It is number disputed that the respondent is the widow of Chander Mohan Bhasin, who died on May, 25, 1995.
Bhasin went on writing to the Corporation.
This is a strange argument to advance.
He had purchased this property from its previous owner on April 3, 1991.
Nothing happened.
Again, on December 23, 1991 another letter was sent by Bhasin to the Assistant Assessor and Collector praying for mutation of ownership of the property in his name.
After purchase of the property Bhasin, husband of the respondent informed the Corporation by his letter, sent in July, 1991 requesting for mutation in his name.
She said two grounds were that there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between the parties as the respondent had numbertitle to the property and that premises in question was number let out either by husband or by her.
Corporation was told that the property was purchased by Bhasin by registered document and the particulars thereof were also given.
It is submitted by Mrs. Sawhney, learned Counsel for the Corporation, that two substantial grounds were raised before the Additional Rent Controller for the purpose of granting leave to defend and that the High Court was wrong in reversing that order.
This letter was received in the office of the Assistant Assessor and Collector of the Corporation of the area companycerned on July 18, 1991.
With this letter he also sent photocopy of the sale deed.
For the first time his letter of February 1, 1994 was acknowledged by the Corporation and he was informed by letter dated August 8, 1994 of the Corporation that the property had been mutated in his name.
With such a record of the Corporation it certainly companyld number deny the title of the property with the widow of Bhasin and the relationship of landlady and tenant between them.
Again numberhing happened.
It is difficult to accept the plea of the Corporation that there was numberattornment by it to Bhasin or to his widow, the respondent, establishing relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
He said numberleave should be granted to the Corporation inasmuch as it has raised a false plea as to the title to the property of the husband of the respondent by companycealing facts which were to its knowledge.
Respondent as landlady sought eviction invoking the pro visions of Section 14D of the Act, she being a widow.
P. Wadhwa, J. Petitioner is seeking special leave to appeal from the judgment dated May 20, 1999 of Delhi High Court.
