The main legal point established in the judgment is the landlord's entitlement to recover possession based on the admitted landlord-tenant relationship and the landlord's plea on bona-fide requirement and non-availability of suitable alternative accommodation.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN DATTA, J.

1. The present revision petitions under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the “DRC Act”) assail the impugned judgment/order dated 06.09.2021, passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (the “ARC”) in CIS No. E-1104/18. Vide the said impugned judgment, the learned ARC has found that a triable issue arises with respect to landlord’s ownership of the premises in question i.e. Shop No. 8598, (Private No. 8598-B) Plot No. 84 Model Basti, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (the “tenanted premises”) which requires evidence to be led by the parties. Accordingly, the leave to defend application filed by the respondent/tenant (Chander Prakash) was allowed.

2. The impugned judgment accepts the plea of the petitioner/landlord in the eviction petition with regard to the issue of bona-fide requirement and non-availability of suitable alternative accommodation. It is only with regard to the landlord’s ownership of the tenanted premises, that it was held that a triable issue arises, necessitating grant of leave to defend.

3. R.C. REV. No. 161/2021 has been filed by the landlord whereas the R.C. REV. No. 28/2022 has been filed by the tenant.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner (landlord) in R.C. REV. No. 161/2021 that the impugned judgment wrongly ignores the pleadings wherein the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship was admitted by the tenant. It is further contended that the legal position is well settled to the effect that it is not open for the tenant to deny the title of the landlord as the same is contrary to the Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is further submitted that the onus on the landlord to establish the landlord-tenant relationship is not akin to the onus in title suit; all that the landlord is required to show is that he has better title in respect of the tenanted premises than the tenant. Reliance is placed on behalf of the petitioner/landlord on the following judgments:

(i) Amit Khemka vs. Rajender Kumar, (2012) 189 DLT 137

(ii) Shri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagnnath and Others, (1976) 4 SCC 184

(iii) D. Satyanarayan vs. P. Jagdish, (1987) 4 SCC 424

(iv) Mukesh Kumar vs. Rishi Prakash, (2010) 174 DLT 64

5. In R.C. REV. No. 28/2022 filed by the tenant, the impugned judgment has been assailed on the ground that it renders non-speaking findings on the issue of bona-fide requirement, availability of alternative accommodation, existence of joint tenancy. It is prayed by the tenant that the eviction petition be remanded to the ARC and the leave to defend application be directed to be reheard.

6. Having heard respective counsels for the parties, I find no merit in the contention raised on behalf of the tenant in R.C. REV. No. 28/2022.

7. The impugned judgment dated 06.09.2021 renders the following findings on the issue of non-joinder of other legal heirs of original tenant:

“9. Another contention of the petitioner is with regard to the non-joinder of other legal heirs of late father of the respondent is concerned, in this regard it is a well settled law that after the demise of the original tenant, the tenancy devolves upon the legal heirs of the deceased tenant as joint tenants and the service/notice to one of the joint tenants is sufficient and suit against one of the joint tenants is good.

10. It is a settled law as has been held in Mohd. Usman vs. Surayya Begum, 1990 (3) Delhi Lawyer 163 and Kanji Manji vs. Trustees of Port of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 498 that:

“On the death of a tenant, the legal heirs inherits the tenancy rights as joint tenants and not as tenants in common. In joint tenancy two or more tenants take identical interests simultaneously with each other. The joint tenancy differ from tenancy in common. In joint tenancy, incidents of tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by original tenant and if one of the legal heir is not made a party, the other legal heirs who are joint tenants represents the tenancy.”

The gray area, if there