Mr. Amit Dhalla and Mr. Sohan Singh Rawat, Advocates v. GHULAM RASOOL WANI ORS

Judgment

1. The petitioners/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 before the learned ARC-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,3 seeking eviction of the respondent no.1/ tenant as well as respondent nos.2 to 84 from the subject premises being two rooms, one kothri along with dalan, open courtyard with latrine, bathroom and two kitchen in property bearing no.745, Ground Floor, Phatak Dhobian, Farash Khana, Delhi 5. 2. Succinctly put, as per petitioners, the whole property bearing 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘petitioners’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ARC’ 4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘respondents’ 5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject premises’ RC.REV. 39/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:17.10.2025 17:24:32 no.745, Phatak Dobian, Farsh Khana, Delhi-110 0066 was purchased by the grandfather of the petitioners vide a registered Sale Deed dated

06.01.1947, who inducted the father of the respondent no.1, namely, Sh. Ghulam Qadir Wani as a tenant in the subject premises. Subsequently, the subject premises was mutated in the name of mother of the petitioners and accordingly, the father of respondent no.1 started paying rent to her. Later on, the father of respondent no.1 wrongly handed over possession of the subject premises to one Sh. Syed Daud Meer, whose family members, being respondent nos.2 to 8, were residing therein. 3. Further, as per petitioners, they were in a bona fide requirement of the subject premises since the wife of petitioner no.2, having undergone caesarean surgery, was advised to avoid using stairs and to stay at the ground floor, as also since the premises wherein petitioners were residing was in an uninhabitable/ dilapidated condition, and that they had no other suitable alternative accommodation available for the said purpose. 4. Summons were served upon the respondent no.1 by way of publication in the newspaper, however, he did not file any application seeking leave to defend. 5. However, upon service of summons, the respondents filed an application seeking leave to defend disputing the petitioners being a landlord or the owner of the subject premises, particularly, since the aforesaid Sale Deed pertained to property bearing no. 746, Phatak Dobian, Farsh Khana, Delhi-110 006 and not the property wherein the subject premises was situated. As per them, the mother of the petitioners had executed a receipt dated 10.07.1997 acknowledging the receipt of 6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘property’ RC.REV. 39/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:17.10.2025 17:24:32 Rs.50,000/- towards part payment of total consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- for sale of the entire property and thereafter the physical possession of the subject premises was given to the husband of the respondent no. 2. Lastly, as per them, the petitioners were having sufficient alternative accommodation at their disposal and therefore, their requirement of the subject premises was not bona fide. 6. The learned ARC, vide order dated 07.12.20237, allowed the application for leave to defend of the respondents, holding that triable issue has been raised by them and therefore the petitioners’ projected requirement needs to “be tested at the touch-stone of evidence/ cross- examination”. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition filed by the petitioners for setting aside the order dated 07.12.2023 passed by the

learned ARC. 8. Mr. Amit Dhalla, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is liable to be set aside since the leave to defend application filed by the respondents, who were not tenants and were merely unauthorized occupant/ unlawful sub-tenants in possession of the subject premises, was not maintainable since there is no such provision under the DRC Act. Also, since the respondent no.1, who was the original/ sole tenant never filed any application for leave to defend before the learned ARC. The respondents are nobody to have challenge the ownership of the petitioners. 7 Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’ RC.REV. 39/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:17.10.2025 17:24:32

9. Mr. Amit Dhalla, learned counsel further submits that the learned ARC has wrongly framed a triable issue by placing reliance upon a receipt dated 10.07.1997, while overlooking the judgment dated 22.01.2002 passed by the learned Trial Court in Suit no. 347/1998 whereby the suit for specific performance filed by husband of respondent no. 2 on the basis of the said receipt already stood dismissed on merits. So much so, the appeal therefrom was also dismissed by this Court with costs. He further submits that the learned ARC has also failed to consider that the husband of respondent no. 2 as well as the other respondents, have themselves admitted in various proceedings that the possession of the subject premises was taken by the husband of respondent no. 2 from the father of respondent no. 1 and not from the mother of the petitioners. 10. Controverting the above, Md. Zaryab Jamal Rizvi, learned counsel for respondents, at the very outset, submits that the present revision petition is, per se, not maintainable against an order of the learned Rent Controller allowing leave to defend, since the appropriate remedy available is under Section 38 of the DRC Act. He then submits that the respondents in their application for leave to defend raised a substantial triable issue qua the ownership of the subject premises and the petitioners failed to establish their superior title over the respondents. Based thereon, the learned ARC have rightly granted them leave to defend. He also submits that the documents in previous proceedings relied upon by the petitioners do not pertain to the subject premises. He, lastly, submits that the impugned order is a well-reasoned, speaking order which suffers from no illegality, perversity or infirmity warranting interference from this RC.REV. 39/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:17.10.2025 17:24:32 Court. 11. To support his aforesaid contention, learned counsel for respondents have relied upon Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh C Gupta8, Abid-Ul- lslam v. Inder Sain Dua9, Precision Steel and Engineering Works & Anr. v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal10, Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh11. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties as also gone through the documents and pleadings on record as also the judgments cited by the parries at Bar. 13. Regarding the issue of maintainability of the present revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC, in view of what has been held by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Bakshi v. H.K. Malhari12, which has consistently been followed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in R.S. Bakshi v. H.K. Malhari13, Sanjay Mehra v. Sunil Malhotra14, Prem Lata v. Pawan Kumar Khurana15, Pravesh Jain v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.16, Amrit Mohini and Another v. Brij Mohan Gupta17, the same is very much maintainable. 14. As such, the issue of maintainability raised by the respondents is rejected. 15. Interestingly, there is no dispute by the respondents that the