Mr. Hitendra Kr. Nahata and Mr. Puru C., Advocates v. HARI RAM HARI PRAKASH

Judgment

1. The petitioner/ landlady1 filed an Eviction Petition being No. E- 504/14/2012 New No.79384/2016 entitled ‘Priyanka Chaudhary vs. Hari Ram @ Hari Prakash’ under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 against the respondent/ tenant3 seeking eviction of premises

being the entire first floor and one room on the second floor terrace of property situated at 2735-2736, Chhattar Pratap Singh, Kinari Bazar, Delhi- 110 006, before the learned Additional Rent Controller-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi4, on the ground that the landlady was in bona fide 1 Hereinafter ‘landlady’ 2 Hereinafter ‘DRC Act’ 3 Hereinafter ‘tenant’ 4 Hereinafter ‘learned ARC’ RC.REV. 246/2019 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:23.12.2025 03:39:20 need of it for her residential purposes with her family members. 2. Briefly put, it was the case of the landlady therein that she became the owner of the subject premises by virtue of a Sale Deed dated

24.06.2003 executed between the landlady and Sh. Dhanna Lal Jain and Sh. Surinder Kumar Jain, when, the tenant was already in possession of the subject premises. The landlady was residing with her husband, two children, father-in-law, and mother-in-law at nearby property bearing No.2769, second floor, Chhattar Pratap Singh, Kinari Bazar, Delhi-110 006, a house comprising of only three rooms. As per her, she required additional accommodation due to the ongoing differences with her in-laws and the inadequate space in her current dwelling. She, specifically, sought two rooms for her growing children, one room for her personal use, one room for guests, one room for pooja, as well as a drawing room and a dining room, in addition to a servant room and terrace for her children’s use. Lastly, as per the landlady, she had no other suitable alternative accommodation available with her apart from the subject premises to cater to her bona fide requirement. 3. Upon being served, the tenant filed application under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend, which was allowed vide order dated 07.03.2015. Thereafter, the tenant filed his written statement primarily submitting that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the Eviction Petition since she was neither the owner nor the landlady of the subject premises as the same was owned by a Trust and that the respondent had been inducted as a tenant by the Trust and had been tendering rent only to the Trust. It was also his case that the landlady was claiming ownership of the subject premises on the basis of a Sale Deed dated 24.06.2003, RC.REV. 246/2019 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:23.12.2025 03:39:20 wherein Late Smt. Kesar Devi, widow of Shri Babu Mal @ Amirchand Ji, was shown as the owner of the property, however, according to a Will dated 12.11.1951, Late Smt. Kesar Devi had categorically stated therein that she was not the owner of the subject premises and that one Late Lala Hazari Mal was the owner thereof, who had, by virtue of a registered Will dated 17.05.1945, created a Trust in respect of the property. He submitted that the alleged Sale Deed dated 24.06.2003 was a sham and fabricated document, as the purported vendors therein had no title, right, or interest in the subject premises and, in any event, the execution of the said Sale Deed was contrary to the terms and conditions of the Trust Deed. Lastly, it was contended that the landlady was in possession of sufficient alternative accommodations being property bearing nos.2378 and 2735-2736, Chhattar Pratap Singh, Kinari Bazar, Delhi-110 006, and that the requirement projected by the landlady was neither genuine nor bona fide. 4. The learned ARC then passed the judgment dated 31.01.20195 dismissing the Eviction Petition of the landlady on the count that she failed to prove her ownership qua the subject premises as also the existence of a landlord tenant relationship between the parties. 5. Hence, the landlady filed the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the said impugned judgment dated 31.01.2019 passed by the learned ARC. 6. Although the landlady has raised many grounds in the present petition, however, Mr. Hitendra Kr. Nahata, learned counsel for the landlady primarily submitted that learned ARC has exceeded jurisdiction and travelled beyond the scope of the DRC Act by examining 5 Hereinafter “impugned judgment” RC.REV. 246/2019 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:23.12.2025 03:39:20 and adjudicating upon the issue qua ownership of the subject premises. This, despite it being a settled law that there was no stringent duty cast upon the landlady to establish/ prove her ownership for the purposes of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act as it is under the Transfer of Property Act,

1882. The learned counsel further submitted that as per well-established principles of law, the landlady was not required to prove absolute or perfect title and was only obliged to demonstrate that she was something more than a tenant, and that in proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the manner or mode of acquisition of the subject premises by the landlady was wholly irrelevant and beyond the tenant’s domain of inquiry as the tenant could not assume the role of a contender to the title of the landlady. Thus, the learned counsel submitted that the conclusion arrived at by the learned ARC in the impugned judgment, being erroneous, untenable and contrary to the settled position of law, are liable to be set aside. 7. To substantiate the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Hitendra Kr. Nahata, relied upon the dictum observed in Bharat Bhushan Vij vs. Arti Techchandani6, Menakshi vs. Ramesh Khanna & Anr.7, Sheela & Ors. vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash8 and Shanti Sharma vs. Ved Prabha9. 8. Per contra, Ms. Khyati Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/ tenant, submitted that the alleged Sale Deed dated 24.06.2003, by virtue whereof, the landlady claimed ownership of the subject premises, categorically mentions that Late Smt. Kesar Devi was the owner of the