Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The defendant/tenant had filed his application for leave to defend. The first contention raised is that the petitioner is not the landlord/owner of the suit premises. This has been disputed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the premises were originally owned by Smt. Bhagwati Devi; petitioner in his affidavit has stated that Bhagwati Devi was his grandmother and in terms of her Will dated 14.07.1982, the suit premises had been bequeathed to him; the same has also been mutated in the municipal records. The application for leave to defend shows that the tenant has in fact not challenged the fact that Ankit Rastogi is not his landlord; in fact in his application, he has stated that the petitioner had stopped receiving rent from the respondent, in these circumstances, the rent was being rendered by the tenant by way of a money order to the petitioner. Thus, the relationship of landlord and tenant stands admitted between the parties. For a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA, the relationship of landlord and tenant is a crucial factor and this relationship having been admitted this objection is clearly without merit.