Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2022.08.25 14:54:22 +0530 Shri Sanjay Kumar, pleading that the subject property was originally let out to their grandfather Shri Roop Chand and after his demise, the tenancy devolved upon his son Shri B.L. Kumar (father of the applicants) as well as Shri Harsh Kumar (brother of the applicants); that on death of Shri B.L. Kumar, the tenancy in respect of the subject property devolved upon his wife Smt. Darshan Kumari and sons namely Shri Harsh Kumar and the applicants; that on death of Smt. Darshan Kumari, her tenancy rights in the subject property devolved upon her three sons, namely Shri Harsh Kumar and the two applicants; that the applicants are in actual physical possession of the subject property as co­tenants with Shri Harsh Kumar and they have been depositing rent under Section 27 of the Act; that on being informed about institution of the eviction proceedings, the applicants consulted their counsel and were advised to seek their impleadment as co­respondents in the proceedings; that the applicants are necessary parties to the eviction proceedings.
3.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 argued that implied surrender of tenancy is a matter of conduct of the parties and in the present case the signboard on the shop being run in the subject property is in the name of Shri Harsh Kumar and even the explosives license was only in the name of Shri Harsh Kumar for running the shop in the subject property. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 also partly read the reply to eviction notice in which the tenant had taken a clear stand that tenancy had devolved upon Smt. Darshan Kumari and Shri Harsh Kumar, which clearly showed implied surrender of tenancy by the appellants. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Parvinder Singh Bagga vs Narender Dang, 2013 SCC Online Del 4847; Kanji Manji vs Trustee of the Port of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 468; Suresh Kumar Kohli vs Rakesh Jain, (2018) 6 SCC 708;
2022.08.25 14:55:24 +0530 as one daughter Ms. Neelam; and that on demise of Smt. Darshan Kumari in 2005 as contractual tenant, the tenancy rights devolved upon her sons Shri Om Prakash, Shri Sanjay Kumar and Shri Harsh Kumar.
6.2 Despite having been specifically informed, as mentioned above, about the particulars of legal representatives of Smt. Darshan Kumari, the present respondent no. 1, for reasons known to her, filed the eviction petition against only Shri Harsh Kumar. In paras 3­7 of the written statement, the respondent Shri Harsh Kumar specifically pleaded that he is one of the joint tenants in the subject property as on death of his mother, her tenancy rights devolved upon her legal heirs including him.
6.3 Despite abovementioned specific and repeated stand that the appellants and Shri Harsh Kumar are joint tenants in the subject property, the present respondent no. 1 opted to take a plea in the rent deposit petition DR 522/2015 under Section 27 of the Act that the tenancy rights devolved solely upon Shri Harsh Kumar as the remaining legal heirs of Shri B.L. Kumar had surrendered their tenancy rights. It is under these circumstances that after order dated 07.12.2015 in DR 522/2015, the appellants realized the necessity to resist eviction by seeking their impleadment in the eviction proceedings.