Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Advocate v. AZMMUDDIN ANR

Judgment

1. The present Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/tenant seeking to challenge the Order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge cum Rent Controller (Central), Delhi [hereinafter referred to

as “Impugned Order”]. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court dismissed to defend/contest Application filed by Petitioner/tenant and passed an Eviction Order against Petitioner/tenant in respect of the premises measuring 16’ x 9’ situated on the ground floor of property no. 1337, Main bazar, Farash Khana, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed along with Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”].

2. The Petitioner/tenant also impugns order dated 21.11.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing a petition/application for review Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:05.02.2025 16:21:42 RC.REV. 211/2016 Page 1 of 11 filed by the Petitioner/tenant under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”].

3. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, by its Order dated

01.08.2016, directed that there shall be a stay on the execution of the Impugned Order. Subsequently, by an Order dated 24.01.2019, the Coordinate Bench of this Court, affixed user and occupation charges in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to be paid by the Petitioner/tenant to the Respondents/landlords. The parties confirm that these payments are being made regularly by the Petitioner/tenant. The matter has been heard by this Court on more than one occasion.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant submits that the only issue that is to be adjudicated upon in the present case is with respect to the ownership of the subject premises. It is the case of the Petitioner/tenant that the Petitioner/tenant had purchased the subject premises from the father of the Respondent No. 1 through documents executed i.e., General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Will and receipt all dated 08.12.2003. It is, thus, submitted that the learned Trial Court was in error in rejecting the leave to defend/contest Application filed by the Petitioner/tenant.

4.1 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant further submits that the Respondents/landlords had stated in the pleadings that the documents, which have been placed on record by the Petitioner/tenant are forged. It was incumbent on the learned Trial Court to allow the leave to defend/contest and examine the matter. Thus, it is Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:05.02.2025 16:21:42 RC.REV. 211/2016 Page 2 of 11 contended that the Impugned Order suffers from infirmity.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1/landlord, on the other hand, submits that the Petitioner/tenant is not the owner of the subject premises and is just a tenant. He submits that the subject premises was originally jointly owned by parents of Respondent No.1 namely Alimuddin and Rahisa Begum who obtained the premises by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 30.05.1984. Both the parents of the Respondent No. 1 passed away, thereafter, leaving behind ten legal heirs including the Respondent No.1/landlord. The other legal heirs executed two Relinquishment Deeds dated 20.02.2007 and 06.08.2013 in respect of the subject premises in favour of the Respondent No. 1/landlord. It is explained that the ownership of the Respondent No.1/landlord devolved upon him in this manner.

5.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord also seeks to rely upon a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court on

08.10.1968 in the matter of T.C Rekhi v. Usha Gujral1 to submit that the Court has held that it is settled law that the term “owner” as defined under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] does not mean absolute ownership.

6. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, at this stage, clarify that although the Respondent No. 2 was made a party by the Petitioner/tenant before the learned Trial Court as a sub-tenant, it is the case of the Petitioner/tenant that the Petitioner/tenant is in occupation of 1 T.C. Rakhi v. Usha Gujral, 1968 SCC OnLine Del 145 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:05.02.2025 16:21:42 RC.REV. 211/2016 Page 3 of 11 the subject premises even today.

6.1 The statement of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant, on instructions, is taken on record.

7. On the aspect of existence of landlord-tenant relationship, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1/landlord further seeks to rely upon rent receipts which have been filed along with the Eviction Petition for the period between 03.07.1996 to 15.12.2010, to submit that the Petitioner/tenant has all along paid rental to Respondent No.1/landlord, and thus, there is no question of the Petitioner/tenant being the owner of the subject premises.

8. As stated above, the challenge in the present Petition is to the ownership of the subject premises.

9. It is the contention of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner/tenant that he has filed a civil suit for injunction qua the subject premises which is pending adjudication. Undisputably, the civil suit was filed in the year 2014, soon after the filing of the Eviction Petition. However, the documents that the Petitioner/tenant seeks to rely upon are stated to be executed in the year 2003.

10. The objection that was raised by the Petitioner/tenant before this Court was also raised by the Petitioner/tenant before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court examined the documents that were placed record by the Respondent No. 1/landlord including Relinquishment Deeds and the rent receipts. The learned Trial Court has Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:05.02.2025 16:21:42 RC.REV. 211/2016 Page 4 of 11 held that mere denial of ownership of the premises of the landlord does not mean that the case must be sent for trial.

11. On the aspect of the challenge to the ownership raised by the Petitioner/tenant, it is a settled law that all that a landlord has to prove is a better title than the tenant to seek eviction from the tenanted premises under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Swadesh Ranjan Sinha v. Haradeb Banerjee2, in the context of ownership in an eviction petition, has clarified that: “ 9. All that a plaintiff needs to prove is that he has a better title than the defendant. He has no burden to show that he has the best of all possible titles. His ownership is good against all the world except the true owner. The rights of an owner are seldom absolute, and often are in many respects controlled and regulated by statute. The question, however, is whether he has a superior right or interest vis-a-vis the person challenging it….” [Emphasis supplied]

11.1 This Court while discussing the issue of ownership in a Petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Act in a case titled R.S. Chadha v. Thakur Dass3 has held that what a landlord has to prove is a better title than the tenant to seek his eviction for the tenanted premises. The Court relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Sharma vs. Ved Prabha4 to hold that the term owner has to be understood in the context of the background of the law. The relevant extract reads as follows: “10.1 It is settled law that what a landlord has to prove is a better title than the tenant to seek his eviction from a tenanted premises under Section