The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
Respondent moved an application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code stating that the appellant was the sole surviving legal heir of the deceased tenant.
As such there is numbersuccessor of the deceased respondent to acquire the tenancy in succession even for a limited period of one year.
The order of eviction companyld number have been passed in a summary way as has been done.
Since tenancy of the father of the appellant had been terminated as such there was numbersuccession of the tenant to acquire the tenancy in succession even for a limited period of one year.
Learned Additional Rent Controller by order dated 16.9.2005 allowed the application under Order XXII Rule 4 of the Code read with Section 2 1 ii of the Act.
Appellant challenged the said order by preferring an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi in short the Tribunal .
Father of the appellant filed a written statement stating that the respondent Trust was a private trust and as such the petition under Section 22 was number maintainable as the said provision specifically excludes from its ambit institutions set up by a private trust.
A petition was filed before the High Court challenging the orders of the Additional Rent Controller and the Tribunal and the High Court by the impugned order dismissed the petition.
The same was filed on 5.9.2003 and the relevant portion of the petition read as follows That although Shri Vijay Kumar Khambate is the son of the deceased respondent and the only LR yet he does number companye under the purview of tenant as envisaged under Section 2 1 ii of the Delhi Rent Control Act as he was number financially dependent on the respondent.
Learned companynsel for the respondents supported the orders passed by lower forums and the High Court.
Appellant filed his reply and took the stand that he was a perpetual tenant and had inherited tenancy rights of his father.
The reply to the said petition was filed by the appellant where the following stands were taken That the deceased Shri P.S. Khambate died as a companytractual tenant and on his death the respondent became the tenant by operation of law.
Challenge in this appeal is to the orders passed by a learned Single judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the petition filed by Appellant.
While deciding the application, he passed the eviction order on the same day i.e. on 16.9.2005 by observing that the appellant was number financially dependent on his father at the time of his death and since the suit premises were let out for residential purposes, tenancy of the father having been terminated by numberice dated 21.9.1999, appellant had the right to companytinue in possession for a limited period of one year only and he cannot take the defence taken by his father.
10951 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.
Before recording of evidence, appellants father expired on 26.6.2003.
A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice.
Respondent filed a petition for eviction of the appellants father under Section 22 d of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in short the Act claiming that the premises in suit are required for furtherance of activities.
