Ms. Azka Ahmed, Adv v. SUBHAN AHMED

Judgment

1. The grievance of the Petitioner/tenant as articulated in the present Petition is that the order dated 23.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ACJ-cum-ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the premises i.e., ground floor of property bearing no. 2162, Rodgran, Lal Kuan, Delhi – 110006 [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”] has wrongly dismissed the Application for leave to defend in view of the fact that that no triable issues have been raised by the Petitioner/tenant.

This Court had heard both the parties in the matter on the last date of hearing and passed a detailed order. It is apposite to set out the relevant part of the order dated 18.11.2024: “4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant submits that there is no relationship of Respondent/landlord is not the owner of the subject premises. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/tenant that the owner of the subject premises is one Smt. Pushpanjali Arora and this contention has landlord-tenant between the parties Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:07.03.2025 18:35:37 RC.REV. 332/2024 Page 1 of 14 been raised on the basis of a rent receipt counterfoil which was produced by the Petitioner/tenant before the learned Trial Court.

4.1 In addition, it is contended that the Respondent/landlord has an alternate accommodation available including three godowns at Arora Building, Rodgran, Delhi and commercial space at Sheeshmahal, Azad Market, Delhi.

4.2 Admittedly, the bona fide need of the Respondent/landlord has not been disputed by the Petitioner/tenant.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord submits that, in the first instance, the issues raised before this Court have already been raised before the learned Trial Court and have been dealt with. He further submits that so far as concerns the ownership of the property, it is not disputed that the original owner was one Sh. Khushi Ram who had since died and has bequeathed the property to his wife Smt. Raj Rani. It is the Respondent’s case that he has purchased the property from Smt. Raj Rani.

5.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord further submits that so far concerns the averments of the Petitioner/tenant that Smt. Pushpanjali Arora was the owner of the subject premises, the same was disputed by the Respondent/landlord before the learned Trial Court. He further submits that this contention has already been examined by the learned Trial Court in paragraph 11 and 12 of the Impugned Order and that there is no infirmity with the same.

6. On the aspect of alternate accommodation, learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord seeks to rely upon paragraph 18 to 20 of the Impugned Order to submit that in the first instance, he has categorically denied in his reply to the Application of leave to defend that he owns the godowns or the commercial space as mentioned by the Petitioner in his Application for leave to defend. In addition, it is also stated that he does not run his business from Ghalib Apartment, Pitampura, Delhi but in fact resides there.

6.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent/landlord thus, submits that the Impugned Order does not suffer from any infirmity.

7. An examination of the Impugned Order shows that the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner before this Court have already been previously raised by him before the learned Trial Court and have been examined and the Impugned Order has been passed.

8. As adverted to above, the bona fide need is not being controverted. The availability of suitable alternate accommodation has also been denied by the Respondent/landlord. So far as concerns the issue of ownership of the subject premises, it is settled law that all that the Respondent/landlord has required to show is that he is more than just a tenant. In addition, the Impugned Order also contains a finding that the Petitioner/tenant does not claim to be an owner but does claim to be a tenant.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:07.03.2025 18:35:37 RC.REV. 332/2024 Page 2 of 14

2.1 As can be seen from the above, so far as concerns the landlord- tenant relationship between the parties and ownership of the subject premises, the learned Trial Court has given a finding that the Respondent/landlord is the owner of the subject premises. It is however the case of the Petitioner/tenant that the owner of the subject premises is one Smt. Pushpanjali Arora and this contention has been raised on the basis of a rent receipt counterfoil which was produced by the Petitioner/tenant before the learned Trial Court. On the contrary it is the contention of the Respondent/landlord that the subject premises has been purchased by the Respondent/landlord from Smt. Raj Rani.

2.2 The learned Trial Court examined the issue and has held that the Petitioner/tenant has failed to show how the subject premises was acquired by Smt. Pushpanjali Arora so as to confer it on the Petitioner/tenant. It was further held by the learned Trial Court that all that is required to be shown in an Eviction Petition is that the Respondent is more than a tenant and that the Petitioner/tenant has admitted to being a tenant. The relevant extract of the Impugned Order is set out below: “10…. In the entire application for leave to defend, the respondent has failed to state the exact relationship subsisting between Smt. Pushpanjali Arora and Sh. Khushi Ram Arora. He has just relied upon the counterfoil of a rent receipt dated 05.07.2015, issued in his favour as well as in favour of his brother Ikhlas Ahmed, by Smt. Pushpanjali Arora to claim that it is her who became the owner of the demised premises after the demise of Sh. Khushi Ram Arora, and later the said Pushpanjali Arora had written a letter addressed to him as well as the LRs of his deceased brother Ikhlas Ahmed requiring them to pay rent qua the demised premises to Mst. Husn Ara Begum w.e.f. 01.04.2016. The respondent has failed to elaborate as to how the said title was acquired by the said Pushpanjali Arora. Per-contra, the petitioner has relied upon the registered Sale Deed executed in favour by Sohail Sartaj and Shahar Yaar, the attorney holders of Asha Malik, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:07.03.2025 18:35:37 RC.REV. 332/2024 Page 3 of 14 Roma Arora@ Poonam Arora vide GPA dated 05.08.2016, upon whom the property was bequeathed by their late mother Raj Rani Arora, who inturn was the beneficiary of the Will of her late husband Sh. Khushi Ram Arora. By virtue of the Sale Deed, the petitioner has established that he has some semblance of title over the demised premises, which is better than that of the respondent. Needless to say, the respondent has not claimed to be the owner of the demised premises. He has only disputed the ownership of the petitioner, without specifying as to who is the owner thereof. In view thereof, the case of the petitioner, which is supported by registered Sale Deed in his favour appears to stand on a better footing. While it is true that in terms of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a tenant can challenge the subsequent title of a transferee of a property, it is equally well settled position of law that when tenant challenges the title of the landlord over the tenanted property, he is also required to state as to who is the actual owner of the property, if not the petitioner…….. 11….. Even for the respondent to claim that Pushpanjali Arora became the owner of the demised premises merely on the basis of the rent receipt is an argument which is unsustainable in law. The said receipt is not a Conveyance Deed or a title document, needless to say. Petitioner has placed reliance on a registered Will, and respondent/tenant has no right to challenge the said Will, since he is not the legal heir of the executant Khushi Ram Arora. (Ret: Aljan Dass Vs. Madan Lal 6 {1970)DLT260). The fact that the Wills executed by Sh. Khushi Ram Arora (who expired on 12.11.1986 as per petitioner) and Raj Rani Arora (who expired on 03.12.2013) were not probated is also not an impediment in them becoming operational upon the deaths of the testators, as per all settled cannons of law. Bearing in mind the fact that the scope of these proceedings cannot be stretched so to convert them into a suit for declaration of title, for the purpose of the proceedings instant it can safely be concluded that it is the petitioner who is the owner of the demised premises. This is more so in- view of the fact that even the respondent has nowhere contended that any title dispute with respect to the demised premises is pending between the Pushpanjali Arora or Husn Ara Begum on the one hand and the petitioner or his predecessor-in interest on the other. For the purpose of any proceedings under Section 14 (I) (e) of DRC Act, the scope of the term 'ownership' is only that the petitioner/landlord has to show that he is on a better footing than the respondent and does not have to show perfect title. Reliance at this juncture can be placed upon the judgment titled T.C. Rakhi Vs. Usha Gujral, ILR 1969 Delhi 9. In this endeavor, the petitioner has succeeded by placing reliance on registered instruments in his favour, and is declared to be the owner of the demised premises for the purpose of these proceedings.” [Emphasis supplied] Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:07.03.2025 18:35:37 RC.REV. 332/2024 Page 4 of 14

2.3 The learned Trial Court has additionally relied upon the rent receipt which has been signed by the Petitioner/tenant and filed by the Respondent/landlord to hold that the Petitioner/tenant has attorned to the Respondent as landlord and is barred from disputing the title of the Respondent/landlord over the subject premises.

3. On the aspect of challenge to the ownership raised by the Petitioner/tenant, in a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”], 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. The Supreme Court in the case of Swadesh Ranjan Sinha v. Haradeb Banerjee1, 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]

3.1 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 Dass2 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 Prabha3 to hold that the term owner has to be