A tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord, and genuine need for premises must be established without alternative accommodation for eviction to be warranted. Adverse possession claims require clear evidence.

JUDGMENT

Anu Malhotra, J. The petitioners, the legal heirs of Late Mohd. Sharif vide the present revision petition under Section 25(B)(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, as amended, have assailed the judgment dated 20.3.2018 of the learned Additional Rent Controller-I, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts in Eviction Petition No. M-18/12 bearing initial No. E-222/88 whereby the eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, filed by the petitioner of that eviction petition Sh.Mairaj Ahmad, since represented by his legal representatives, now arrayed on record as the respondents to the present petition, was allowed in relation to the tenanted premises, i.e., the ground floor of property bearing No. 848, Gali Godonwali, Haveli Azamkhan, Bazar Chitli Qabar, Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006, shown in the site plan filed by the petitioner of the eviction petition Ex.1/16 with it having been directed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-1 Central District, that the landlord would not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of the said order i.e., 20.3.2018.

2. The said eviction petition was filed by Sh. Miraj Ahmad on 15.9.1988 contending to the effect that he was the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises which had been purchased by him in the year 1965. It had been the contention of the petitioner of the eviction petition that he had a large joint family comprising of 18 persons and that he himself had been living in a tenanted premises bearing No.2222, Kucha Chelan, Darya Ganj, Delhi with two rooms apart from a latrine, bathroom and kitchen which premises was insufficient and not suitable for his large family and as well as for relatives who visited him for whom there was no place to stay even for a couple of days. It was the contention of the petitioner of the eviction petition that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation and thus sought the eviction of the respondents to the eviction petition, now arrayed as petitioners to the present revision petition, i.e., R.C.Rev. no.428/2018.

3. Though the respondent to the eviction petition had sought to contend that he had become the owner of the tenanted premises by prescription and adverse possession and that the petitioner of the eviction petition had other properties available which could be used by him for residence and though the respondent had also denied that the petitioner had as many family member that he had sought to contend vide order dated 20.5.2000 of the learned Additional Rent Controller in E-222/88 filed by the petitioner thereof, since represented in the present petition as heirs as respondent, was allowed with it having been observed by the learned Additional Rent Controller that certificate of sale of the property in question by Sh. Girdhari Lal to Sh. Miraj Ahmad as issued by the Managing Officer/Assistant Custodian, office of the Regional Settlement Commissioner, New Delhi, dated 17.2.1964 had not been controverted and remained unchallenged and was thus deemed to have been admitted as correct and in as much as that certificate Mark `A' had been addressed to Sh. Girdhari Lal.