LAWS(DLH)-2004-1-3

RAM CHANDER Vs. RAM PYARI

Decided On January 14, 2004
RAM CHANDER Appellant
V/S
RAM PYARI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has been refused the leave to contest the eviction petition filed on the ground of bonafide requirement of the premises vide order dated 19.7.2003.

(2.) The sole ground and the premise on the basis of which the impugned order is being challenged is that the petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the premises on the strength that he occupied the premises in the year 1972 and since then he is occupying the premises and thus he has become owner of the premises by virtue of his adverse possession. On the contrary, the respondent land lady, who claims to have inherited the ownership of the premises from her husband, has produced house tax receipt as well as one agreement executed between her husband and the petitioner way back in the year 1967 showing the relationship of landlord and tenant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends vehemently that once relationship of landlord and tenant is challenged, tenant is entitled to leave to contest the eviction petition. There is no dispute as to this proposition of law as it is the owner of the premises who has right to seek eviction of the tenant and none less on the ground of bonafide requirement of the premises. In this case petitioner claims himself to be the owner of the premises and not as a tenant. The authority of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Manoj Kumar Vs, Bihari Lal (Dead) by LRs 91(2001) Delhi Law Times 25(SC) is not at all applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the case as any person who denies to be a tenant and claim to be the owner of the premises cannot claim to be granted leave to defend eviction petition as eviction proceedings initiated under the Delhi Rent Control Act cannot be converted into a title suit. The title of the party is always decided through civil proceedings. As such claim of the petitioner that he is the owner of the premises and not the tenant could have been vindicated by way of filing civil suit and not in the eviction proceedings.