JIWAN LAL Vs. GURDIAL KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment oflearned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi dated 20/03/1993. The learned Addl.Rent Controller has passed on order of eviction under Section 14(l)(e) of the DelhiRent Control Act for eviction of the respondents from the premises in question. Thelearned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the judgment on the followinggrounds:-(a) ownership; (b) purpose of letting; and (c) bona fide requirement.

(2.) . It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish that they are theowners of the premises in question. The husband of petitioner No. 1Raghubir SinghWas a lessee with respect to the premises under M/s Kanna Mal Chhanna Mal. Thepetitioner herein was inducted as a tenant by Kuldip Kaur, daughter of RaghubirSingh, in the year 1969-70.

(3.) . There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases underSection 14 (l)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants theCourts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises ifnot the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Furtherthese cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to theproperty. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does notclaim the ownership of the premises. He is only a tenant and according to him wasinducted by Kuldip Kaur, daughter of deceased Raghubir Singh. Raghubir Singhheld lease of the premises from Kanna Mal Chhanna Mal. AW 1 Smt.Gurdayal Kaurhas stated that the lease of the property was in the name of her husband RaghubirSingh and after his death she has inherited the same. House tax bill AW 1/2 is in thename of Raghubir Singh. Therefore, I do not find anything to disturb the finding ofthe Court below on this point.