JUDGEMENT

1. The present petition has been filed impugning the order dated 17.08.2023 passed in the matter titled “Naseem Ahmad vs Sandeep” being RC ARC 277/2019 passed by the Learned Rent Controller, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, whereby the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter “CPC”) for the impleadment of the petitioner as respondent in the said case filed by the respondent no.1 against the respondent no.2, seeking possession of the property on the basis on bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as „DRC Act‟).

Digitally Signed Page 2 of 8

2. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, the brief factual matrix as is necessary for the adjudication of the present petition may be noted.

3. The grandfather of the petitioner after 1947 partition occupied the property bearing No.3605, Mori Gate, Delhi (hereinafter “suit property”) along with other portions neighboring it as were lying vacant and took refuge in the same along with his family. The grandfather of the petitioner then proceeded to run a dry-cleaning business on the ground floor of the suit property and had his workshop in the mezzanine floor of the same. The grandfather of the petitioner occupied other portions of the suit property as well.

4. In 1957, the grandfather of the petitioner handed over suit property and his business to his son i.e. the father of the petitioner. During the lifetime of the grandfather and father of the petitioner, no one claimed ownership of the suit property and therefore the father of the petitioner came to be its owner by way of adverse possession. The said property fell into the category of “Evacuee Property”.

5. In the year 2018, the father of the petitioner handed over possession Diana Drycleaners (i.e. the shop on the ground floor and the workshop on the mezzanine floor) along with the other portions of the suit property to the petitioner. The petitioner has been in exclusive possession of the suit property since then. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner and his brother are not on talking terms Digitally Signed Page 3 of 8

6. On 15.02.2019, the father of the petitioner expired following which all his legal heirs relinquished their shares in favor of the petitioner by way of relinquishment deeds. No other legal heir of the father of the petitioner is an owner or co-owner of the property nor is any legal heir in the possession of the said property, except the petitioner. The suit property has been divided into various portions as per the site plan, namely, A1, A2, B, C1 and C2. Portion A1 comprises of the shop on the ground floor as well as the go- down on the mezzanine floor. Portion B comprises of the triangular space beneath the staircase. Portion C1 comprises of the 8 rooms with a kitchen and toilet.

7. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioner came to know, the respondent no.1 herein filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, wherein he arrayed his brother i.e., respondent no. 2 namely Sandeep Gulati as a defendant. The eviction petition was filed for the property of Diana Dry-Cleaners i.e. the shop on the ground floor and the workshop on the mezzanine floor.

8. Opposing the eviction petition, respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act, seeking leave to contest the eviction petition. Thereafter, the petitioner herein preferred an application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the CPC to be impleaded as a party.

9. Vide the impugned order dated 17.08.2023, the learned Rent Controller dismissed the application, The impugned order reads as under:- Digitally Signed Page 4 of 8 “The applicant is seeking impleadment into the present petition on the ground of being an LR of Sh. Madan Lal Gulat