J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. The present revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner (‘tenant’) assailing the eviction order dated 06.03.2021 (‘impugned eviction order’), passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘Trial Court’), in ARC No. 77991/16, wherein post-trial, the eviction order has been passed in favour of the Respondent, landlady, in the eviction petition filed by her under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’).

2. In this matter the impugned eviction order has been executed and the possession of the tenanted premises i.e., One room in Flat No. E-15, third floor, DDA Flats, Turkman Gate, Delhi (‘tenanted premises’) has been recovered by the Respondent, as recorded in the order dated 15.11.2021. In these circumstances, it was submitted by the Respondent that nothing survives for consideration in the matter, in view of the decision of Supreme Court in N.C. Daga v. Inder Mohan Singh Rana, (2003) 1 SCC 453. However, learned counsel for the Petitioner, tenant, is seeking adjudication of the present petition on merits and states that he has instructions from the Petitioner No.1, who is present in Court, to proceed with the matter.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the primary contention on which the Petitioner has impugned the eviction order is that the Respondent herein is neither the owner, nor the landlady, of the tenanted premises. He states that the recorded owner of the property is late Sh. Hardwari Lal Verma (‘original owner’), who had executed an unregistered Will dated 16.06.1984 (‘unregistered Will’) in favour of Mr. Jan Alam, the now deceased father of the Petitioners herein. He admits that Mr. Jan Alam was not related to the original owner and states that the said unregistered Will was executed by the original owner out of love and affection.

4. He states that the Respondent herein had filed the eviction petition claiming herself to be the owner of the tenanted premises on the basis of registered adoption deed dated 15.01.1990, executed by the original owner. He states that the Respondent is claiming herself to be the legal heir of the original owner, who was issueless. He states that Respondent was not adopted by the original owner and the Petitioner herein disputes the claim of adoption.

5. He states that the Trial Court has limited jurisdiction while adjudicating a petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and it exceeded its jurisdiction while opining on the validity of the unregistered Will.

6. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Tiwary v. Basudeo Prasad and Anr., (2002) 1 SCC 90, and A.V.G.P Chettiar & Sons and Ors. v. T. Palanisamy Gounder, (2002) 5 SCC 337, to contend that the issue of title to the suit premises could not have been adjudicated by the Trial Court.

7. None appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

8. This Court has considered the submissions of the Petitioner and perused the record.

8.1. In this matter, leave to defend was allowed and therefore, a full trial was conducted. The parties filed their pleadings and led evidence.

8.2. The Respondent had filed the petition for eviction on the assertion that she is the owner and landlady of the tenanted premises. She had asserted that she is the adopted daughter of the original owner and placed before the Court a copy of the registered adoption deed dated 15.01.1990 i.e., Exhibit PW 1/2. She stated that the title in the tenanted premises had devolved upon her by operation of law and the property bearing Flat No. E-15, third floor, DDA Flats, Turkman Gate, Delhi (‘subject property’) has been mutated/transferred in her name vide mutation letter dated 15.09.2011, issued by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (‘DUSIB’).

8.3. Mr. Jan Alam, the deceased father of the Petitioners herein, filed his written statement before the Trial Court and disputed the aforesaid claim of ownership set up by the Respondent herein. He r