(1.) By way of this petition brought under the proviso to Sec. 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner/tenant has assailed order dtd. 9/6/2023 of the learned Additional Rent Controller whereby in the proceedings under Sec. 14(1)(e) of the Act, application of the petitioner/tenant for leave to contest was dismissed and consequently an eviction order pertaining to the hall at second floor of property bearing No. G-I/2, Lawrence Road Industrial Area, Opposite Hanuman Dharamkanta, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject premises") was passed. On the basis of advance notice, respondents/landlords entered appearance through counsel. I heard learned counsel for both sides.
(2.) Briefly stated, the factual matrix, relevant for present purposes is as follows.
(3.) During arguments, learned counsel for both sides took me through their respective pleadings as described above. Learned counsel for petitioner/tenant argued that since the petitioner/tenant had specifically pleaded in the application for leave to contest that the subject premises were purchased by him from Shri Om Prakash Sachdeva, there was a triable issue as to which of the parties is owner of the subject premises, therefore, the leave to contest ought to have been allowed. Further, learned counsel for petitioner/tenant argued that the title documents filed by the present respondent pertaining to the subject premises cannot be looked into as the same are not duly stamped. It was also argued by learned counsel for petitioner/tenant that General Power of Attorney filed by respondents/ landlords was executed by Smt. Anita Jain in favour of Shri Moti Lal Jain but the previous chain has not been filed, so the said document is not reliable. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/landlords supported the impugned order and contended that the documents namely Agreement to Sell and attendant documents filed on behalf of respondents/landlords are duly stamped and even otherwise, the objection in that regard having not been taken before the learned Additional Rent Controller, now in view of Sec. 36 of the Stamp Act, the said objection cannot be raised. It was further argued on behalf of respondents/landlords that the petitioner/tenant did not file any document in support of his claim of having purchased the entire second floor by way of Agreement to Sell and attendant documents and in the proceedings of the present nature, the landlord has to establish title only better than that of the tenant.