By present petition the petitioners have assailed an order dated 24th April, 2003 of learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal dismissing appeal of the petitioners against the order of Additional Rent Controller and confirming the eviction order passed by Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(a), 14(1)(b) and 14(1)(j) of Delhi Rent Control Act.

2. The Eviction Petition was preferred by Shri Krishan (deceased) landlord against LRs of late Shri Inder Ram (tenant) and against present petitioners under Section 14(1)(b)(j) of DRC Act on following causes of action:

(i) That the respondents have neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of rent due from them and legally recoverable from them inspite of service of notice of demand dated 4.6.1979. The rent has not been paid to the petitioner for the period commencing from 1st October, 69 and a sum of Rs.8025.04 was due to the petitioner from the respondent no.1 to 8 as arrears of rent till the end of May, 1979. A further sum of Rs.899.47 has accrued due from them from 1.6.1979 till 30th June, 1980. Thus a total sum of Rs.8924.51 is due from the respondent no.1 to 8 as arrears of rent.

(ii) That Shri Inder Ram predecessor in interest of respondent nos. 1 to 8 had sublet assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the premises to respondent no.9 and 10 about 15 years back without the consent in writing of the petitioner.

(iii) That Shri Inder Ram and the respondent no.1 to 8 have caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises by demolishing 6 kothries which existed at the spot and by merely fixing 5 tin sheds there as shown in the plan filed along with petition.

3. The Eviction Petition was contested by the present LRs of tenant on the ground that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction since the premises let out was a plot of land and not a built up premises thus the premises did not fall within the definition of ‘premises’ as given in provisions of DRC Act; second that there was no sub-letting, assigning or parting with possession to anyone. Shri Inder Ram (deceased) had entered into separate partnerships with Kedar Nath and Mohd. Yasin and on his death the partnerships stood dissolved and tenant had filed a suit for mandatory injunction against Kedar Nath and Mohd. Yasin since they were not sub-tenants. The petitions were contested by alleged sub-tenants Kedar Nath and Mohd. Yasin whose LRs are present petitioners and they had taken stand that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Inder Ram and them. They had raised structures on the open land at their own cost and the rights of the landlord if any in the property had extinguished and they had become owners by adverse possession.

4. Evidence was led by both the parties and after considering evidence the learned ARC held that the premises was not a plot of land but it was a constructed premises. Reliance was placed by the learned ARC on the original lease deed executed by the parties duly proved before the learned ARC which showed that the premises was not a plot of land but was having construction over it at the time of letting in 1943. The learned ARC also gave a finding that the possession of the premises was parted with to Kedar Nath and Mohd. Yasin by the tenant and these persons were not in adverse possession. They were in permissive possession having full control over the premises. The learned ARC also found that eviction ground under Section 14(1)(j) was made out and the petitioners had made alterations/additions and caused substantial change in premises and time was given to the petitioners to bring the premises back to its original shape. The learned ARC in its order elaborately discussed the evidence and considered each and every material proved by the parties.

5. In Appeal, the learned ARCT reconsidered the entire evidence and again gave a finding that the premises in question was not a plot of land but was a constructed premises which