The landlord's need for the tenanted premises is best judged by them, and tenants cannot go beyond their pleadings to change their version by alleging a completely new fact.

Najmi Waziri, J.

1. This revision petition under proviso to Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) impugns an order dated 22.07.2013 whereby the petitioners (tenants) have been ordered to be evicted from the tenanted premises i.e., Shop No. 2, Ground Floor in property bearing no.1/2766, Main Mandoli Road, Near Shanti Building, Ram Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi110032.

Brief facts

2. The dispute arose with the respondents (landlords) filing an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. It was stated that their father was the absolute owner of the property and he passed away on 20.12.1993 leaving behind his wife, four sons and two daughters as legal heirs; that the deceased father had let out the tenanted premises to one Mr. Udai Veer Singh and after his demise, his legal heirs inherited the tenancy as the present tenants; that a family settlement was executed between the heirs of the deceased father by which the landlords became co-owners of the tenanted premises; that they were previously doing business on the rear portion of the premises but the same was demolished by the MCD; that they were unemployed; that they intended to start a shop from the tenanted premises and had no alternative suitable accommodation in Delhi; that since the size of the three shops were small, they wanted to convert them into two; that the tenanted premises was required urgently and was most suitable for them.

3. An application for leave to defend was filed by the tenants. Since the landlords did not object to the grant of leave, leave was granted to the tenants to contest the eviction petition. Thereafter, the tenants filed their Written Statement (WS). The case of the landlords was denied entirely. It was stated that the landlords had not come to the Court with clean hands and had concealed material facts; that the eviction petition was bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties; that the family settlement of August, 2000 was a fabricated document, unregistered and did not bear the requisite stamp; that the landlords wanted to get the tenanted premises by hook or crook; that the landlords had withheld the electricity connection; that the landlords in connivance with the MCD, got the demolition done; that the landlords were in possession of four other vacant shops on the ground floor of the property; that the landlords were allotted an alternative site at Bawana as per the scheme of the Government; that the landlords possessed a factory at Seema Puri, Delhi where they carried on their business. In view of the above, the tenants prayed for dismissal of the eviction petition with costs.

4. Replication was filed by the landlords whereby the averments of the tenants made in the WS were controverted and the averments made in the eviction petition were reiterated and reaffirmed. Thereafter, parties were directed to lead their evidence. The landlord no. 2 was examined as PW-1 and he was duly cross examined. The landlords had also relied upon various documents in support of their case. For the tenants, tenant no.3 was examined as RW-1 and duly cross examined; Sh. Brahmanand, LDC, MCD was examined as RW-2; Sh. Mohd. Zafar, a neighbouring tenant was examined as RW-3 and was duly cross examined.

5. The learned ARC, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed three issues and decided them, as discussed below.

6. Ownership: The tenants had challenged the ownership of the landlords on the ground that only a photocopy of the family settlement was filed which was neither registered nor bore the requisite stamp. It was therefore, submitted that there was no transfer of title in favour of the landlords. On the contrary, the landlords submitted that the property had come to their share by way of a family settlement of August 2000. The learned ARC opined that the landlords were not required to prove absolute ownership and were only required to prove that they were more than a tenant. With regard to the tenants chal