Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Sr. Adv and Mr. Sachin Puri, Sr. Adv. alongwith Mr. Rehman v. ASHOK KUMAR

Judgment

1. The respondent/ landlord1 filed an Eviction Petition being RC ARC No. 80114/ 2016 titled as ‘Sh. Ashok Kumar vs. Sh. Sukhdev @ Sukhdev Raj’ under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 against the petitioner/ tenant3 seeking eviction from two shop(s) measuring 6’4” X 10’6” and 67’10” X 14’5”4 at property bearing No.6165/1, facing gali no.3, block-1, khasra no.4084/193, Basti 1 Hereinafter referred to as “landlord” 2 Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” 3 Hereinafter referred to as “tenant” 4 Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises” RC.REV. 311/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:35:12 Regar, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 0055 before the learned SCJ/ RC, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,6 on the ground of bona fide requirement for opening a restaurant/ Dhaba as there was no suitable alternative accommodation available for the said purpose. 2. Succinctly put, as per landlord in his Eviction Petition, the entire property wherein the subject premises was situated, subsequent to the

death of his late grandmother i.e., Smt. Shiv Devi, devolved upon her three sons, namely, Sh. Mangal Singh, Sh. Soren Lal and Sh. Budhsen. Thereafter, pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 24.04.20157 in the Partition Suit being CS(OS) 1377/ 2009 entitled “Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Raj Kumar Sharma”8 inter se them, the subject premises, which was undivided, came to the share of the landlord and his sister i.e., Manju Devi and they became the joint owners thereof. As the subject premises came to his share, and that of his sister as per the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Yashpal Sharma i.e., cousin of the landlord sent a Letter dated 09.06.2015 to the tenant asking him to pay the future rent to landlord and his sister i.e., Manju Devi and not to other Legal Heirs. Not receiving the rent, the landlord then sent a Termination Notice dated 26.10.2015 to the tenant asking him to vacate and handover possession of the subject premises. 3. As per landlord, the father of the tenant Sh. Pyare Lal was inducted in the subject premises for running a Dhaba i.e., “Vaishnav Dhaba”. After his demise, the tenant started paying the rent for the same subject premises to one of the aforementioned Legal Heirs. Facing difficulties, since there 5 Hereinafter referred to as “whole property” 6 Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC” 7 Hereinafter referred to as “Settlement Agreement” 8 Hereinafter referred to as “partition suit” RC.REV. 311/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:35:12 was a bona fide requirement of the subject premises and there was no alternative accommodation available for the said need, the landlord filed an Eviction Petition. 4. Upon being served, the tenant filed an application under Section(s) 25B(4) and 25B(5) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend wherein it was primarily his case that his father, late Sh. Pyare Lal, was paying rent to uncle of the landlord, late Sh. Soren Lal Sharma, and subsequently to his wife, late Smt. Shanti Devi @ of Rs. 250/- per month and further to their son, Sh. Yashpal since 01.10.2011. It was also his case that the landlord had earlier filed an Eviction Petition bearing no. E-501/ 20069 under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act jointly with his sister Smt. Manju Devi, wherein, he admitted Sh. Soren Lal Sharma as the landlord of the subject premises and since a lis was pending qua title of the subject premises, he had filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190810 for seeking adjournment of the said earlier Eviction Petition sine die on account of the pending partition suit. Later, the said Eviction Petition was withdrawn by the landlord, however, Smt. Manju Devi moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking revival thereof, which was also disposed of with the finding that the rights of Smt. Manju Devi survived therein. 5. It was also his case that since the Settlement Agreement was entered by the parties on 24.04.2015, the Eviction Petition filed by the landlord was barred under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act, as also no consent of the co-owner Smt. Manju Devi was obtained for filing the 9 Hereinafter referred to as “earlier Eviction Petition” 10 Hereinafter referred to as “CPC” RC.REV. 311/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:35:12 same, and that the landlord had concealed the existence of other alterative accommodation and that he had sufficient income in order to sustain his livelihood. 6. After hearing both sides, vide order dated 03.04.2018, the tenant was granted leave to defend by the learned ARC. 7. The tenant then filed his written statement wherein he essentially contended that Smt. Manju Devi became the sole owner of the subject premises vide the Family Settlement dated 20.02.200411, and that during the pendency of the lis since she had sold the same to the tenant along with all the rights and interest vested therein vide a registered Sale Deed

15.12.2016 (Ex. RW-1/4) 12. Thus, since the tenant became the owner of the subject premises, the Eviction Petition was liable to be dismissed as the landlord tenant relationship ceased to exist. 8. In his replication thereof, the landlord, reiterating that he and his sister were joint owners of the subject premises, disputed the Family Settlement and the ownership thereof by the tenant. 9. After both parties leading their respective evidence, the learned ARC proceeded to pass a detailed judgment dated 13.08.202413 in favour of the landlord and directed the tenant to vacate and handover the subject premises to the landlord. 10. Being aggrieved, the tenant preferred the present revision petition against the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2024 of the learned ARC. 11. The execution proceedings initiated by the landlord has been stayed vide order dated 28.03.2025 passed by this Court. 11 Hereinafter referred to as “Family Settlement” 12 Hereinafter referred to as “Sale Deed” RC.REV. 311/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:26.11.2025 17:35:12

12. In furtherance of the assertions made by the tenant, Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, learned senior counsel for the tenant has only raised two contentions before this Court. Firstly, relying upon Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Smt. Savitri Agarwalla & Ors.14 and Navin Chander Anand vs. Union Bank of India and Ors.15, he submitted that since the co-owner Smt. Manju Devi had filed an application under Order I rule 10 of the CPC, the learned ARC, disregarding it, erred in allowing the Eviction Petition. Secondly, Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, learned senior counsel submitted that since the tenant has a duly executed Sale Deed with respect to the subject premises in his favour, the landlord tenant relationship has ceased to exist as he is now the owner thereof. 13. Barring addressing the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, learned senior counsel has not pressed and/ or raised any other issues. 14. Per Contra, Mr. Alok Sinha, learned counsel for the landlord, in response to the aforesaid two aspects, submitted that the aforesaid Sale Deed relied upon by the tenant is for the entire subject premises, when in fact, Smt. Manju Devi was the co-owner of only 50% of the subject premises in question. Further, relying upon Guru Swami Nadar vs. P. Lakshmi Ammal & Ors.16 and Pramod Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. vs. Bibi Husan Bano & Ors.17, he submitted that the execution of the said Sale Deed is hit by the doctrine of lis pendens and estoppel since there is a dispute qua the title/ ownership of the subject premises on account of the