$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 28.01.2025 + RC.REV. 246/2024 SURENDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Jain, Mr. Mayank Jain, Advs.. versus M/S DILSHAD ENGINEERING WORKS AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashank Tripathi, Mr. Ragib Gayyur, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/landlord impugning the order dated 02.08.2024 passed by the learned SCJ-cum-RC, (West), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi passed in RC ARC no. 75/2023 [hereinafter referred to “Impugned Order”]. The premises in issue is a property bearing Plot no. 41, Gali No. 30, New Rohtak Road, Daya Basti, Anand Parbat, New Delhi-110005 [hereinafter referred to as the “subject premises”].

2. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has allowed the Leave to Defend/Contest Application filed by the Respondents/tenants, on an issue limited to the existence of landlord-

tenant relationship between the parties.

3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing and final disposal today.

4. Learned Counsel for Petitioner/landlord in the first instance Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed submits that the Impugned Order itself in paragraph 25 records that there is no dispute in the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, yet learned Trial Court has given a finding that the Respondents/tenants have raised triable issues concerning the ownership of the subject premises. Reliance in this regard is placed on para 25 of the Impugned Order.

5. In addition, learned Counsel for Petitioner/landlord submits that even otherwise, ownership or relationship of landlord and tenant was not disputed by the Respondents/tenants in their Leave to Defend Application, wherein it has been stated that the father of the Petitioner was the owner of the subject premises and he granted tenancy of the subject premises to the father of the Respondents. Reliance is placed on Paragraph 6 of the Leave to Defend Application filed by Respondent/tenant.

6. In addition, reliance is also placed on rent receipts dated 01.07.2004, 18.08.2004 and 01.12.2024 which were annexed by the Petitioner/landlord along with the Eviction Petition before the learned Trial Court.

7. Learned Counsel for Respondents/tenants submits that the Respondents are the owner of the subject premises and are claiming ownership on the basis of the receipts dated 13.10.2013, 22.11.2013, 12.12.2013 etc. which were executed by the Petitioner evidencing payments made in consideration for transfer of ownership of the subject premises [hereinafter referred to as “payment receipts”]. Reliance is placed on paragraph 8 of the application for leave to defend, wherein a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed similar stance has been taken.

7.1 The learned Counsel for Respondents, however concedes that the Respondents do not have any registered document in support of their ownership of the subject premises.

8. The bona fide need as set out by the Petitioner/landlord in the Eviction Petition is for his sons who are unemployed and want to start their business of motor parts and motor body parts from the subject premises. The bona fide need of the Petitioner/landlord has not been challenged by the Respondent/tenant either before the Trial Court or before this Court.

9. On the aspect of suitable alternate accommodation, the Petitioner/landlord has specified that no other suitable commercial property is available with the Petitioner/landlord. The same has not been disputed by the Respondent/tenant either before the Trial Court or before this Court.

10. The only issue which has thus to be examined by this Court is on the aspect of landlord-tenant relationship/ownership. The learned Trial Court has given a finding that the Respondents/tenants have been successful in raising a triable issue concerning the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties/ownership of the subject