Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"2.... It is submitted that mother of the defendants was tenant and after her death, the tenancy devolved upon her sons namely Ram Prasad, Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Ram Prasad expired. The defendants inherited the tenancy rights in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month"

5. Once the defendants admitted that their mother was tenant and after her death, the same devolved upon defendants being her son and they inherited the tenancy rights in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month, they cannot claim themselves to be the owners by way of adverse possession.

12. The property no. 2651(half), First Floor & Second Floor, Main Bazar, Ballimaran near Chhoti Bardari, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in site plan (hereinafter referred as "suit shop") was under the tenancy of Smt. Seei Devi W/o Late Matadin (mother of the defendants). After her death, the tenancy devolved upon her sons namely Ram Prasad, Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Ram Prasad expired. The defendants inherited the tenancy rights in the suit property at monthly rent of Rs. 300/-per month.

"(d) The tenancy of First Floor & Second floor with roof of property no.

2651(half) was in the name of Smt. See Devi. After her death the tenancy devolved upon her sons namely Ram Prasad, Ashok Kumar and Pawan Kumar. Ram Prasad expired. However, presently Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Pawan Kumar both sons of Late Matadin inherited the tenancy rights in the said property no. 2651(half) at monthly rent of Rs. 300/- per month."

20. Admittedly, no suit for eviction of defendants has been filed by the plaintiffs or their predecessor in interest in accordance with the provisions of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The plaintiffs have already withdrawn the suit for permanent injunction vide CS no. 1481/2021. No cogent reason for withdrawing the said civil suit have been specified by the plaintiff in the plaint. Nor the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has placed on record any authority whereby the suit for the permanent injunction is not maintainable merely because the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiffs. Keeping in view the admitted monthly rent of Rs. 300 per month, this court is of the opinion that the suit property is squarely covered under Section 3(c) of The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It is no longer res integra that a tenant who is protected under the provisions of CSDJ No. 287/24 Mohd. Kashif & Anr. Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page no.......... 8 of 9 The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 cannot be evicted by the civil court.