Najmi Waziri, J.

1. This petition impugns an order of 07.09.2010 which allowed the respondents’ application under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short ‘the Act’) and ordered the eviction of the petitioner from premises No. 4234, Gali Qutubuddin, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.

2. It has been the case of the landlord that for a family consisting of 13 members there were merely three rooms, one kitchen, two toilets and an open courtyard available which was woefully insufficient for their requirement. Hence, they require the suit premises for their residential use. It was also contended that the two sons of landlord No. 1 who were of marriageable age i.e. 24 to 26 years, were constrained from planning their marriage due to insufficient accommodation. Similar was the case of the two sons of the second landlord who too were of marriageable age being around 27 to 32 years, but, again were constrained from entering into marriage due to acute lack of space. It is further stated that they were the owners of the premises, having purchased it vide registered sale deed of 03.03.2003, and it was their sole residential accommodation property. Hence, on the ground of bonafide need the eviction petition was allowed.

3. In the leave to defend application, tenant had contended primarily, that landlord’s ground of bonafide need lacked merit; they had sufficient alternate residential accommodation as the landlord owned two other properties i.e. property bearing No. 4426-27, Phatak Risaldar, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi, being on an area of more than 100 square yards and another property bearing No. 4217, Gali Faizul Hasan, Gali Shahtara, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi on an area of more than 200 square yards. Therefore, the petition was filed mala fidely and only to harass the tenants. However, apart from the bald averments of ownership of these two properties, no documents were adduced by the tenant to show that the above said properties were owned by the landlord.

4. In the reply to the leave to defend application, the landlords denied ownership of the aforesaid two properties. Therefore, the argument of additional accommodation being available with them became untenable. The other argument which was raised by the tenant and could be treated as a triable issue is that the landlords are not the owners of the suit premises since the sale deed is a document based upon fraud. Learned Senior Counsel for the tenants, Mr. V.B. Andley, contends that the landlord claims ownership of the premises on the basis of a registered sale deed of 03.03.2003, however, (i) this document would not pass any right, title or interest in the suit premises because the alleged seller herself had no such right, title or interest to be transferred to anyone; (ii) that fraud is writ large upon the face of the document itself insofar as it seeks to confer and thereafter transfer title upon the seller Smt. Anno “by virtue of a decree passed by Hon’ble Court of Sh. J.P. Sharma, Administrative Sub Judge, First Class, Delhi on 07.01.2003 against the case No. 429.”

5. The learned Senior Counsel further contends that upon persistent investigation it came to the tenants’ knowledge that no such decree was ever passed by a Judge of that name in a said case with that title and number. That according to the information received, there was indeed no such Presiding Officer working as Administrative Civil Judge, First Class, Delhi in 2003. That RTI sourced information has revealed that Shri Ravinder Dudeja was the Administrative Civil Judge in 2003, whereas Mr. J.P. Sharma occupied that position from 1983 to 1986. The learned counsel submits that, therefore, the said recital in the sale deed was either a fraud played by the seller upon the present respondent or it was collusion between them so as to have the fraudulent sale deed registered purporting to transfer the right, title and interest in the suit property. Counsel further contends that the properties bea