The court addressed the validity of eviction petitions based on alleged forged documents, emphasizing the need for a legitimate landlord-tenant relationship.

% 08.04.2024 CM APPL. 20732/2024 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Applications stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 20733/2024—8 days in re-filing

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the appellant seeking condonation of delay of 8 days in re-filing the petition.

4. In view of the ground as mentioned in the application, the delay of 8 days in re-filing the petition is condoned.

5. Application stands disposed of.

CM(M) 2306/2024

6. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning the order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‗Trial Court‘), in RCT No.22/2022 titled as ―Smt. Kanta Jain vs. Smt. Archana Sharma‖, whereby the order dated 03.12.2021 passed by learned ARC-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Case No.309/2017 has been set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent has filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(a) & (j) of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred as ‗DRC Act‘) against the petitioner. The petitioner entered appearance, filed written statement and denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is further submitted that the respondent has filed the suit on the basis of forged and fabricated rent receipts and therefore, no relationship of landlord and tenant has been established.

8. Learned counsel submits that the petition was filed on 19.04.2017 and on 15.01.2018, the learned ARC passed the order under Section 15(1) of DRC Act, however, the rent was immediately deposited by the petitioner in the court on 07.05.2018. Subsequent thereto, on 16.09.2019, the respondent filed an application under Section 15(7) of the DRC Act which was dismissed by the learned ARC vide order dated 03.12.2021. In the meanwhile, the respondent challenged the order dated 03.12.2021 by way of an appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act which has been allowed by the learned RCT vide impugned order dated 12.12.2023.

9. Further, the learned counsel submits that the learned RCT had erred in passing the impugned order as ex facie the rent receipts appear to be forged and fabricated.

10. Upon petitioner‘s taking necessary steps, issue notice to the respondent through all permissible modes including via approved courier service, returnable on 27.08.2024. CM APPL. 20731/2024—stay

11. Before passing any further order, this Court would also like to hear the respondent first.

12. Upon petitioner‘s taking necessary steps, issue notice to the respondent through all permissible modes including via approved courier service, returnable on 27.08.2024.