JUDGMENT :

[Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.]

CM APPL. 2675/2023 (for exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Accordingly, this application stands disposed of.

RC.REV. 14/2023, CM APPLs. 2674/2023

1. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner, tenant, assailing the order dated 05.11.2022, passed by the Senior Civil Judge acting as the Rent Controller, South East District, Saket Court, Delhi (‘Trial Court’), in Eviction No. 25/2018, whereby the Petitioner’s application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed and an eviction order has been passed in favour of the Respondent, landlord, with respect to the portion, facing temple, of property No. D-37, B.K. Dutt Colony, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi-110003 (‘tenanted premises’) as delineated in the site plan marked as Annexure P-14 to the revision petition.

2. The eviction petition was filed by the Respondent, under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’), for the bona fide need of opening a clinic for his son, who is a MBBS and MD. It was stated that the Respondent, landlord, himself is a practicing doctor in Ayurvedic medicine and that he does not have any alternate suitable accommodation for opening the clinic for his son. It was further stated in the eviction petition that the tenanted premises which comprises of one room along with a verandah, is lying locked and unused.

2.1 In the eviction petition, it was stated that the tenanted premises, situated in the residential property bearing no. D-37, B.K. Dutt Colony, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi – 110003 (‘the Property’), was let out for residential purposes by the grandfather of the Respondent i.e., late Sh. Ishwar Dass to the grandfather of the Petitioner herein i.e., late Sh. K.S. Dass.

2.2 The eviction petition was resisted by the Petitioner herein, by seeking a leave to defend on the limited ground that the Respondent herein is neither the owner nor the landlord of the tenanted premises. There was no dispute raised with respect to plea of bona fide need or the lack of alternative suitable accommodation.

2.3 The Trial Court in the impugned judgment after perusing the official record maintained by the statutory authorities concluded that the Respondent herein is the grandson of late Sh. Ishwar Dass. It also held that late Sh. Ishwar Dass is the recorded owner of the tenanted premises in the municipal records. The Trial Court held that the tenant does not dispute that his predecessor was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises by late Sh. Ishwar Dass. In view of these findings, the Trial Court held that the tenant is estopped from challenging the title of the Respondent herein as per Section 116 of the Transfer of the Property Act, 1882.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, tenant, states that the Respondent herein is not the grandson of late Shri Ishwar Dass. He states that the Trial Court has wrongly concluded that Respondent’s father, Sh. Dhanraj Kalra was the son of late Sh. Ishwar Dass. In this regard, he places reliance on a letter dated 20.03.1964 issued by late Smt. Sarla Devi, wife of late Sh. Ishwar Dass, to the municipal authority, seeking mutation of the tenanted premises in her name. He states that since in the said letter, Smt. Sarla Devi makes no reference to any other legal heir, it gives rise to a presumption that late Sh. Ishwar Dass was issueless.

3.1 He states that the Trial Court erred in placing reliance on the death certificate dated 13.09.1976 for concluding that Sh. Dhanraj Kalra was the son of late Sh. Ishwar Dass. He states that death certificate records the name as ‘Ishwar Dass Kalra’, however, the erstwhile landlord, late Sh. Ishwar Dass, never used the surname ‘Kalra’, It was therefore his contention that the Respondent herein is not related to the landlord, late Sh. Ishwar Dass.

3.2 He states that rent was paid to Sh. Ishwar Dass and thereafter, to his wife Smt. Sarla Devi. He states that last payment of rent was made in 1970’s. He states that thereafter