Ms. Nandni Sahni and Ms. Tanya Singh, Advs v. RAM CHANDER JAIN

Judgment

1. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of Petitioners/landlords impugning the order dated 26.05.2017 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ARC-02/Central/Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the premises i.e., Municipal No. 404, Ward No. VI, Haveli Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 as shown in colour red in the site plan annexed with the Eviction Petition [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. By the Impugned Order, the Eviction Petition filed by the Petitioners/landlords was dismissed.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/landlords submits that the

Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity on two counts. Firstly, that the learned Trial Court has given a finding that the Petitioners/landlords failed to prove their ownership of the subject premises, which is contrary to the record.

2.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/landlords further contends that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:40:20 RC.REV. 340/2017 once a Sale Deed was placed on record and exhibited before the learned Trial Court, the challenge to the ownership does not remain. The Petitioners/landlords had purchased the subject premises by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 27.09.2000 executed between Petitioners/landlords and one, Shri Sunder Lal [hereinafter referred to as “Sale Deed”]. She seeks to rely upon a copy of the Sale Deed which is annexed as Ex. PW1/5 in the Trial Court record in this regard. Reliance is also placed on the recitals of the sale deed which also set out the title chain. The sale deed is duly registered with the Office of the Sub-Registrar which bears the following details; Registration No. 5347, Additional Book I, Volume 194, pages from 173 to 179.

3. Secondly, it is contended that since the Petitioners/landlords did not themselves personally step into the witness box, the evidence of their husband(s) was disregarded by the learned Trial Court.

3.1 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/landlords submits that the husband of the Petitioner No.1 had entered into the witness box and given his evidence. She seeks to rely upon Ex.PW1/1, which is a Special Power of Attorney and sets out that given the fact that the Petitioners are housewives and remain busy with day-to-day work, they are unable to appear and pursue the case. The Petitioners/landlords have therefore appointed the husband of the Petitioner No.2 as an attorney to deal with the cases pending before the learned Trial Court. The Special Power of Attorney is dated 21.03.2012 and forms part of the record as ExPW1/1.

3.2 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners/landlords submits that the husband of Petitioner No.2 to submit that the husband of the Petitioner No. 2 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:40:20 RC.REV. 340/2017 had also set out in examination-in-chief that his wife was the owner of the subject premises. Reliance is placed on Paragraph 3 of the affidavit in evidence filed by the husband of the Petitioner No.1 (PW1), which is set out below: “3. That the petitioners are the owners of the tenanted premises as stated above by virtue of registered sale deed dated 27.09.2000. The copy of the same is Ex. PW1/5(OSR).”

3.3 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners thus submits that the finding of the learned Trial Court that none of the Petitioners came into the witness box is without any basis given the fact that the Petitioners had authorised their husbands to appear on their behalf and evidence was given by the said attorney.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent/tenant, on the other hand, relies upon an order passed by the learned Civil Court in Suit No. 48 of 1939 dated

22.12.1939 in this behalf which is captioned as Abhe Dass alias Ram Das & Ors. v. Kalyan Dass & Ors. [exhibited as Ex.RW1/7 Colly] to submit that the subject property is the property of the Trust and cannot be bequeathed or transferred by an individual. It is contended that this fact is admitted by the husband of Petitioner No.1, Shri Sundar Sharma [PW-1] in his cross examination.

4.1 In addition, learned Counsel for the Respondent/tenant has relied upon on a Will dated 08.05.1999 executed by Mehant Ram Tirath Chela, S/o Late Mahant Abhey Dass, R/o Property no. 423, Haveli Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi in favour of Shri Sunder Lal Sharma, to submit that although it is contended that the Trust has bequeathed the property to the Petitioners/landlords, the Will has not been proved in accordance with law. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:40:20 RC.REV. 340/2017

5. This Court has examined the Impugned Order. The Impugned Order shows that the Eviction Petition has been dismissed essentially on two grounds. One that the Petitioners did not come into the witness box to give their evidence, and secondly, the Petitioners have failed to prove their “ownership/landlordship” over the subject premises.

5.1 The finding of the learned Trial Court is contrary to the documents on record. As stated above, the Petitioners seek to rely upon the registered sale deed which has been registered in their favour for ownership. 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 Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”]. 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]

6. 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 1 (1991) 4 SCC 572 2 2024 SCC OnLine Del47 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:40:20 RC.REV. 340/2017 Prabha3 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 14(1)(e) of the Act. The Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha has held as follows: “14. The word “owner” has not been defined in this Act and the word ‘owner’ has also not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant appears to be that ownership means absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereupon. Ordinarily, the concept of ownership may be what is contended by the counsel for the appellant but in the modern context where it is more or less admitted that all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on some term from the government or the authorities constituted by the State and in this view of the matter it could not be thought of that the legislature when it used the term “owner” in the provision of Section 14(1)(e) it thought of ownership as absolute ownership. It must be presumed that the concept of ownership only will be as it is understood at present. It could not be doubted that the term “owner” has to be understood in the context of the background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the Act. This Act has been enacted for protection of the tenants. But at the same time it has provided that the landlord under certain circumstances will be entitled to eviction and bona fide requirement is one of such grounds on the basis of which landlords have been permitted to have eviction of a tenant. In this context, the phrase “owner” thereof has to be understood, and it is clear that what is contemplated is that where the person builds up his property and lets out to the tenant and subsequently needs it for his own use, he should be entitled to an order or decree for eviction the only thing necessary for him to prove is bona fide requirement and that he is the owner thereof. In this context, what appears to be the meaning of the term “owner” is vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. Admittedly in these 3 (1987) 4 SCC 193 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:40:20 RC.REV. 340/2017 cases where the plot of land is taken on lease the structure is built by the landlord and admittedly he is the owner of the structure….” [Emphasis supplied]

7. The Respondent/tenant has not averred that he is the owner. He only submits that the Petitioners are not the owners of the subject premises. However, the Respondent/tenant has also admitted to being a tenant. The relevant extract of the leave to defend filed by the Respondent/tenant setting out this admission is reproduced below: “10. That the Respondent is a tenant in the portion shown in red colour in the site plan in the trust property no. 404, Haweli Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, under the management earlier Mehant Abhey Dass, then Ram Tirat and now the next Gaddidar. Since the death of Ram Tirat no Gaddidar/Trustee has been appointed by the Trust. Sunder Lal, the husband of Petitioner no. 1 who is working as a Property Dealer by forged documents, in the form of Will purported to have been executed by Ram Tirat, is trying to grab the trust Property by way of Sale Deed, forged and manipulated in favour of his own wife and sister-in-law.” [Emphasis Supplied]

7.1 Once the Respondent has admitted to being a tenant, he is estopped from challenging the title of the Petitioners/landlords. The provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872/Section 122 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 provides for an estoppel on a tenant to challenge the ownership of a landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 is reproduced below: “116. Estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in possession. –– No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession there of shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:40:20 RC.REV. 340/2017

7.2 The Supreme Court in the case of Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra v. Stanley Parker Jones,4 has held that where a person has been brought into possession as a tenant by the landlord and if such tenant is permitted to question the title of the landlord, it will give rise to extreme confusion in the matter of relationship of the landlord and tenant and hence the equitable principle of estoppel has been incorporated by the legislature. The relevant extract of the Bansraj Laltaprasad Mishra case is reproduced below: “13. The underlying policy of Section 116 is that where a person has been brought into possession as a tenant by the landlord and if that tenant is permitted to question the title of the landlord at the time of the settlement, then that will give rise to extreme confusion in the matter of relationship of the landlord and tenant and so the equitable principle of estoppel has been incorporated by the legislature in the said section.

14. The principle of estoppel arising from the contract of tenancy is based upon a healthy and salutary principle of law and justice that a tenant who could not have got possession but for his contract of tenancy admitting the right of the landlord should not be allowed to launch his landlord in some inequitable situation taking undue advantage of the possession that he got and any probable defect in the title of his landlord. It is on account of such a contract of tenancy and as a result of the tenant's entry into possession on the admission of the landlord's title that the principle of estoppel is attracted.

15. Section 116 enumerates the principle of estoppel which is merely an extension of the principle that no person is allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same time.” [Emphasis Supplied]

7.3 Thus, the contention of the Respondent/tenant disputing the ownership of the Petitioners/landlords over the subject premises is without any merit.

8. It is no longer res integra that an Eviction Petition or even a Revision Petition does not decide a title dispute between parties. In any Eviction Petition, the title is not germane in the strict sense. In the case of 4 (2006) 3 SCC 91 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:40:20 RC.REV. 340/2017 Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das5, the Supreme Court has held that in an Eviction Petition, landlord and tenant are the only necessary parties for the decision of the suit and the question of title to the tenanted premises is not germane for the decision of the Eviction Petition. The relevant extract is set out below: “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 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 Lal [Ranbir fails. Singh v. Asharfi Lal, (1995) 6 SCC 580].) Singh v. Asharfi (See Ranbir

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 for the effective decision of the suit. (See Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee [Ruma Chakraborty v. Sudha Rani Banerjee, (2005) 8 SCC 140].) 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 5 (2018) 2 SCC 352 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:40:20 RC.REV. 340/2017 join in filing the eviction suit against the tenant. (See Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan [Kasthuri Radhakrishnan v. M. Chinniyan, (2016) 3 SCC 296: (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 331]. 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 The Supreme Court in the case of Tribhuvanshankar vs Amrutlal6 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 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 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 6 (2014) 2 SCC 788 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GEETA JOSHI Signing Date:01.04.2025 16:40:20 RC.REV. 340/2017 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.