Detailed examination and analysis of evidence are essential in determining property identity and landlord-tenant relationship under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC act.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 7th February, 2020 passed by the Ld. SCJ/RC, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter 'Trial Court') in RC/aRC No.345/2016 titled Sh. Ram Kishan v. Sh. Satyavir Singh & anr. By the impugned judgment, the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control act, 1958 (hereinafter 'DRC act') filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent has been dismissed by the Trial Court.

3. The Petitioner - Shri Ram Kishan and Respondent No.2 - Mr. Brij Mohan are brothers, and sons of Late Shri Maithali Ram and Late Smt. Devki Rani. The case of the Petitioner is that the Respondent No.1 - Late Shri Satyavir Singh is the tenant in the half portion admeasuring 37-1/2 sq. yards of the property identified as Property No.-B-5, aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi (hereinafter 'suit property'), which is a residential property. Initially, vide order dated 23rd March, 2012, the Trial Court granted leave to defend to the tenant. Thereafter, the matter proceeded before the Trial Court.

4. Detailed evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties. Vide the final judgment dated 7th February, 2020, the Trial Court has dismissed the petition on two primary grounds. First, the suit property has been identified by the Petitioner to be located in Shakarpur, whereas Shakarpur and Mandawali Fazalpur are two different localities. Hence, the Petitioner has failed to prove the ownership of the suit property. Secondly, the Trial Court has held that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The entire discussion on the evidence led before the Trial Court is in the following paragraphs of the impugned judgment dated 7th February, 2020.

'6. The documents of title of the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner are Ex.PW-2/C (Colly). The document first in time is a sale deed whereby Nanak Singh had sold property identified as 'plot of land no.7, area 150 sq.yds, out of khasra no.477 situated in aruna Park, Block-B in area of village Mandawali, Fazalpur, illaqua Shahdara, Delhi state'. It is this identity of property which the petitioner maintains to be his, during alleged successive sales till it was acquired by Mithali Ram, deceased father of the petitioner.

6.1 In the petition, the petitioner has identified the premises to be B-5, (Old Municipal No.B-7 out of plot no.7) aruna Park, Shakarpur, Delhi-92.

6.2 Shakarpur and Mandawali Fazalpur are two different localities. Thus, the petitioner fails to prove that the documents produced by him pertain to the premises.

7. There is no evidence on record to prove the landlord-tenant relationship viz. rent agreement, rent receipts, any record of payment of rent by the respondent to the petitioner such as statement of bank account of the petitioner etc. Thus, the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is not proved to the satisfaction of the court.

7.1 The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the house tax in respect of the premises was paid for the petitioner. Payment of house tax by any person is no evidence of his ownership of the property in respect of which such tax is paid.

7.2 The witness-PW-3 who is Section Officer with the MCD and who produced the house tax record deposed that the ledger folio no.65/291 was in respect of property B-5, Shakarpur, Delhi and is in name of Mathali Ram. Whereas the document Ex.PW-1/a which is produced by the said witness purporting to be photocopy of pertinent ledger folio records the name of the assesse to be Madalli Ram. The original ledger was not produced by the said witness nor the documents on the basis on which the name of the assesse or/and his relation with the property assessed was determined for the purposes of imposing tax liability of Madalli Ram was produced. The said witness fails and the document produced are of no probative value.'

5. Mr. Relan, ld. Cou