The possession of the premises remained that of a tenant, and the tenant's claim of ownership based on an unregistered ATS was untenable in law.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.

1. This eviction petition has been filed by the Petitioner, tenant, assailing the eviction order dated 17.08.2022 passed by the Rent Controller, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court'), whereby the Petitioner's application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and the eviction order was passed with respect to Shop No. 2 in Property No. K-3, Laxmi Nagar, Main Market, Opposite State Bank Patiala, New Delhi - 110092 (`tenanted premises').

2. The eviction petition has been filed by the Respondent herein, landlord, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (`DRC Act') for the bona fide need of his elder son, Sh. Vishwajit Barua, who wants to start his business of fast-food restaurant. It is stated in the eviction petition that the Respondent herein is the owner of property No. K- 3, Laxmi Nagar, Main Market, Opposite State Bank Patiala, New Delhi - 110092 (`subject building'), wherein the tenanted premises are located. It is stated that the Respondent herein does not have any suitable alternate accommodation except the tenanted premises, for the bona fide need of the elder son.

3. The Petitioner herein filed his leave to defend application under Section 25B(5) of the DRC Act, claiming to be the legal owner of the tenanted premises by way of an unregistered Agreement to Sell (`ATS') dated 06.07.1982. It is stated that the Respondent's father, Sh. J. B. Barua, in the year 1982, executed the said ATS with the Petitioner for a total consideration of Rs.1,10,000/-. It is stated that in view of the said ATS, there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.

Arguments of the Petitioner, tenant

4. Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner herein is protected from eviction in view of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (`TPA').

4.1. In this regard, he relies upon the unregistered ATS dated 06.07.1982 placed on record as Annexure P-3 and more specifically, the recital therein to the effect that the total sale consideration for the tenanted premises was reserved at Rs.1,10,000/- and a sum of Rs.81,000/- already stands paid to Respondent's mother (the recorded owner) as detailed at paragraph Nos. 1 and 2 of the said ATS. He further relies upon the receipt dated 25.07.1988, to aver that a further sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid to the Respondent's father i.e., Sh. J. B. Barua towards the outstanding sale consideration.

4.2. He also relies on the fact that the Petitioner herein had applied for an electricity connection in the year 1988, on the basis of the ATS and obtained an electricity connection. In this regard, he relies upon a document dated 28.10.1988 filed with the electrical supply company; and states that the aforesaid shows that the Petitioner herein held himself out to be an owner to third parties after execution of the ATS. He also relies upon the fact that the Petitioner herein has paid conversion charges to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (`MCD').

4.3. He states that the Respondent herein had earlier as well filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a), (c), (e) and (j) of the DRC Act, which was withdrawn by the Respondent vide order dated 19.09.2016. He states that subsequently the Respondent herein had filed this eviction petition on 04.10.2016. He states that in view of the adversarial action of the Respondents in disputing the proprietary rights of the Petitioner herein, the said Petitioner has filed a civil suit bearing no. 9982/2016 (`civil suit') for specific performance of the ATS, on 03.11.2016, which is pending before the Civil Court. He states that issues have been framed in the said civil suit.

4.4. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Ran Singh v. Lilu Ram (Deceased) Thr. Lrs., 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6783, wherein the Court in similar facts had granted leave to defend and the matter was remanded back to the Rent Controller for trial.

4.5. H