Mr. Arun Kumar, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the judgment oflearned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 20/03/1993. The learned Addl. Rent Controller has passed on order of eviction under Section 14 (l) (e) of the Delhirent Control Act for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question. Thelearned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgment on the followinggrounds:- (a) ownership; (b) purpose of letting; and (c) bona fide requirement.

( 2 ). It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish that they are theowners of the premises in question. The husband of petitioner No. 1raghubir Singhwas a lessee with respect to the premises under M/s Kanna Mal Chhanna Mal. Thepetitioner herein was inducted as a tenant by Kuldip Kaur, daughter of Raghubirsingh, in the year 1969-70.

( 3 ). There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases undersection 14 (l) (e ). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants thecourts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises ifnot the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Furtherthese cases under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document