Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Ownership & Purpose of letting The respondent contended that petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises and the petitioner is only a co­landlord. The respondent further contended that the suit premises was let out by Sh. Pyare Lal, Late father of the petitioner to Sh. Laxmi Narayan, father of the respondent. Sh. Laxmi Narayan started his business under the name and style of M/s Laxmi Narayan Raghubir Dayal and the shop in question was also registered in the same name. Sh. Laxmi Narayan expired in the year 1978 and after his death his two sons namely Raghubir Dayal and SH. Om Prakash was running the business in the shop in question as proprietors of M/s Laxmi Naryan Raghubir Dayal. The respondent further contended that Sh. Raghubir Dayal expired on 04.11.2008 leaving behind his five legal heirs who also became co­tenant in the suit premises. On the other hand petitioner stated that he is owner/landlord of the shop in question. The respondent has paid rent to the //7// petitioner upto October, 2010 and he had issued rent receipts to the respondent. The respondent has admitted that petitioner is a co­landlord qua the suit premises. The respondent has also not disputed that the petitioner had issued rent receipts in the name of M/s Raghubir Dayal and Om Prakash to the respondent in respect of suit premises. From these facts, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent is established. So far as the contention of the respondent that his father was the original tenant and he was running a business in the name of M/s Laxmi Narayan Raghubir Dayal and after his death his sons namely Raghubir Dayal and Om Prakash became the proprietors in M/s Laxmi Narayan Raghubir Dayal is concerned, the petitioner has not disputed that Sh. Laxmi Narayan, father of the respondent was the original tenant in the suit premises but the petitioner is denied that business was being run in the name of M/s Laxmi Narayan Raghubir Dayal. The petitioner has also denied that legal heirs of Raghubir Dayal became co­tenant in the suit premises. It is well settled law that on the death of a tenant his legal heirs become only joint tenant qua the tenanted premises. Therefore, after the death of Late Sh. Laxmi Narayan his son Sh. Om Prakash and Sh. Raghubir Dayal became only joint tenants. It is also well settled law that a landlord is not required to file an eviction petition //8// against all the joint tenant and an eviction order is passed against one joint tenant is binding upon other joint tenants, therefore, the contention of the respondent that legal heirs of Sh. Raghubir Dayal are not impleaded as parties in the present petition has no substance. It is held in It was held in Inderpal Khanna Vs. Commander Bhupinder Singh Rekhi, 2008 VIII AD (Delhi) 328 that "It is settled law that on death of tenant, tenancy devolves upon legal heirs as a joint tenancy. LRs are joint tenants and not tenants in common. Where out of many, only one or two LR of deceased tenant are in occupation of premises, an eviction petition by landlord against those who are in occupation of the premises is a valid petition. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant or to implead even those who are not in occupation and possession of the premises". The respondent further contended that the petitioner has also not impleaded his brother Sh. Prem Lal Rohtagi as a party, therefore, the present suit is bad for non­joinder of necessary party. It is well settled law that even a co­owner can file an eviction petition against the tenant and the co­owner is not required to make all the other co­owners as party. If there is any dispute between the co­owners of the suit property, the tenant cannot take benefit of the same. The respondent is paying rent to the //9// petitioner and as discussed above, there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent, therefore, the petitioner is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. It was held in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383 that "A landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under the Transfer of Property Act. He is required that he is more than a tenant".