Ram Gopal vs. Jagjit Kaur

	Date	Orders
		IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
		RC.REV. 1141/2002
		Petitioner<br><b>RAM GOPAL</b><br>Through Mr.R.S.Sharma, Advocate.
		<b>versus</b>
$\mathcal{P}_{\text{max}}$		Respondent<br><b>JAGJIT KAUR</b><br>Through Mr.H.S.Arora, Advocate.
		<b>CORAM:</b><br>HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. SODHI
		<u>O R D E R</u><br>23.11.2005<br>%
		This petition seeks to challenge the order of the Additional
		Rent Controller, Delhi in Case E.No.69/99 dated 06.04.02202
		whereby the learned Controller has accepted the petition of the
		landlady/respondent herein under Section 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C.Act
		held that the premises were required bona fide for her residence
		and the members of her family dependent upon her.
		It is contended by counsel for the petitioner before me that
		the premises in question was originally owned by Smt.Gursharan
		Kaur who died on 15.10.1978. The respondent herein set up her
		title by virtue of a registered will dated 12.5.1971. The aforesaid

will was challenged by one of the legal representatives of the

$\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{H}) = \mathcal{L}$

Signature Not Verified<br>Digitally Signed By:AMULYA<br>Certify that the digita file and<br>physical file have two compared and<br>the digital data is as or the physical<br>file and no page is mising. [RC.REV. 1141/2002] $\overline{a}$

$page 1 of 3]$

$,\tilde{},$

$\mathbf{L}$

Date

Si Mố:

Orders

deceased in the year 1983 and it was only in 1998 that a family settlement was arrived at which gave ownership of the premises to the present landiady.

It is contended by counsel that the aforesaid petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C.Act could not have been filed earlier than five years of acquiring the ownership by the landlady.

Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that Smt. Gursharan Kaur had executed a registered will dated 12.5.1971 which by a family settlement in 1978 was given effect to and consequently, the suit challenging the will dated 12.5.1971 was withdrawn. Consequences of such a withdrawal would mean that the respondent has become or became owner of the premises in question with effect from 15.10.1978, the date Smt.Gursharan Kaur died.

Heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the order under challenge. The only question agitated before me is whether the suit for eviction could have been filed by the present landlady under Section $14(1)(e)$ of the Act before the expiry of five years.

It appears to me that the present landlady came into ownership of this premises by virtue of a registered will dated [RC.REV. 1141/2002] [page 2 of 3]

$\mathbf{G}^{\mathcal{A},\mathcal{B}}$

$\overline{\mathcal{L}}$

τV<br>$Sr. No.$	Date	<b>Orders</b>
		12.05.1971 which came into effect on 12.5.1978, which further
		was given effect to by way of a family settlement in 1998 when the
		suit challenging the aforesaid will was withdrawn.<br>The
		consequences of such a withdrawal would be that the premises in
		question was inherited by the present respondent with effect from
		15.10.1998, in which event, of the matter the suit was not barred
		by the limitation of five years. Seeing it from any angle the estate
		of Smt Gursharan Kaur could not remain in limbo until the will was
		set aside. The present landlady continued to be the owner by
		virtue of the aforesaid registered will. Her case got further
		fortified when even the challenge to the will was withdrawn in
		1998, which makes her owner pursuant to the will w.e.f.
		15.10.1998. Consequently, the eviction petition could be filed and
		maintained by the landlady.
		I find no infirmity irregularity nemersity or jurisdictional

error, in the order under challenge.

RC.REV. 1141/2002 is dismissed.

R.S. SODHI, J

NOVEMBER 23, 2005 þp

RC.REV. 1141/2002]

[page 3 of 3] $\overline{ }$