JUDGEMENT
Avadh Behari Rohatgi, J. -
(1.)The respondent landlord, Assa Singh, let the premises on the first floor of house No. H-25' Jangpura Extension. New Delhi to R.S. Bhalla, Petitioner. on a rental of Rs. 200/ Per month which was subsequently increased to Rs. 250.00 Per month. The landlord sued the tenant under section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises in 1977. By order dated 2 9 1984 the Additional Rent Controller pissed an order of eviction in favour of the landlord against the tenant. From that order the tenant has come in revision.
(2.)The chief point that it has been argued before me on behalf of the tenant R.S. Bhalla, is that the petition of ejectment was not maintainable against him alone because in fact, the tenant of the premises was Bawa Maharaja Singh Distributing Co. (the company). It is said that Bawa Maharaja Singh, father of Bhalla way the sole proprietor of the company. Though styled as a company it was his hose proprietorship concern, it was stated in evidence, on the point the parties led evidence. The Additional, Controller came to the conclusion that R.S. Bhalla in his individual capacity was the tenant of Assa Singh. In a careful judgment she discussed the entire evidence. On the evidence this was her clear conclusion.
(3.)Counsel for R.S. Bhalla has again referred me to the evidence on. this point. He has mainly relied on the receipts of rent Ex.R-l to R-8 which were issue d by Asset Singh, the landlord, in favour of the company. He has also relied upon an agreement (Ex.R-9) which was executed between Assa Singh and the company. All these documents are admitted by the landlord but he has said i i his evidence that he did not know about the constitution of the company and l,e was throughout dealing with Bhalla in his individual capacity. The receipt, Ex R-1 to Rule 8, relate to the period 1972 to 1977. The agreement, Ex.R-9, is dated May 19, 1975. The Additional Controller found that this evidence was not helpful in determining the real question before her, namely; who is the tenant in the premises? Is R.S. Bhalla in his individual capacity on the company of which the sole proprietor was Bawa Meharaj Singh, as alleged by Bhalla? Of the company it was said in evidence for the first time by Bhalla that his father Bawa Maharaj Singh was the sole proprietor. Bawa Maharaj Singh has died. R S. Bhalla, now, claims obtain addition to himself other heirs of Bawa Maharaj Singh ought to have been impleaded. This is the principal point of contest between the parties.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.