( 1 ) AGGRIEVED by an order of the Additional Rent Controller whereby an eviction order was passed against the petitioner on 24th April, 1989 under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition.

( 2 ) MR. Duggal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that the petitioner has nowhere pleaded in the eviction petition that he was the owner of the premises in question. In support of his contention he has cited Tirath Ram Chopra and Another, 22 (1982) DLT (1), Syed and Company and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 422 Mr. Duggal has further contended that as a matter of fact when there was no pleading as regard to ownership of the premises in question, no evidence beyond that pleading ought to have been allowed by the Additional Rent Controller and petition was liable to be dismissed on this score.

( 3 ) IT has been vehemently contended before me that the writing in the hand of father of the respondent dated 16th August, 1963 was a Partition Deed which necessarily required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Learned Counsel for the