Mahinder Narain, J.

1. This order will dispose of C.M No. 56 of 1991 in a revision petition, whereby stay of eviction order against the tenant is sought. On 2.5.1991. I had given Mr. Makhija further time to bring authorities in support of his contention, that in a proceeding before the Rent Controller it is open to a tenant to question the legality and validity of a Will relied upon by the owner to establish his ownership.

2. Today Mr. Makhija has not been able to bring any authority in support of his proposition.

3. In fact, by a judgment of this Court (N.N. Goswamy, J.), relying upon the observations of the Supreme Court in Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak, 1977(2) SCC 814, it was held that it is not permissible for a tenant to challenge the legality and validity of a Will.

4. Other judgments which have been cited by Mr. Makhija, namely, 1977 RCR 464, 1974 RCR 1 and 1982 SC 1213, [LQ/SC/1980/135] do not relate to the legality and validity of a Will, therefore, not relevant to the matter before me.

5. If the Will cannot be questioned by the tenant, then it cannot be contended by the tenant that the respondent is not the owner of the premises from which eviction is ordered. In this view of the mattes, there is no occasion to order stay of eviction.

6. In any case, there is another reason for it not being permissible to a tenant to question the legality and validity of a Will. The legality and validity and due execution of the Will can only be subject-matter of proceedings under the Indian Succession Act. It is in such a proceeding that the Will can be proved to be duly executed, and probate granted; or a Will is held to be not proved, and probate refused. The Rent Controller cannot exercise jurisdiction which is conferred by the Indian Succession Act. The jurisdiction of the Rent Controller is confined to the provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

7. I do not find any reason why the impugned order of eviction should not be given effect to. The revision has been admitted, and the question raised, will be determined in due course. I do not see how the eviction order passed in a petition for Bona fide personal requirement in the instant case, can be frustrated by admission of the revision.

8. The petitioner is not entitled to stay of operation of the impugned judgment.

9. C.M. No. 56 of 1991 is dismissed.