The court clarified that the landlord's ownership of the property is a crucial factor in determining the applicability of Section 14A of the Delhi Rent Control Act and that a lease agreement entered into under Section 21 of the Act does not bar eviction proceedings under Section 14A.

( 1 ) THIS revision petition by the tenant- company u/s 25 B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act ("the Act") is directed against the eviction order dated 4. 2. 1984 passed by the Additional Rent Controller Delhi u/s 14 (A) of the Act.

( 2 ) THE respondent owner landlord of the premises filed ,a petition u/s 14 A of the Act. [paras 18 (a) and 19 are then reproduced]

( 3 ) ALONG with the petition, the petitioner filed numerous documents including photo stat copy of the Will of his late father, photo stat copy of the regd. relinquishment deed dated 27. 11. 1982, lease deed dated 27. 11. 1982, death certificate of the father of the respondent, death certificate of the mother of the respondent, carbon copies of the letters dated 14. 6. 1v83 and 12. 3. 1983 sent by the respondent to the petitioner, letter of D. S. E. . Northern Railway of March 1983 to the respondent regarding recovery of enhanced penal rent from 9. 4. 1982 as per Railway Board s letter dated 23. 9. 1976, letter of Divisional Superintendent dated 11. 3,1983 sent to the respondent asking him to vacate government accommodation else penal rent will be charged. Letter of Divisional Railway Manager Northern Railway dated 25. 7. 1983 demanding enhanced penal rent from the respondent, affidavits of the daughters of late father of the respondent, letter dated 29. 11. 1982 sent by the respondent to the petitioner along with registration receipt and A. D. receipt asking for vacating the premises, letter dated 23. 10. 1982 of the petitioner addressed to the respondent and letter dated 29. 9. 1982 sent by the respondent to the petitioner asking him to vacate. Thereafter the respondent filed some further documents including the circulars of the Government regarding the owners of the property to vacate the official accommodation, the correspondence exchanged between the parties, photo stat copy of the letter of MCD regarding the mutation of property in dispute in favour of the respondent, photo stat copy of house tax receipt, letter of Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, addressed to the Accounts Officer regarding (he retirement of the respondent according to which the respondent was to retire on 31. 3. 1984 on attaining the age of superannuation and the memorandum of family settlement arrived at between the members of the respondent-family. The respondent filed yet another document dated 1. 2. 1984 being a notice issued by the Northern Railway to the respondent whereby he was called upon to pay a penal rent of Rs. 4412. 50 w. e. f. 1. 8. 1954 if he does not vacate the premises earlier. The petitioner-tenant filed an application u/s 25 B (4) (5) of the Act for leave to contest the petition. In the affidavit filed along with the application, it was alleged that the documents filed by the respondent, were manipulated, the respondent had no locus standi to institute the petition, the respondent was not the exclusive or the sole owner of the property in question and at best he is owner of a limited share and therefore only an owner of partial property and therefore the provisions of section 14 A dp not apply. It is further alleged in the affidavit that the relinquishment deed did not pass any title to the respondent. The respondent bad not obtained the letters of administration or probate or succession certificate on the basis of the alleged will and. 10 the absence of the same, the respondent had no legal right to invoke S. 14 A of the Act. It is further stated in the affidavit that the premises were leased out to the petitioner u/s 21 of the Act and as such the provisions of S 14a of the Act were not applicable till the expiry of the period u/s 21 which was in the nature of a decree. It has also been alleged in the affidavit that the premises were let for residential-cum-commercial purposes and the bona-fide requirement of the landlord was no ground for getting eviction. It is also alleged that on the date of the petition, the respondent was owning bis own house in Vasan