Judgment:
J.D. Kapoor, J
1. Petitioner has been refused the leave to contest the eviction petition filed on the ground of bonfire 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 a 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 bonfire 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 v. Bihari Lal (Dead) by LRs 91(2001) DLT 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 though 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.
4. The first and foremost requirement to become entitled to leave to defend is that there should exist relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. By denying the ownership or land lordship of the petitioner and claiming himself as owner, the petitioner cannot be granted leave to defend the eviction petition.
5. Further more denial of agreement is also not a ground to grant leave to defend as it is inconceivable that the party will set up a document which was executed more than 30 years back and would fabricate the same for the purpose of seeking eviction.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in the petition and dismiss the same.