J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. The present revision has been filed by the Petitioners, tenants, assailing the order dated 16.08.2019 (‘impugned eviction order’) passed by the ARC-1, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (‘the Trial Court’) in Eviction Petition No. E-138/16 whereby the Petitioner’s application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and the impugned eviction order was passed in favour of the Respondents, landlords, with respect to one room with bathroom in H No. 6728, Block No.10, Street No.1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005 (‘the tenanted premises’).

2. By the order dated 03.02.2020, this Court has passed interim order staying the execution of the impugned eviction order, subject to the payment of use and occupation charges by the Petitioners.

3. The eviction petition was filed by the Respondents under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘the DRC Act’) on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for residence of Respondent No. 2 and his family.

3.1. The H. No. 6728, Block No.10, Street No.1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005 (‘the subject property’) consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor, admeasuring 88 sq. yards. The tenanted premises consisting of one room is located on the ground floor of the subject property. 3.2. The Respondents, landlords, have produced the lease deed dated 23.07.1953 executed by Delhi Improvement Trust (‘DIT’) in favor of late Sh. Ram Ratan, the great grandfather of the Respondents to substantiate their claim of ownership over the subject property (‘DIT lease deed’).

3.3. The Petitioners in their leave to defend application sought to challenge the ownership of the Respondents. The Trial Court after perusing the record dismissed the said application on the ground that the Petitioners have failed to raise any triable issue.

ArgumentsofthePetitioners,Tenants

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners states that the Respondents are neither the owners nor the landlords of the subject property.

4.1. He states that Delhi Development Authority (‘DDA’) is the owner of the subject property, as it is a Nazul land. He states that neither the Respondents nor their predecessors have any right, title or interest in the subject property.

4.2. He denies that the DIT lease deed executed in favor of late Sh. Ram Ratan, i.e., the great grandfather of the Respondents pertains to the subject property. He states that the address of the plot mentioned in the DIT lease deed does not correspond with the existing municipal address of the subject property.

4.3. He states that the address mentioned in the DIT lease deed is Bagh Raoji, Block 10B, Khasra No. 245/152 (Plot No. 83), in the Municipality of Delhi with respect to ‘plot’ of land admeasuring 88 sq. yards. He states that the said address mentioned in the DIT lease deed does not pertain to the subject property. He states that existing municipal address of the subject property is H. No. 6728, Block No. 10, Street No.1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi- 110005. In other words, he states that these are separate and distinct addresses.

4.4. He states that the findings of the Trial Court that the DIT lease deed pertains to the subject property is without any basis as there were no material on record to substantiate the said findings.

5. He states that in the entire neighborhood of Dev Nagar, the other occupiers of the buildings pay demurrage to DDA as the entire neighborhood is owned by DDA.

5.1. He states that the predecessors of the Petitioners herein, i.e., late Sh. Ram Babu was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises by DDA. He fairly admits that the Petitioners herein have not filed any document/agreement executed by DDA in their favour or proof of payment of rent to DDA, to substantiate the said plea.

5.2. He fairly admits that the Petitioners are not in possession of any other document which DIT or DDA may have executed in favour of the Petitioners inducting them in the subject