The judgment emphasizes the importance of evidence, including the identification of signatures, in determining the authenticity of documents and the application of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

JUDGMENT :

VINOD GOEL, J.

1. The petitioner, a sub-tenant, having unsuccessfully pursued his appeal bearing No.RCT-1126/2016 before the Learned Rent Control Tribunal, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (“Tribunal”) by judgment dated 21.09.2017 against order of eviction dated 02.06.2008 passed by the court of learned Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (“ARC”), has moved this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of both the orders.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondent No.1 and 2 have filed two eviction petitions in respect of Shop No.M-64, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 (demised shop) before the learned ARC under Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”) against the respondent No.3 and the petitioner.

3. The parties being the same, both these eviction petitions were consolidated by the learned ARC for the purpose of trial.

4. The respondents No.1 and 2 had let out the demised shop to the respondent No.3 w.e.f. 01st September, 1992 at a monthly rent of Rs.2,000/-. The respondent No.3 has failed to make the payment of rent from 01.01.1993 to 31.05.1996. A legal demand notice dated 14.05.1993 was served upon respondent No.3. It is claimed that the respondent No.3 had sub-let or otherwise parted with the possession of the demised shop in favour of his brother/petitioner, who is in unlawful possession thereof.

5. In his written statement, the petitioner pleaded that the respondent No.3 was never a tenant in the demised shop which in fact was let out to him at a monthly rent of Rs.500/- in the year 1986 and since then he has been in possession thereof. It is pleaded by him that he dissolved the partnership firm, i.e., M/s. Kalka Steel Centre, M-64, Kalkaji, by Dissolution Deed dated 20.02.1993, with respondent No.3 who gave him the goodwill and the demised shop was never a partnership property. He denied that the demised shop was rented out by the respondents No.1 & 2 to respondent No.3 w.e.f. 01.09.1992. He denied that the respondent No.3 sublet the demised shop to him and pleaded that the respondents No.1 and 2 have colluded with respondent No.3 and forged the rent receipts. He pleaded to be the tenant of the demised shop since 1986. He denied that he ever surrendered the tenancy. He claimed that he has never been in arrears of rent, which were paid by him from 1986. He is in possession of rent receipts since 1986 till July 1992. He offered rent to respondents No.1 and 2 but they refused to accept whereafter he has deposited the rent @ Rs.500/- per month in the Court of ARC upto December 1993.

6. The respondent No.3 adopted the written statement filed by the petitioner in verbatim.

7. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed replication in which they did not dispute that till 31.08.1992, the petitioner was their tenant @ Rs.500/- per month in the demised shop. However, they pleaded that the tenancy was surrendered by the petitioner on 31.08.1992. They asserted that the said shop was rented out by them to the respondent No.3 w.e.f. 01.09.1992 on rent @ Rs.2,000/- per month.

8. In support of their case, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 examined their father Sh. K.N. Pathak as AW-1 and the respondent No.1 has stepped into the witness box as AW-2. On the other hand, the petitioner had examined Sh. Jawala Prasad as RW1 and one Sh. Parmanand Raheja as RW3. Additionally, the petitioner himself stepped into the witness box as RW2.

9. The learned ARC found that:-

(i) it was not suggested in cross-examination of AW-1 and AW-2 that the signatures of the petitioner on counterfoil of rent receipt Ex.AW-1/17 or that of respondent No.3 on receipts Ex.AW-1/3 to AW-1/16 were forged or fabricated or obtained on blank receipts;

(ii) the petitioner in his cross-examination has admitted the signatures of his brother/respondent No.3 on the rent receipt Ex.AW-1/3 and AW-1/6;

(iii) in the previous civil litigation at the instance of the