The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1968, specifically Section 14(1)(a) and (j) to determine the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.

JUDGMENT

Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)--This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, North, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`RCT') in RCT Appeal No. 01/2022, titled as `Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Singh v. Smt. Savita Yadav', whereby the RCT dismissed the appeal filed by the Petitioner and upheld the eviction order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the Rent Controller, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`Rent Controller') in eviction petition no. 28/2016.

2. Brief facts leading to filing of present petition are as under:

2.1. The Respondent herein filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1968, against the Petitioner claiming herself to be the landlady with respect to two rooms and one shop in House No. 25, Gali No. 1, comprised in Khasra No. 15 (Min), Ambedkar Nagar Extn., Haider Pur, Delhi-11008 (`tenanted premises').

2.2. The Petitioner herein filed his written statement to the eviction petition, inter alia, raising a preliminary objection that there doesn't exist a landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. The Petitioner stated that the Respondent has failed to file any rent agreement, rent receipts executed between them or any other document which can prove the tenancy of the Petitioner.

2.3. The Rent Controller after considering the matter vide order and judgment dated 04.12.2021 allowed the eviction petition filed by the Respondent herein and directed the petitioner herein to either deposit in Court or to pay to the Respondent, the arrears of rent with effect from March 2010 till date at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month along with statutory interest @15% per annum thereupon within one month from the date of order.

2.4. The Petitioner herein being aggrieved filed an appeal before the RCT assailing the order and judgment dated 04.12.2021, which as well was dismissed by the RCT upholding the decision passed by the Rent Controller.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Courts below fell in error in not appreciating that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He states that thus, the only remedy that was available to the Respondent was to file a civil suit for recovery of possession of the property bearing House No.25, Gali No. 1, comprised in Khasra no. 15 (Min), Ambedkar Nagar Extn., Haider Pur, Delhi-110088 (`subject property').

3.1. He states that there is no written rent agreement between the parties and during the course of evidence no rent receipt was also placed on record. In support of the said contention, he relies upon the testimony of the Petitioner, who was cross-examined as RW-1 and Ms. Shimla Devi, wife of the Petitioner, who was examined as RW-2.

3.2. He states that the Rent Controller and the RCT have erred in concluding that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties by relying upon a statement signed between the parties before the SHO, P.S. Shalimar Bagh, which has been marked as Ex-RW-1/P1. He states that the said statement only evidences existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, however, the said statement as well does not prove that the rent was below Rs.3,500/- and therefore the Rent Controller does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition under the provisions of the DRC Act.

3.3. To a query from this Court, he states that he is not aware and he has no instructions on the rate of the rent, which the Petitioner was paying to the Respondent. He states that as per the record no rent was being paid as relationship itself is disputed.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and perused the record,

5. The eviction petition was filed by the Respondent, landlady, under Section 14 (1)(a) and (j) of the DRC Act.

6. The parties led evidence and the Rent Controller after perusing the evidence has returned a detailed finding with respect to the st