Mr. Jai Wadhwa Mr. Ronak with Advocates Karanpuria v. MST. NASEEMA BEGUM ORS. Through

Judgment

2. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. The Application stands disposed of. RC.REV. 80/2025 & CM APPL. 13305/2025 [for stay]

3. The present Petition seeks to challenge an order dated 29.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ARC- 02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. By the Impugned Order, the leave to defend Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant has been dismissed. The premises in issue is property bearing No.7503, Qasabpura, Delhi, Ward No.14, Delhi. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:26.03.2025 08:17:52 RC.REV. 80/2025 Page 1 of 13

4. The matter was briefly heard by the Court on the last date of hearing

and on that date, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant sought time to take instructions.

5. An opportunity was granted to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner/tenant on the last date of hearing to take instructions to seek additional time to vacate.

6. The Petitioner/tenant is present in Court today. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner does not wish for additional time to vacate.

7. The challenge by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant is on the ownership of the subject premises. It is submitted Respondents/landlords are not the owners of the subject premises, however, the owner is a third party.

8. It is also settled law that a title dispute cannot be adjudicated by this Court in rent revision petition. The Supreme Court in Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das1, has held that the question of title to a premises is not germane to the decision of the eviction suit. “11.1. First, in an eviction suit filed by the plaintiff (landlord) against the defendant (tenant) under the State Rent Act, the landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties. In other words, in a tenancy suit, only two persons are necessary parties for the decision of the suit, namely, the landlord and the tenant. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

11.3. Third, the question of title to the suit premises is not germane for the decision of the eviction suit. The reason being, if the landlord fails to prove his title to the suit premises but proves the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises and further proves existence of any ground on which the eviction is sought under the 1 (2018) 2 SCC 352 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:26.03.2025 08:17:52 RC.REV. 80/2025 Page 2 of 13 Tenancy Act, the eviction suit succeeds. Conversely, if the landlord proves his title to the suit premises but fails to prove the existence of relationship of the landlord and tenant in relation to the suit premises, the eviction suit fails. (See Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal [Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, (1995) 6 SCC 580] .)

11.4. Fourth, the plaintiff being a dominus litis cannot be compelled to make any third person a party to the suit, be that a plaintiff or the defendant, against his wish unless such person is able to prove that he is a necessary party to the suit and without his presence, the suit cannot proceed and nor can be decided effectively. In other words, no person can compel the plaintiff to allow such person to become the co-plaintiff or defendant in the suit. It is more so when such person is unable to show as to how he is a necessary or proper party to the suit and how without his presence, the suit can neither proceed and nor it can be decided or how his presence is necessary (See Ruma effective decision of Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee [Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee, (2005) 8 SCC 140] .) suit. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

11.6. Sixth, if there are co-owners or co-landlords of the suit premises then any co-owner or co-landlord can file a suit for eviction against the tenant. In other words, it is not necessary that all the owners/landlords should join (See Kasthuri suit against Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan [Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan, (2016) 3 SCC 296 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 331] .) eviction tenant. filing xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

13. In our considered opinion, Respondent 1, who claims to be the co-sharer or/and co-owner with the plaintiff-appellants herein of the suit property is neither a necessary and nor a proper party in the eviction suit of the appellants against Respondents 2 to 5. In other words, such eviction suit can be decreed or dismissed on merits even without the impleadment of Respondent 1.” [Emphasis Supplied]

8.1 In addition, the Supreme Court in the case of Tribhuvanshankar vs Amrutlal2 has held that in case where a landlord initiates eviction proceedings against the tenant based on landlord-tenant relationship the scope of the proceedings are very limited and the question of title cannot be 2 (2014) 2 SCC 788 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:26.03.2025 08:17:52 RC.REV. 80/2025 Page 3 of 13 adjudicated. It was further observed therein that all that the Court has to do is to satisfy itself that the person seeking eviction is a landlord, who has prima facie right to receive the rent of the property in question. In order to decide whether the denial of landlord’s title by the tenant is bona fide the Court may have to go into tenant’s contention on the issue but the Court is not to decide the question of title finally as the Court has to see whether the tenant’s denial of title of the landlord is bona fide in the circumstances of the case. The relevant extract is set out below: “28. At this juncture, we may fruitfully refer to the principles stated in Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal [(1995) 6 SCC 580]. In the said case the Court was dealing with the case instituted by the landlord under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 for eviction of the tenant who had disputed the title and the High Court had set aside the judgment and decree of the courts below and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff seeking eviction. While adverting to the issue of title the Court in Ranbir Singh [(1995) 6 SCC 580] ruled that in a case where a plaintiff institutes a suit for eviction of his tenant based on the relationship of the landlord and tenant, the scope of the suit is very much limited in which a question of title cannot be gone into because the suit of the plaintiff would be dismissed even if he succeeds in proving his title but fails to establish the privity of contract of tenancy. In a suit for eviction based on such relationship the court has only to decide whether the defendant is the tenant of the plaintiff or not, though the question of title if disputed, may incidentally be gone into, in connection with the primary question for determining the main question about the relationship between the litigating parties.