Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) Rejoinder by Respondent no. 1

7. In his rejoinder, the respondent no. 1 has stated that Bishan Narayan Mehra is the son-in-law of petitioner no. 1. The remaining rejoinder is a mere reiteration of the contents of his leave to defend whereby he has denied the remaining allegations of the petitioners.

(D) Pleadings of Respondent no. 4

(i) Leave to Defend of Respondent no. 4

8. In his leave to defend, the respondent no. 4 has alleged that he and his father were inducted as joint tenants at the tenanted shop by Bishan Narayan Mehra, the father of petitioner no. 2 on 01.02.82 at a monthly rent of Rs. 15.37/-. He further stated that the suit property was then purchased by Chanchal Rani and Shravan Kumar in September 1982 whereafter his father expired on 12.03.1985 and thence the tenancy devolved exclusively in his favour to the exclusion of the remaining respondents since he exclusively continued to pay rent to the said joint owners and also because none of the remaining respondents had challenged his status that of a sole tenant in the last 15 years.

(e) DRCA.

The respondent no. 4 has stated that he became the sole tenant after the demise of the other joint tenant i.e. his father. He has contended that he along with his father was jointly inducted as a tenant by Bishan Narayan Mehra on 01.02.1982 and after the death of his father on 12.03.1985, he exclusively paid rent to the then owners whereby the tenancy rights devolved exclusively in his favour, particularly, when none of the remaining LR's of his deceased father raised any objection in respect thereof. The respondent no. 4 has placed on record 06 rent receipts issued jointly in his name and his father in support of his contention. 

!                                                                                (Page No. 12 of 27)
 !                                                 {Madhu Rani & Anr. Vs. Prem Chand & Ors. (E-52/12)}

The petitioners have refuted the aforesaid allegations by alleging that the father of the respondents was inducted as a sole tenant and no joint tenancy was ever created in the favour of respondent no. 4.

The aforesaid rent receipts filed by respondent no. 4 issued respectively by the previous owners makes it appear as if the respondent no. 4 was jointly inducted as a tenant along with his father. Admittedly the father of the respondents has expired way back on 12.03.1985. After the death of the father of the respondents, the extend of half of his joint & commercial tenancy devolved over to all the respondents by virtue of section 2 (l) DRCA. So though the respondent no. 4 was inducted as a joint tenant along with his father, but after the death of his father, all the remaining respondents also became the joint tenants by stepping into his shoes. In these circumstances, the mere fact that the respondent no. 4 has been exclusively paying rent to the owners will not make him as the sole tenant to the exclusion of the remaining respondents. The payment of rent by respondent no. 4 is too feeble a circumstance to extinguish the joint tenancy rights of the remaining respondents inherited by them on the demise of their father. Nothing has been placed on record except for these rent receipts by respondent no. 4 to show that he has been enjoying & occupying the tenanted shop exclusively to the exclusion of the remaining respondents after the demise of his father. Moreover the rent receipts filed by the respondent no.4 pertains to the era of 1980 and no recent rent receipts have been filed by him to show that he has been consistently and exclusively paying rent to the owners to the exclusion of the remaining respondents even till date. Hence the respondent no. 4 has failed to show that he became the sole tenant to the exclusion of the remaining respondents after the death of his father.