MOHAN LAL DUGGAL Vs. INDER MOHAN SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order of the Additional Rent Controller whereby an eviction order was passed against the petitioner on 24th April, 1989 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner has filed the present civil revision petition.

(2.) Mr. Duggal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that the petitioner has nowhere pleaded in the eviction petition that he was the owner of the premises in question. In support of his contention he has cited Tirath Ram Chopra and Another, 22 (1982) DLT (1), Syed and Company and Others v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 422 Mr. Duggal has further contended that as a matter of fact when there was no pleading as regard to ownership of the premises in question, no evidence beyond that pleading ought to have been allowed by the Additional Rent Controller and petition was liable to be dismissed on this score.

(3.) It has been vehemently contended before me that the writing in the hand of father of the respondent dated 16th August, 1963 was a Partition Deed which necessarily required registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Roshan Singh and Others v. Zile Singh and Others, AIR 1988 SC 881. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that in any event of the matter, the said partition was sham in the eyes of law. He further contended that respondent has never let out the premises to the petitioner and the respondent was not his landlord. In support of his contention he has cited Devi Das v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1982 SWC 1213 and S.K. Sattar Sk. Mohd. Choudhari v. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate, (1996) 6 SCC 373.