Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Smt. Sharbati Devi, in her written statement filed before the Rent Controller admitted herself to be the tenant of Smt. Rajpati and came forward with the plea that Smt. Shakuntala Devi who was related to her husband had unlawfully dispossessed her from the premises and was thus in unlawful possession of the premises in question. She later absented from the proceedings.

4. Smt. Shakuntala Devi contested the eviction petition and admitted that she was in actual physical possession of the premises in question, but asserted that she was in possession of the premises in her own right as a direct tenant, independent of Smt. Sharbati Devi. She denied that Smt. Sharbati Devi or her husband Sh. Kishan Singh were ever tenant in respect of the suit premises. On the contrary, she had pleaded that the eviction petition was a result in collusion and fraud between Smt. Rajpati and Sharbati Devi with a view to dispossess her from the suit premises. It was further pleaded that initially the tenancy in respect of shop in question was in the name of Shri Bal Kishan Singh Shastri, who died as a contractual tenant in August, 1968 survived by his widow, four sons and four daughters. On his death, the tenancy devolved upon the legal heirs, but as per the mutual settlement between the legal heirs of Bal Kishan Shastri, Smt. Shakuntala Devi alone was treated to be a tenant which position was even accepted by Guljari Lal by issuing rent receipts in her name in the year 1980. Thus, the case of the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants that she became a direct tenant of the suit property ever since 1980.