Under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the landlord only needs to show a better title than the tenant, and the concept of ownership under the Act is not one of absolute ownership but something more than the tenant.

JUDGMENT :

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

1. This petition challenges an order of eviction dated 19.03.2018 passed by learned ARC, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Eviction Petition RC/ARC 23/2017 titled as Shri Sukhpal Singh vs. Natha Singh in respect of the premises A-3, Kailash Park, Najafgarh Road, Delhi.

2. Before coming to the impugned judgment it would appropriate to state few facts; the respondent had filed the Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25 (B) of Delhi Rent Control Act against the petitioner herein. It was alleged the suit premises was let out by the previous owner Sh.Mahender Pratap Gupta to Sh.Jamait Singh, father of the petitioner vide a rent deed dated 10.10.1966. On the death of Sh.Jamait Singh, his son namely Natha Singh, the petitioner herein, succeeded to the tenancy and he started paying rent to Sh.Mahender Pratap Gupta.

3. After the death of Sh. Mahender Pratap Gupta the petitioner continued paying rent to Smt. Angoori Devi widow of Late Sh. Mahender Pratap Gupta. After the death of Smt. Angoori Devi, her son namely Mr. Suraj Bhan sold the suit property to one Ms. Poonam Chopra vide a sale deed dated 18.06.1996. She re-sold it to one Mr.Jaswinder Singh Gulati vide a registered Sale Deed dated 20.10.2000. The mutation, despite objections by the petitioner, was effected in the name of Mr.Jaswinder Singh Gulati. He thereafter sold the property to the present respondent vide a registered Sale Deed dated 23.23.2010.

4. The respondent has alleged his family consist of his wife and two married sons and they all are residing in a house of 60 sq. yds. with his two brothers at village Garhi, Bakhtawarpur, Delhi which accommodation is not sufficient for him and hence the premises is required for establishing the business for his sons as the premises is situated in the commercial area. The respondent intend to establish shops on the ground floor of the property and residential accommodation on its floors above.

5. The petitioner herein admitted his father was a tenant since 1966 under Sh.Mahender Pratap Gupta and then he became tenant and have been paying rent to Mrs.Angoori Devi and after her death, to her son namely Mr.Suraj Bhan. He alleges Mr.Suraj Bhan sold this property to Mrs. Poonam Chopra. Since there was some dispute with Mrs.Poonam so the petitioner filed a suit for injunction against Mrs.Poonam Chopra and her husband Mr. Pradeep Chopra, which was decreed on 31.03.1997 by the learned Civil Judge, Delhi. Mrs.Poonam Chopra then filed a suit for possession and damages against the petitioner but it was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is alleged that Mrs.Poonam Chopra in collusion with one Mr.Virender Kumar filed filed a criminal case under Section 420, 504 IPC against the petitioner herein at Jammu which was dismissed and then the petitioner had filed a suit for damages/compensation against Mrs.Poonam Chopra and her husband but they could not be served as had left this address. The said suit was later decreed in favour of the petitioner and whereas Mr. Virender kumar compromised and paid the damages to the petitioner.

6. Thus, the petitioner herein has attacked the eviction order, primarily, on four grounds (a) the sale deed executed by Mrs. Poonam Chopra in favour of Mr.Jaswinder Singh Gulati is a forged document since is not signed by Mr.Jaswinder Singh Gulati at all and since it notes that she had handed over the physical possession of the premises to Mr.Jaswinder Singh whereas the actual possession of the property was with the petitioner herein and further says the sale deed describe the suit property as a free hold built up property whereas it is only a land, per rent deed dated 10.10.1966; (b) the petitioner was never given any notice of sale, hence did not attorn to any subsequent purchaser; (c) the rent deed dated 10.10.1966 which was executed between Sh.Mahender Pratap Gupta and Late Sh.Jamait singh, the father of petitioner herein described the premises as an open space/land though it gave the