues are raised deserves MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 21 of 25 rejection. The status of the plaintiff as legal heir of late Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma has not been denied by the tenant / appellant. Reference is rightly made by counsel for the plaintiff to petition u/s 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, filed by the tenant wherein the parentage of the plaintiff is mentioned as Vimal Kumar Pathak S/o late Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma.
35. The further submission by Learned counsel for appellant that earlier a petition u/s 14 of D.R.C. Act,1958 was filed by Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma against Sh. Kripal Singh. In the said petition, it is averred that notice dated 04.08.1994 was given and same was relied upon. It is argued that once the notice dated 04.08.1994 was given, subsequent notice dated 06.12.2007 could not have been given. This submission is rejected. If this argument by the appellant is accepted the plaintiff will be left without any remedy and cannot seek steps for eviction of tenant. In short, the tenant can enjoy the property till eternity. No provision has been pointed out,which in law debars plaintiff from given a fresh notice as per law.
36. The submission by Learned counsel for appellant that before passing Judgment under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC, a clear and unequivocal admission is necessary is legally correct but the submission that in the amended written statement, there is no clear and unequivocal admission is factually incorrect. MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 22 of 25 Thus the submission of counsel for the appellant thus deserves rejection. There is an admission regarding landlord tenant relationship, an admission regarding service of notice. Further Appellant is not a tenant as defined in Section 2 (l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958. Original tenant was Sh. Kripal Singh. After his death, his widow Smt. Kanwal Jeet Kaur was the tenant. Her right was personal in terms of clause b of explanation III of Section 2 (l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Smt. Kanwal Jeet Kaur died on 02.10.2018. After her death, being a personal right, Sh. Harpreet Singh will not inherit the tenancy. Thus, provision of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , shall not apply. Provision of Transfer of Property act apply.
37. The submission by learned counsel for appellant that the Learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for framing of additional issues which clearly arose out of the amended written statement which was taken on record is also rejected. Genuineness of both the issues raised, was considered by the Learned Trial Court in the impugned Judgment. Firstly, regarding waiver of notice, it has been rightly held that there was no waiver of notice even after giving a subsequent notices dated 26.03.2011 and 26.02.2014. In view of Section 2 (l) and 6 A of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 revision of rent provision is not limited to contractual tenant and a tenant in possession MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 23 of 25 after termination of tenancy is also a tenant. Thus, the notices dated 26.03.2011 and 26.02.2014 were rightly given and are not waiver of earlier notice dated 06.12.2007.It was specifically pleaded in subsequent notices that same be cannot considered a waiver of initial notice.
38. Question regarding the ownership of plaintiff has also been discussed in the impugned order. In case titled as Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagannath and Others reported in (1976) 4 SCC 184 it has been held that a co-owner can succeed in eviction petition without impleading other co-owners. Plaintiff is not required by law to prove absolute ownership. No legal heir of late Sh. Qimat Rai Sharma has come forward objecting to right of plaintiff from pursuing the present case.
39. It is not even the plea of tenant/ appellant that any other legal heirs have approached them for tender of rent to them. Tenancy cannot be created in vacuum. Two parties are required for its creation. Even otherwise once, a plea of new tenancy was taken, there is an admission of landlord tenant relationship by the appellant.
40. As a result the present appeal fails because the appellant has utterly failed to prove any illegality, infirmity and perversity in the impugned MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 24 of 25 judgment dated 14.08.2024. The appeal is dismissed with costs being devoid of merits.
41. File of the appeal be consigned to record room. A copy of this order along with the TCR be sent back to the Learned Trial Court immediately by the Ahlmad. Digitally signed VIKRAM by VIKRAM BALI BALI Date: 2024.11.05 16:43:10 +0530 (Vikram Bali) District Judge-02, North Rohini Court Complex, Rohini Delhi/05.11.2024 Announced in open court on (Order contains 25 pages) MCA 18 - 2024 Harpreet Singh vs. Vimal Kumar Pathak Page No. 25 of 25