Civil Appeal No 2608 of 1984
From the judgment and order dated 2951984 of the Delhi High Court in SAO No 128 of 1984
UR Lalit Vivek Gambhir Sanjay Sareen and SK Gambhir for the Appellant
Mrs Shyamla Pappu Mrs Indra Sawhney and NS Das Bahl for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J
This is an appeal by special leave from the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 29th May 1984
By the aforesaid order the appellant was refused the prayer of being joined as a party in the proceedings in execution and the order of eviction against the tenant was passed under section 141e of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958
In order to appreciate the question it should be noted on 16167 there was a lease in favour of respondent No 2 of a monthly rent of 365 Rs350 pm in respect of the premises in question in Greater Kailash New Delhi
The tenant was a company called Ms Bharat Carbons  Ribbons Manufacturing Company
The husband of the appellant Late TR Narula was an employee of the said Company
He retired in 1973
The rent in respect of the premises had been deposited
It is however not certain as to on whose account the rent was deposited
On the one hand the appellant contends that the rent was deposited on account of the appellant s husband and after the death of Shri TR Narula on account of heirs of said TR Narula deceased individually and not on account of or on behalf of the erstwhile tenant of the premises in question
It appears from the record that respondent No 1 was in England at the relevant time
The respondent No 1 described himself as a permanent settlee in England
The said respondent was at all relevant times represented by her attorney
The respondent No 1 is the landlady of the premises in question is still in England
Their case is that both the husband and wife are fairly well advanced in age and wish to come back and settle down in India and want to live their last days of life in their own house
They bonafide require the premises in question
This question of bonafide need has been held in their favour and appropriate proceedings instituted by the landlady against the tenant Company to which the appellant was not a party
lndeed the tenant did not really oppose the eviction petition because as according to their version the tenant had left the premises and Shri TR Narula had become the tenant in his own right
The respondents did not accept that position
There was an application made by the widow of Late TR Narula to be joined as a party in the suit
This was refused by learned Judge for which reasons have been given
The learned Judge of the High Court has noted that it was the admitted position that Ms Bharat Carbons  Ribbons Manufacturing Company was the tenant and the appellant s husband was an employee of the said company
He retired in 1973
The rent has been paid since then
However the landlady was residing out of India and she closed her account when she came back to India and in respect of that the rent was being deposited according to the appellant which appears at page 126 of the Paper Book
The landlady protested by a letter written to the Bank
The High Court has noted that admittedly there was no receipt in possession of the appellant regarding payment of rent
Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to a document which is described as a receipt for the rent for the month July 1973
Counsel states that this was filed in the High Court
Counsel further states that there are subsequent receipts
As against these versions of the appellants herein it is asserted that these receipts were not genuine documents put in
Subsequent receipts that had not been according to the respondents 366 produced before the High Court and at least relied before the High Court were not there
The learned Judge of the High Court proceeded on the basis that there was no evidence that there was receipt in possession of the appellant regarding payment of rent
A strong point was made before us that if money was received from the appellant or on behalf of the appellant it must be presumed that there was surrender of tenancy by Ms Bharat Carbons  Ribbons Manufacturing Company and there was tenancy agreement between Late TR Narula or his wife and the landlady
No such evidence of the acceptance of rent was advanced before the High Court or before us to sustain that ground
The tenancy was originally entered into between the landlady or on her behalf and the company of which TR Narula since deceased was an employee
There was no evidence adduced and no averment made that the tenancy was for the then tenant
Admittedly that tenancy as it appears from the records and the evidence came to an end after the tenant company abandoned the premises and that it was so done was not seriously disputed and TR Narula since deceased or after his death his heirs could not continue unless there was a fresh agreement of tenancy in their favour or novation of the original agreement of tenancy
There is no cogent reliable or dependable evidence of the same
In view of the categorical finding of the High Court it is difficult to accept the submissions on behalf of the appellant
Apart from that there are no other cogent or available materials to show that there was actually a new contract entered into between Late T R Narula and the landlady
On the other hand the contention of the landlady and her representative since she was staying away has been to deny any connection with the appellant
Furthermore the alleged notice of the termination of surrender of tenancy was sent to the landlady in rather suspicious circumstances
It is not necessary to dilate in detail on those
The evidence on record advanced in support of the appellant on this aspect cannot and does not inspire any credence or confidence
If that is the position than after the surrender of tenancy by the company late TR Narula or his heirs had no locus standi and had no right to be joined as party
The High Court notes that there was genuine evidence to show that the landlady needed the premises bona fide
There were concurrent findings of facts of the two courts below and the appellant did not raise any contentions at this belated stage
In the aforesaid view of the matter and in the facts and circum 367 stances of the case we find no ground under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the High Court
The appeal must therefore fail and is accordingly dismissed specially in view of the fact that the landlady needs the premises for her family and for her own bona fide need
Parties will pay their own costs There is however another aspect of the matter
The appellant and her family have been residing there for quite sometime
The landlady herself has not yet arrived in India and is awaiting her arrival since arrangements have to be made in India
The husband is very much in India awaiting vacancy of the house
In the circumstances we direct that the appellant and her family would be entitled to stay in the premises upto 15688 upon filing the usual undertaking in this court within three weeks from today
The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid directions
Parties will pay their own costs
They will continue to deposit cheques to the counsel for respondents for the remaining period
NPV Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The premises in question was taken on lease at a monthly rent of Rs350 by the tenant Company
The rent in respect of the said premises was being deposited in the bank
Respondent No 1 The landlady was living abroad and as she and her husband wanted to come back and settle down in India they required the said premises
The landlady instituted proceedings against the tenant Company to which the appellant was not a party
The husband of the appellant was an employee of the tenant Company and he retired in 1973
The appellant filed an application for being impleaded as a party contending that the rent was deposited on account of the appellant s husband and after his death on account of his heirs individually and not on account of or on behalf of the erstwhile tenant of the premises and the tenant did not oppose the eviction petition because the tenant had left the premises and the appellant s husband had become the tenant in his own right
The application was rejected and the order of eviction was passed against the tenant under section 141e of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958
The appeal against the above decision was dismissed by the Rent Control Tribunal
The High Court dismissed the appeal
Dismissing the appeal this Court  HELD After the surrender of the tenancy by the Company the appellant s husband or his heirs after his death had no locus standi and had no right to be joined as party
366G  The tenancy was originally entered into between the landlady or on her behalf and the Company of which the appellant s husband was an employee
Admittedly the tenancy came to an end after the tenant 364 Company abondoned the premises
The husband of the appellant or after his death his heirs could not continue unless there was a fresh agreement of tenancy in their favour or novation of the original agreement of tenancy
There are no cogent or available materials to show that there was actually a new contract entered into between the husband of the appellant and the landlady or novation of the original agreement
366C D The High Court has found that there was no receipt in possession of the appellant regarding the payment of rent and that there was genuine evidence to show that the landlady needed the premises bona fide
There were concurrent findings of facts of the two courts below
366H The appellant and her family have been residing in the premises for quite sometime
The landlady herself has not yet arrived in India
The husband is very much in India awaiting the vacancy of the house
In the circumstances the appellant and her family would be entitled to stay in the premises upto 1561988
367C