1.       Delay condoned.

2.       The present Appeal has been filed by Delhi Development Authority, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) against the Order dated 14.05.2020 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), whereby Complaint Case No. 400 of 2019, filed by Mr. Tapan Kumar Neogi, Mr. R.N. Neogy, Mr. B.N. Neogi, Mr. Sourendra Nath Neogi and Smt. Namita Sinha, total five in number, has been allowed, directing as under:

“21.    In view of the above discussion, I find that complainants have succeeded in establishing that they are the legal heirs of Smt. Sabita Ghosh.  The OP is directed to mutate property No. 6/58, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi in the name of all the five Complainants, without insisting on Succession Certificate.  Of course, the Complainants would file affidavit, original documents and pay ground rent and interest on ground rent as mentioned in the letter dated 14.09.2015, they will also file copy of death certificate of Smt. Sabita Ghosh, they would also file documents of their identity, their election Identity Card or any certificate, passport, driving licence etc. for their identification.  They would also file attested copy of lease deed, affidavit and indemnity bond.”  

3.       I have heard Mr. Azhar Qayum, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and perused the Impugned Order dated 14.05.2020 passed by the State Commission as also the Memo of Appeal and the documents filed along with it.

4.       Admittedly, the fact, which is not in dispute in the present case, is that Smt. Labayna Lata Ghosh was lawful lessee of property being No. 6/58, WEA, Nai Wala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.  After her death, her two sons, namely, Mr. Tapender Nath Ghosh and Mr. Tarender Nath Ghosh became lessee of the said property.  They were lessee of equal portion, i.e. 50-50 percent.  One of them, namely, Mr. Tarender Nath was unmarried (bachelor) and died on 24.05.2011.  After his death, his brother Mr. Tapender Nath Ghosh became lessee of the entire property in question.  On 31.05.2012 Mr. Tapender Nath Ghosh also expired and on his death his wife Smt. Sabita Ghosh became the lessee of the property.  Smt. Sabita Ghosh expired on 10.10.2018.  After death of Smt. Sabita Ghosh, an Application was filed by the five Complainants mentioned hereinabove (Respondents herein), seeking mutation in equal ratio in respect of the property in question.  However, the Appellant vide Letter dated 07.01.2019 refused to mutate, stating that the Complainants (Respondents herein) were not covered in legal heirs of Smt. Sabita Ghosh and were advised to obtain Succession Certificate from a competent Court of law. 

5.       It may be mentioned here that Complainant No.5 Smt. Namita Sinha was earlier known as Kumari Namita Neogy and, after her marriage, her name was changed to Namita Sinha.

6.       The State Commission by the Impugned Order has held that the Complainants are the heirs as mentioned in Class-II of the Schedule of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and in terms of Section 15 of the said Act they are entitled for inheritance of the estate of the deceased Smt. Sabita Ghosh.   

7.       Mr. Azhar Qayum, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has submitted that under Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the heirs of the husband are also entitled to inherit the property left by a female Hindu in the case the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband are not available and, therefore, the State Commission is not justified in directing mutation in the name of the Complainants (Respondents herein) as the heirs in place of Smt. Sabita Ghosh, deceased herein, lessee of the property in question.  According to him, the State Commission ought to have first determined the question as to whether any heirs of the husband are available to inherit the property left by Smt. Sabita Ghosh as the property in question was inherited by Smt. Sabita Ghosh, which belonged to her husband and her husband’s brother.

8.       I have given my thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by learned Counsel for the Appellant as also the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and the Schedule as also Class I and II mentioned therein.  It is not in dispute that when the husband of late Smt. Sabita Ghosh, namely, Tapender Nath Ghosh expired, the property was inherited by Smt. Sabita Ghosh being widow falling under Class I of the Schedule to Hindu Succession Act, 1956.  There were no other persons mentioned in Class I of the said Schedule to inherit any property of the deceased Mr. Tapender Nath Ghosh.  It is, thus, clear that there is no heir of Mr. Tapender Nath Ghosh in Class I of the Schedule, who can inherit the property left by Smt. Sabita Ghosh.  So far as the persons mentioned in Class II are concerned, the persons who can inherit the property are father, son’s daughter’s son, son’s daughter’s daughter, brother, sister, daughter’s son’s son, daughter’s sons’s daughter, daughter’s daughter’s son, daughter’s daughter’s daughter, brother’s son, site’s son, brother’s daughter, sister’s daughter, father’s father, father’s mother, father’s widow, brother’s widow, father’s brother, father’s sister, mother’s father, mother’s father, mother’s brother, mother’s sister.  The Complainants (Respondents herein) are all brothers and sisters of Smt. Sabita Ghosh.  There are no persons, who can be said to be heirs of the husband of Smt. Sabita Ghosh, namely, Mr. Tapender Nath Ghosh, who may come forward and claim inheritance under the said provisions.

9.       That being the position, in my considered opinion, the State Commission has rightly allowed the Complaint filed by the five Complainants mentioned hereinabove (Respondents herein) and directed the Appellant herein to mutate the name of these Complainants in the property held by Smt. Sabita Ghosh on production certain documents. 

10.     Needless to mention here that the Appellant herein i.e. the Delhi Development Authority shall not be liable to any loss or damages in the event any person of Class I, claiming to be the heir of Mr. Tapender Nath Ghosh, the husband of Smt. Sabita Ghosh, comes forward and claims inheritance on the property in question.

11.     With the aforesaid observations, the Appeal stands dismissed.