Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: tenancy devolving in Smt. Meenakshi Gupta vs Sh. Rakesh Sehgal on 4 March, 2022Matching Fragments
STAND OF THE RESPONDENT
5. A detailed reply has been filed on behalf of respondent to the last amended petition dated 26.09.2016. It is stated that leave to defend application was allowed by the court as Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal stated that he was not a tenant of the petitioner. Subsequently, Hon'ble Supreme Court decided that Sh. K. L. Sehgal was the tenant of the petitioner. A preliminary objection has been raised that ground of bonafide requirement has become meritless as petitioner has acquired Flat No. 701, DBlock, Jhule Lal, Sindhu Nagar CoOperative Group Housing Society Ltd. on 13.07.2007 vide registered Agreement to Sell. It is also stated that petitioner also owns Flat No. 31, Sukhdham Apartments, Sector9, Delhi 85 and this fact has been concealed by her in her petition. Petitioner has also acquired property No. A653, Shastri Nagar, New Delhi after death of her parents. It is alleged that petitioner has amended the petition several times but these properties have not been mentioned by her. It is stated that petition under section 14 (1) (h) is also not maintainable as it was filed against all LRs of Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal but subsequently, petitioner dropped the other LRs from the array of parties and resultantly, the ground under section 14 (1) (h) stands redundant qua all respondents. It is stated that Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal was a perpetual and contractual tenant till his RC No. 310/2016 Meenakshi Gupta Vs. Kishori Lal Sehgal 6/38 death and contractual tenancy devolved upon all his LRs. It is stated that premises was let out for residentialcumcommercial purpose and respondent has been running a business in the name of Sehgal Electricals. It is stated that rate of rent was Rs. 1,000/ per month besides other charges. It is stated that property was let out with effect from 15.04.1987 instead of August 1987 as claimed by the petitioner. It is denied that petitioner is owner of the property and in fact society is owner of the property. It is also denied that property is residential in nature and had always been used for residential purposes. It is denied that Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal had undertaken to vacate the premises after period of two years. It is denied that tenancy of Sh. K. L. Sehgal was terminated vide notice dated 18.04.1992 as alleged by the petitioner. It is stated that property bearing No. T353 Baljeet Nagar, measuring about 56 sq. yds. has been an ancestral property in unauthorized colony which devolved upon Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal and his brother after death of their father Sh. Gyan Chand Sehgal. This property remained unoccupied for number of years and hence, became not worth living by any standards and virtually it became a plot. Even otherwise, other LRs had also right in this property being ancestral one. In fact, this property was available even before start of tenancy and now the plot has been sold by all LRs of Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal. It is stated that running of business by respondent from Jhandewalan's property has no relevance to the present petition. It is submitted that petition is not maintainable on either of the grounds and entitled to be dismissed with cost.
STATUS OF TENANT: CONTRACTUAL OR STATUTORY
16. Initially, the petitioner had sought eviction of the respondent on the RC No. 310/2016 Meenakshi Gupta Vs. Kishori Lal Sehgal 23/38 ground of bonafide need but subsequently, another ground for eviction under section 14 (1)(h) has been added by the petitioner. Simultaneously, an application under section 2(l) (iii) was filed on behalf of petitioner after the death of Late Smt. Swarna Sehgal, widow of tenant late Sh. K. L. Sehgal. It was pleaded in the application that tenancy was terminated during the lifetime of Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal by serving a legal notice dated 18.04.1992 and status of Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal turned into a statutory tenant. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that as per definition of 'Tenant' given under section 2 (l) (iii) of DRC Act, the statutory tenancy devolved upon the wife of Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal after his death for her lifetime. After her death on 03.08.2009, the respondent has no right to stay in the property and he is an 'illegal occupant' of the same after his mother's death. Therefore, respondent either be evicted as a tenant under section 14 (i) (g) DRC Act or under section 2 (l) (iii) of DRC Act as an illegal occupant.
On the other hand, it is argued by Sh. C. P. Vig, Ld. Counsel for respondent that both pleas are self contradictory to each other. It is asserted that status of Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal was of a contractual tenant and no legal notice dated 18.04.1992 was ever served upon him during his lifetime, and therefore, the tenancy devolved upon his legal heirs as per Succession Act. Respondent has derived his rights from Late Sh. K. L. Sehgal and he is depositing rent under section 27 of DRC Act in the capacity of tenant only.
(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 upto the date of his death.
Explanation (I) describes the order of succession in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy. Firstly, the tenancy would devolve upon his surviving spouse and thereafter, to his son and daughter or both, if there is no surviving spouse.