Bhan Vs. Financial Commissioner & Ors.6 By relying upon the said decision, the learned Advocate for the Respondent submitted that in absence of any documentary evidence, the Applicant was not entitled to claim ownership over the Suit property. In support of the submission with respect to the title of the Applicant, the learned Advocate for Respondent also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prahlad Pradhan and Others Vs. Sonu Kumhar and Others.7 and Bhimabai Mahadeo Kambekar (D) Thr. Lr. (Smt.) Vs. Arthur Import and Export Company and Others.8 By relying upon aforesaid decisions, the learned Advocate for the Respondent submitted that the Applicant had no right, title or interest in the Suit premises and hence, was not entitled to maintain the Suit against the Respondent. It was thus submitted that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, and hence, the Applicant was not entitled to seek eviction of the Respondent by relying upon the provisions of the Rent Act. He thus submitted that both the Courts have concurrently held that the Applicant failed to prove his ownership over the Suit property and thus held not entitled to maintain the Suit for eviction against the Respondent.
