IMPORTANT POINT
The legal point established is that the landlord retains ownership rights until physical possession is taken over by the government, and the burden is on the tenant to show how they came into possession of the premises.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition has been filed under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended upto date^[DRC Act^] , assailing the impugned order dated 03.07.2018 passed by Shri Sushant Changotra, learned ACJ/ARC/CCJ (New Delhi) Patiala House Courts, New Delhi^[ARC^] in Eviction Petition bearing E.No. 30/2015 titled as `Shri. Vinay Kumar Verma & Anr. v. Shri Harjit Singh Shah', whereby the application of the respondent for leave to defend dated 19.10.2015 was allowed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Briefly stating, the petitioners have filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act stating that late Shri Ram Saran Dass was the owner of property bearing khasra No. 1066, Village Naraina, New Delhi and after his death, his three sons, namely Shri Ram Narayan, Shri Mahender Singh and Shri Sheo Ram inherited the right, title and interest therein and became its owners. However, the three sons also expired in due course of time and were survived by their respective wives and children. Petitioner No.1 is the son of late Shri Ajit Singh, who was the pre-deceased son of late Mahender Singh while petitioner No.2 is son of late Shri Ram Narayan. They claim that they inherited the property and became co-owners as well as landlords in respect of property bearing No. CB-384/38 built in khasra No. 1066 now known as Indira Market, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi Cantonment. It was their case that the respondent is a tenant in the premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- per month besides other charges and has not made payment of rent on a regular basis.

3. The petitioners have sought eviction of the respondent on the grounds that petitioner No.1 wants to start his own business, who is presently employed with M/s. PMG Integrated Communication Pvt. Ltd. as Associate Accounts Director, which job involves regular travelling as a result of which he is unable to look after his family. Therefore, he wants to start his own business of marketing from the premises not only in occupation of the respondent as a tenant but also other tenants, namely S.S. Shah and Anil Trehan, located in premises bearing No. CB-384/37 and 38 besides CB-384/48. It was stated that despite service of legal notice dated 27.04.2018, the respondent failed to vacate the premises, and hence, they have filed the eviction petition.

4. The eviction petition being governed by the procedure prescribed under Section 25-B of the DRC Act, notice was issued in the prescribed format to the respondent, who filed an application for leave to defend the eviction petition along with an affidavit on 29.10.2015. The respondent has contested the eviction petition denying that the petitioners are the owners of the premises and further denying existence of any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, claiming that only Late Shri Ram Saran has been shown as the owner of building No. 384/1 to 39 and 41 to 48, Naraina, in the record of the Delhi Cantonment Board. It is asserted that no partition has taken place in respect of property of late Ram Sharan. It is further pointed out that in the legal notice as well as in the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioners described the suit premises as consisting of a built up second floor and tin shed on third floor, whereas the suit premises is a three storied building and correctness of the site plan has been denied; further asserting that number of the suit premises has been mentioned at one place as CB- 384/37 whereas at other places it is mentioned as 384/38 and the actual area of the property is 175 sq. yards. It is further claimed by the respondent in the application for leave to defend that he has been in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the suit premises prior to 23.12.1999 and earlier thereto his late father Shri Mohinder Singh Shah was in settled possession without any disturbance and no one ever came forward to claim themselves as the owner of the premises in question so much so that