Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. From this para again, it is clear that she treated only the wife of Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma as tenant and all the LR's have not become the tenant. But in order to avoid RCA No. 80/2011 22 of 28 Shri O.N. Sharma Vs Gopal Gupta any complication the other LR's were taken on record. Therefore, by saying that Smt. Sona Devi included the other LR's also in the petition or she treated them as tenants is not true. Now, according to the judgment of Sh. V.B. Gupta, the then ld. ARC, the issue before the court was as to who has become the tenants in respect to the premises in dispute after the death of Sh. Gopal Krishan and the issue arose because the respondents in that eviction petition took the plea that it was not Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma but the joint family who took the premises on rent and the court opined that it was only Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma and not the joint family and therefore observed that after the death of Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma only his LR's can be taken to be tenant as per law in the premises in dispute and the joint family cannot be taken to be tenant and as such the present petition against the LR's of Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma is perfectly maintainable. It is important to note that in this judgment itself it has been held that contractual tenancy of Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma was terminated by notice dated 18.5.1971. Once, this is established rather the court observed that the defendants in the eviction petition admitted the factum of service of notice it clearly shows that the contractual tenancy of Sh. Gopal Krishan Shrma came to an end and he became the statutory tenant. The succession of statutory tenant is governed by Section 2 (l) of Delhi Rent control Act 1958 and it provides the RCA No. 80/2011 23 of 28 Shri O.N. Sharma Vs Gopal Gupta order of succession in the event of death of person continuing in possession after termination of his tenancy and the first person to succeed in the case of death is surviving spouse as provided in explanation 1(a) and this right will continue till his/her death. The question was never decided in the earlier eviction petition as to who will succeed to the tenancy right of Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma who died as a statutory tenant. The issue which was decided was in view of the objection taken as to whether the joint family was tenant or Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma was the tenant and the court came to the conclusion that only Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma was the tenant and therefore observed that only his LRs will become tenant as per law and according to law the succession is to be followed according Section 2 (l) the right goes to surviving the spouse if the statutory tenant is having one at the time of death and so on. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that this issue was not decided in that judgment and decided it in the suit that the succession is to be governed according to Section 2(l). According to this Section the tenancy devolves only to Laxmi Devi w/o Sh. Gopal Krishan Sharma and this right will continue till her life time with no further right of succession. Admittedly, Smt.Laxmi Devi had also died and after her death the tenancy right cannot be inherited by her LR's as the tenancy right further cannot be inherited, therefore, the possession of the present defendants RCA No. 80/2011 24 of 28 Shri O.N. Sharma Vs Gopal Gupta who are in occupation became as that of un-authorised occupants. As they are the un-authorized occupants, therefore, the law does not require that the land lord/owner shall issue notice u/Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act before seeking possession. In view of this position, in my opinion, the law relied upon by ld. counsel for the appellant is of no help to him that notice u/Sec. 106 of Transfer of Property Act was required to be served before filing the suit as held by Apex Court in case titled as M/s Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. Vs Santosh Singh (HUF), AIR 2008 SC 673. Therefore, I do not find any force in the arguments of the ld. counsel for the appellant that no notice was given, hence, the suit is not maintainable.