The court emphasized the importance of evidence in establishing ownership of the property and the limited scope of interference under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

JUDGMENT

Prateek Jalan, J. - CM aPPL. 10371/2022 & 10373/2022 (exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The applications stand disposed of.

CM(M) 191/2022 & CM aPPL. 10372/2022(stay)

1. By way of this petition under article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-tenant assails an order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (HQ) and Rent Control Tribunal (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [hereinafter, 'the Tribunal'] in RCT No. 55/2018 [Mahavir Prasad vs. Shri Paramjeet Singh]. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the respondent-landlord against an order of the Rent Controller dated 28.02.2018, by which the eviction petition filed by the landlord [E. No. 79974/2016] was dismissed by the Rent Controller.

2. The landlord filed the eviction proceedings against the tenant in respect of a shop bearing No. a-11, Property No. 773, Chabi Ganj, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 [hereinafter, 'the suit property'] under Sections 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control act, 1958 [hereinafter, 'the act']. The case of the landlord was that the suit property was owned by his deceased father Late Shri Deep Chand who had inducted the tenant into the property at a monthly rent of ?125/-. The landlord claimed that the suit property was bequeathed to him by way of a will of Late Shri Deep Chand dated 16.10.1995. Contending that the tenant was in arrears of rent since 01.04.2002, which had not been tendered despite service of demand notices, and that the tenant had inducted a sub-tenant into the premises, the landlord sought eviction of the tenant.

3. The tenant admitted his status as a tenant, but denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was alleged that Late Shri Deep Chand was collecting the rent on behalf of a trust of Dharamshala Shree Chander Dev Bhagwan [hereinafter, 'the Trust'], and that the Trust was in fact the owner of the suit property.

4. after recording evidence, the Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on the finding that the landlord had failed to prove that he is the owner or the landlord of the suit property, and that the tenant therefore had no liability to pay rent to him. It was also held that the alleged sub-tenancy was not proved on evidence.

5. In appeal by the landlord, the Tribunal has affirmed the view taken by the Rent Controller, so far as the question of sub-tenancy [referable to Section 14(1)(b) of the act] is concerned. However, on the question of non-payment of rent [referrable to Section 14(1)(a)], the Tribunal has reversed the view of the Rent Controller, and passed an order of eviction.

6. Having heard Mr. Durgesh Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant, I do not find any ground for interference with the view taken by the Tribunal in exercise of jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution. The Tribunal has, on the question of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, come to the following findings:-

'12. The fulcrum of this appeal hinges upon the relationship of tenancy between the parties in the light of admitted position that the respondent had been inducted as a tenant by Shri. Deep Chand, the now deceased father of the appellant. as regards relationship of tenancy between the parties, it would be significant to notice that in his pleadings, as well as evidence, the respondent admitted repeatedly and in no uncertain terms that he had been inducted as tenant into the tenanted premises by Shri Deep Chand.

13. In the pleadings before the Rent Controller and even before the competent authority under the Slum areas act, the respondent tenant did not specifically deny the relationship of father and son between Shri Deep Chand and the appellant. Even in reply Ex. PW 1/7 to the notice, the respondent did not deny that the appellant Shri Mahavir Prasad is son of Shri Deep Chand; rather, the respondent in the said reply stated that "other legal heirs" of Shri Deep Chand also are inte