The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of presenting consistent and corroborated evidence to support claims in eviction cases, and the rejection of contradictory claims such as ownership and adverse possession.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner, tenant, assailing the eviction order dated 27.11.2018, passed by CCJ acting as Additional Rent Controller, Pilot Court (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ('Trial Court'), in eviction petition bearing No. E-46/18, whereby the Petitioner, tenant's, application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and an eviction order was passed in favour of the Respondents, landlords, with respect to tenanted premises being two shops situated at ground floor of property bearing no. 10332-33, Mandir Mangla Devi @ Mandir Mansa Devi, Pul Mithai, Library Road, Ward No. XII, Azad Market, Delhi - 06 ('tenanted premises').

2. Brief facts as stated by the Respondents, landlords, in the eviction petition are as under:

2.1. It is stated that initially the property bearing no. 10332-33, Mandir Mangla Devi @ Mandir Mansa Devi, Pul Mithai, Library Road, Ward No. XII, Azad Market, Delhi - 06 ('subject property'), ad-measuring 670 sq. yds., was owned by Pandit Udey Ram, who was also the pujari of Mandir Maa Mangla Devi @Mansa Devi.

2.2. It is stated that Sh. Khazan Singh Kaushik, father of the Respondents, landlords, used to reside with Pandit Udey Ram as a devotee, and was serving and assisting him in his old age. It is stated that Pandit Udey Ram, out of love and affection, executed a Will dated 01.12.1947, registered on 12.12.1947, in favour Sh. Khazan Singh Kaushik, inter alia, bequeathing the subject property upon him. It is stated that upon the demise of Pandit Udey Ram, Sh. Khazan Singh Kaushik became the absolute owner of the subject property.

2.3. It is stated that upon demise of Sh. Khazan Singh Kaushik on 12.11.2002, the property devolved upon his legal heirs ('LRs'), who became the absolute owner of the subject property. It is stated that Sh. Khazan Singh Kaushik has eight sons and one daughter and that one of the sons namely Mr. Basant Kumar Kaushik, predeceased Sh. Khazan Singh Kaushik on 29.04.2001. It is further stated that the wife of Sh. Khazan Singh Kaushik also passed away on 28.01.2014 and at the time of filing of eviction petition, Sh. Khazan Singh Kaushik had 54 LRs, which includes his sons, daughter, grandsons and granddaughters etc.

2.4. It is stated that during his lifetime Sh. Khazan Singh Kaushik entered into a temporary family arrangement with respect to subject property, however, formal partition was kept for a later stage.

2.5. It is stated that the tenanted premises were let out by Sh. Khazan Singh Kaushik to the since deceased father of the Petitioner herein i.e., Sh. Madan Lal, on 01.10.1964 vide rent agreement dated 10.10.1964 ('rent agreement').

2.6. It is stated in the eviction petition that the tenanted premises is bona fide required for the accommodation of Respondents and their family members as the subject property is falling short of space and the Respondents are neither able to accommodate themselves or their family members. It is stated that the tenanted premises is in occupation of the Petitioner since number of years, however, the Petitioner has not been using the said premises for more than 17 years.

3. This petition was filed by Sh. Rajinder Bhardwaj, son of late Sh. Madan Lal. Sh. Rajinder Bhardwaj died during the pendency of the petition and his legal representatives were brought on record vide order dated 04.05.2022. However, for the sake of convenience the reference to Petitioner in the judgment is to deceased Sh. Rajinder Bhardwaj and may be read accordingly.

Submission of the Petitioner, tenant

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned eviction order deserves to be set aside as the Petitioner herein is the owner (by title) of the tenanted premises and he is not a tenant. He admits that the plea of ownership has been raised for the first time in revision petition and was not raised in the leave to defend.

4.1. He states that the tenanted premises i.e., two shops situat