In eviction proceedings, the question of title is irrelevant; only the landlord-tenant relationship and grounds for eviction matter.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J.

1. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 03.04.2017, passed by the court of learned District & Sessions Judge, South District, Saket Courts in RCT No.42/2016, titled as “Shri Lalit Kumar Vs. Shri Sri Ram Gupta & Ors.”

2. Brief background of the case is that petitioner Sh. Sri Ram Gupta, now deceased, owner of superstructure of the building bearing No. 8, Main Market, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1995 [“DRC Act”] against the tenants i.e. respondents No. 2 & 3 in the year 2012.

3. Respondents No. 2 & 3 filed an application for leave to defend, which was allowed by the Court. Thereafter, both parties completed their respective evidence and the matter was listed for final arguments.

4. Respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for impleadment in the eviction proceedings.

5. Vide order dated 25.05.2016, learned Additional Rent Controller [“ARC”] (South) Saket, dismissed the application moved by respondent No. 1 under Order I Rule 10 CPC.

6. Against the said order, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act.

7. Learned District & Sessions Judge, South, Saket, vide judgment dated 03.04.2017, set aside the order of learned ARC and allowed the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC of respondent No. 1.

8. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred the present petition.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent No.1 claims himself to be the co-owner of the suit property/superstructure and even though, the same is completely false, but otherwise also, Rent Controller has no power to decide the dispute of ownership/title in the eviction proceedings. It is submitted that part of land in the suit property was given on perpetual lease to Sh. Puran Chand with permission to raise construction thereon with further rights to sell, mortgage etc. Sh. Puran Chand raised construction on the suit property through his own funds and had let out various portions to different tenants. It is submitted that perpetual lease deed mentions that the ownership of land will remain with the first party and the second party shall have the possession over the same, and therefore, the successors and representatives of the lessor and the lessee shall be bound by the terms of the lease deed. It is further submitted that respondent No. 1 has admitted this position in its application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, and therefore, has no right to be impleaed in the eviction petition.

10. It is argued that learned District Judge has failed to appreciate that respondent No. 1 has already filed independent proceedings against the petitioner being Civil Suit No. No. 1148/2019 at Saket Court for possession and permanent injunction, which is pending adjudication, and therefore, the rights of respondent No. 1 can be adjudicated in the civil suit and not in the eviction proceedings pending before the Rent Controller.

11. It is further argued that in an eviction petition, the only point of adjudication is whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondents No. 2 & 3 and whether the requirement of petitioner is bona fide. In the present case, respondents No. 2 & 3 have admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant in their written statement. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 has filed the present application with clear intent to delay the eviction proceedings and to resist the eviction of respondents No. 2 & 3 from the suit premises. In support of his contention, learned counsel places strong reliance on the following decisions:-

i) Kanaklata Dass & Ors. Vs. Naba Kumar Dass & Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 352;

ii) Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2028

12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that respondent No. 1 is the co-owner of the property. It is submitted that the late father of respon