The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence and the improbable nature of the petitioner's claims, highlighting the importance of substantiating allegations in legal proceedings.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, had filed an application before the learned Additional Rent Controller under Order I, Rule 10 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) for impleading him as a party to the eviction petition filed by the respondent.

( 2 ) THE tenant in the suit premises was none other than the uncle (father s brother) of the petitioner.

( 3 ) IN the application filed under Order I, Rule 10 of the CPC, the allegation of the petitioner was that the tenant had surrendered his tenancy and the respondent had admitted him as a tenant and that the petitioner and the respondent had compromised their disputes by entering into an agreement dated 19th April, 1995. It was further alleged that the respondent had issued rent receipts to the petitioner for the months of February and March, 1995 and had also received two cheques totalling Rs. 90,000. 00 by way of security.

( 4 ) BY an order dated 8th May, 1996, the learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The learned Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) by an order dated 5th November, 1997 disbelieved the story put up by the petitioner and dismissed his appeal with Rs. 2,000. 00as costs.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsels for the parties made their submissions on 8th February, 2000.

( 6 ) THERE is a long history of litigation between the respondent and his tenant (who is the uncle of the petitioner ).

( 7 ) SOMETIME in 1976, the respondent had filed an eviction petition on the allegation that the tenant had sublet the premises to his elder brother (father of the petitioner ). The landlord did not succeed in the eviction petition nor did he succeed in the first appeal before the learned Tribunal. The respondent s second appeal being SAO No. 239/82 was dismissed for non-prosecution on th August, 1999.

( 8 ) SOME time in 1974, the respondent filed an eviction petition against his tenant for non-payment of arrears of rent. This eviction petition was allowed and the tenant was given the benefit of the provisions of Section 14 (2)of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was, therefore, not evicted. The tenant filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal but the appeal was dismissed. The tenant has filed SAO No. 246/86 in this Court and the same is pending disposal.

( 9 ) THE respondent filed yet another eviction petition but this time against the father of the petitioner who is a tenant in another shop. This eviction petition was also on the allegation of non-payment of arrears of rent. This eviction petition was allowed some time in 1980. The petitioner s father filed an appeal before the learned Tribunal which was dismissed. During the pendency of the said appeal the petitioner s father died and his legal representatives, including the petitioner, were brought on record. Against the dismissal of the first appeal by the learned Tribunal, the legal representatives of the deceased tenant filed SAO No. 116 of 1982 which was dismissed by this Court. The legal representatives then approached the Supreme Court who directed the re-hearing of the second appeal by this Court. This second appeal being SAO No. 116/82 was again heard and dismissed on 24th August, 1995.

( 10 ) THE respondent then filed another eviction petition against his tenant (petitioner s uncle) some time in 1986. This petition was also filed for eviction on the ground of non-payment of arrears of rent. This eviction petition is still pending disposal and the application under. Order I, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code was moved in this eviction petition.

( 11 ) IN the background of these facts, the petitioner set up a case that he and the respondent had compromised the matter and that the tenant (petitioner s uncle) had surrendered his tenancy and the respondent recognised the petitioner as his tenant from 1st February, 1995.