The main legal point established in the judgment is the establishment of the landlord-tenant relationship and the grounds for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT :

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. An application for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, "DRC Act") was filed by Ms. Manju Bala against Late Mr. Mathura Dass, now represented by his son Mr. Surjeet Singh, i.e., the Petitioner herein (hereinafter, "Tenant"). The said eviction petition related to property bearing Garage No. 91 (Shop), Gulabi Bagh, Delhi-110007 (hereinafter, "suit property").

2. In the said eviction petition, a decree was passed on 28th February, 2013, by the ld. Additional Rent Controller (hereinafter, "ARC"), the operative portion of which reads as under:

"14. Now let me see as to whether petitioner has been able to prove ground of eviction u/s.14(1)(j) of DRC Act. Section 14(1)(j) of DRC Act provides eviction of tenant on the ground of causing or permitting to be caused substantial damage to the premises. PW-1 in her affidavit has deposed that respondent has raised one room unauthorizedly on terrace of shop against Bye-laws of MCD. It is deposed that the said unauthorized construction is dangerous for human lives as high tension wires of electricity passes through terrace of the shop. It is further deposed that respondent has annexed public electricity pillars into shop in question thereby causing serious damage to property as also a constant danger to human lives. In her cross-examination, petitioner has admitted that the room on First floor was already in existence when she purchased the property but that the tenant has extended the same. This goes contrary to what has been stated by petitioner in petition as well as in her affidavit. Petitioner has not stated any date of unauthorized construction by respondent. Petitioner in her cross-examination has stated that when respondent carried out the construction, on first floor of property in dispute, she reported the matter to police but that she does not have any document. Petitioner has volunteered that it might be in the judicial record. Petitioner has denied the suggestion that room on first floor is a tin shed. Petitioner has further denied the suggestion that electric pillar existed there prior to the purchase of property by her. Petitioner has stated that respondent has installed the electrical pillar after purchase of property by her. She has stated that she lodged a report with electric department but does not have any document in this regard. PW-2 has exhibited photographs of suit property [Photographs have not been proved on record as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act but have not been as such disputed by respondent to be not that of suit property]. Perusal of photographs filed by petitioner [Ex. PW-2/B to D] shows that roof of room on first floor is of Tin. Petitioner in her cross-examination has herself admitted that room on first floor was already in existence when she purchased suit property. Petitioner has not proved on record any complaint which she might have made on unauthorized construction being done by respondent. Petitioner became landlord qua suit property in 2007 and legal notice was given by petitioner in year 2009 meaning thereby that unauthorized construction if any was done by respondent in between but petitioner has not stated any date/month/year of unauthorized construction by respondent. Further petitioner in her cross-examination as mentioned above has already admitted that room on first floor was already in existence when she purchased the property. It might be that earlier landlord might have done the construction on first floor or had extended the same or that respondent might have raised the same with permission of earlier landlord. Petitioner has not examined earlier landlord as witness to prove unauthorized construction on part of respondent. Perusal of photographs filed by petitioner shows that one electricity pillar has been mingled with the construction but the pillar in any case cannot be installed by respondent as it appears to be a high tension pillar [petitione