Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"4. The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East CS SCJ 467/18 Nina Bhalla Vs. Lorraine Monte was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner.

26. In the present case, the defendant has submitted that there is another legal heir namely Mr. Rippan Kumar Beri. But neither there are any pleadings nor any proof that the defendant ever made any effort to tender the rent to the other legal heirs much less an interpleader suit or made any efforts to make him as a witness in the present case. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership especially in light of the fact that the testament has not been proved to be a forged document by the opposite party. Admittedly, the petitioner was not paying any rent to anyone after the demise of the original landlord. There is no other person who has claimed ownership over the suit property and hence, these objections regarding the will have been raised by the defendant just for the sake of raising objection and prolong her occupation in the suit property.