Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
23881/2025 SUKHDEV @ SUKHDEV RAJ .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Sr. Adv and Mr. Sachin Puri, Sr. Adv. alongwith Mr. Rehman, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Ms. Mehak Ghaloth and Mr. Suraj Singh, Advs.
Through: Mr. Alok Sinha, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Ms. Divya and Mr. Aakash Saini, Advs.
JUDGMENT
1. The respondent/ landlord[1] 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, 1958[2] against the petitioner/ tenant[3] 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 Hereinafter referred to as “landlord” Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” Hereinafter referred to as “tenant” Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises” 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 24.04.2015[7] 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 Hereinafter referred to as “whole property” Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC” Hereinafter referred to as “Settlement Agreement” Hereinafter referred to as “partition suit” 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/ 2006[9] 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, 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 Hereinafter referred to as “earlier Eviction Petition” Hereinafter referred to as “CPC” 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. Hereinafter referred to as “Family Settlement” Hereinafter referred to as “Sale Deed”
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 Hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment’ pending Civil Suit bearing no.88/2017 filed by the landlord seeking declaration and permanent injunction against Smt. Manju Devi and the tenant.
15. The learned counsel submitted that considering what has been held in Sheikh Mohd. Zakir & Ors. vs. Shahnaz Parveen & Ors.18, mere filing of an impleadment application does not amount to an objection to the Eviction Petition, especially, since in the present proceedings, Smt. Manju Devi never appeared before the learned ARC despite being summoned as a witness.
16. This Court has heard the learned (senior) counsel for the parties as also perused the documents and pleadings on record and the case laws referred by them.
17. The whole case of the tenant revolves around his having become an owner of the subject premises during the subsistence of the present proceedings, and hence, there was no landlord tenant relationship between the parties.
18. The tenant was all throughout well-aware that the landlord was, admittedly, a part owner of the undivided subject premises vide Settlement Agreement dated 24.04.2015 and also about the Will dated 17.03.1999 executed by the late father of the landlord. A conjoint reading of the said Will dated 17.03.1999 and the Settlement Agreement dated 24.04.2015 evince that the landlord and Smt. Manju Devi were indeed co-owners of the subject premises.
19. In view thereof, the said Sale Deed cannot come to the aid of the
2012 (2) RCR (Rent) 235 tenant since the same was executed without the consent of the landlord, the subject premises could not have been sold by Smt. Manu Devi to the tenant. This Court finds able support in SK. Golam Lalchand vs. Nandu Lal Shaw @ Nand Lal Keshri @ Nandu Lal Bayes.19 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “… … 20. In this view of the matter, the entire property purchased by the two brothers late Salik Ram and late Sita Ram in the year 1959 vide Exh.[1] continued to be the joint property in which both of them had equal rights. On their death, the same devolved upon their respective heirs and legal representatives including Brij Mohan, his three sisters on one side and plaintiffrespondent Nandu Lal, his three brothers and five sisters on the other side. Thus, Brij Mohan alone was not competent to execute a sale of the entire property in favour of the defendant appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand, that too without its partition by metes and bounds.
21. Since the suit property has many co-owners including the plaintiff respondent Nandu Lal and Brij Mohan, the defendantappellant S.K. Golam Lalchand could not have acquired right, title and interest in the whole of the suit property solely on the basis of the sale deed dated 19.05.2006 executed by Brij Mohan. The said sale deed, if at all, in accordance with Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 may be a valid document to the extent of the share of Brij Mohan in the property and defendant appellant S.K. Golam Lalchand is free to take remedies to claim appropriate relief either by suit of partition or by suit of compensation and damages against Brij Mohan.……” [Emphasis Supplied] 2024 INSC 676
20. On the same lines, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Jaiswal (supra), has also held as under:-
21. It is thus clear that the rights qua tenancy cannot be determined on the assignment of rights/ interest/ title derived only from one of the coowners. Since as per Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, until and unless the entirety of rights/ interest/ title qua a property is vested at the same time with one person, there is no merger of estate thereof. In other words, unless the entire bundle of rights/ interest of both a tenant and a landlord qua a property converges in a single person Hereinafter referred to as “TPA” simultaneously, in the same legal capacity, the tenancy/ status cannot successfully be ascertained.
22. Though the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Jaiswal (supra) was not under the DRC Act, however, considering the analysis drawn and the ratio laid down therein, since the same is pari materia with the DRC Act, it is squarely applicable to the facts herein as well. More so, since no rights/ title/ interest of landlord’s share qua the subject premises was ever transferred/ assigned to the tenant at any point of time in the present proceedings, the tenant is barred from claiming ownership qua the subject premises as the same cannot be determined in the absence of all the rights/ interest qua the subject premises being vested in toto with the tenant at the same point of time. Thus, due recognition of the rights/ interest qua the subject premises ought to be given to the landlord being the co-owner thereof and the same cannot be circumvented by the tenant in light of the foregoing.
23. In fact, the learned ARC has, whilst also referring Pramod Kumar Jaiswal (supra), addressed the aspect of ownership/ title taking into account the Sale Deed in great detail as under:-
a portion of the tenanted premises, having purchased the same from the sister of the petitioner, the share is undivided as so far there is no partition. Ld. Counsel for petitioner has specifically pleaded before the court that a separate litigation for cancellation of aforesaid sale deed registered in favour of the respondent is pending between the parties.
43. Be that as it may be, in respondent’s words he is the co-owner of the property in question as per the registered sale deed Ex.RW1/4 dated 15.12.2016, with respect to unpartitioned share, though without consent and concurrence of the other co-owner i.e. the petitioner herein.
44. The respondent herein has claimed himself to be both the tenant and “co-owner of every inch of the tenanted premises”, since there is no partition and consequent crystallization of rights. To say it in other words, the respondent herein is also the tenant of “every inch of the tenanted premises”. xxx xxx
46. The respondent has challenged the jurisdiction of this Court being Rent Controller since the respondent has become co-owner. For the grant of an order of eviction under Section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act, it is necessary for the Controller to determine the petitioner is the owner/ landlord. It cannot be denied that the undersigned, being the Rent Controller, has powers u/s 14 of the DRC Act to pass an order of eviction against a tenant, provided tenancy gets established. On the admitted facts and based on the arguments, the only question that requires to be considered is the effect of the purchase of the rights of certain co-owner/landlords by the tenant of the building, on the lease originally taken by him and on the basis of which he held the tenanted premises in question. xxx xxx
49. In the matter at hand, it is undisputed that the tenancy is covered by the provision of Delhi Rent Control Act, however, on the question of law (i.e. question No.2 as framed hereinabove), the analogy can be drawn from the aforementioned judgment in Pramod Kumar Jaiswal (supra).
50. In the present case, the respondent has claimed ownership over part of the tenanted premises in question, having purchased the same from co-owner i.e. the sister of the petitioner Smt. Manju Sharma, while also admitting his status as that of the tenant, on the date of filing of the present eviction petition, thus in a nutshell, it is pleaded that the respondent is both coowner and tenant.
51. In view of this paradox wherein the respondent claims himself to be the tenant and the landlord at the same time, the question that arises here is can a person be a tenant and co-owner at the same time. xxx xxx
54. The aforesaid ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court leaves no iota of doubt that on acquisition of the title of part of tenanted premises from co-owners, the tenant does not become the owner of the property in question/tenanted premises and his status remains that of tenant itself.
55. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that in the matter at hand, the eviction proceedings were filed before the averred purchase of the portion of the tenanted premises in we question by the respondent. The suit/eviction proceedings once filed, the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of suit and the entitlement of the co-owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to the date of institution of the suit, since on the said day i.e. the day of institution of the eviction petition, there was no objection by the admitted co-owner and since there was no purchase by the respondent herein, the right of the parties has stood crystallized that is to say that the respondent is the tenant and his purchase of the portion of the undivided share in the tenanted premises in question will not extinguish his status as that of a tenant. Furthermore, it cannot be forgotten that the respondent very well knew that the tenanted premises in question is unpartitioned and his seller i.e. Smt. Manju Devi is only a part owner, he very well knew the fact that eviction proceedings are pending and he is purchasing the unpartitioned share without consent and concurrence of the other co-owner i.e. the petitioner herein; With these in background, it cannot be said that the respondent is a bonafide purchaser in context of the present eviction proceedings and, therefore, no benefit can be granted to him. The purpose of removal of all doubts, it is necessary to clarity herein that being Rent Controller, the adjudication herein is qua eviction proceedings and not qua title.
56. Accordingly, the Court finds no substance in the argument seeking dismissal of the present eviction petition on the ground that the respondent is the coowner of the property in question/tenanted premises and that the tenancy has been terminated by the purchase of the said portion.”
24. Even otherwise, since the tenant had admitted that he was a tenant qua the subject premises by virtue of being a successor in interest of his late father vide his written statement, which was also affirmed in his cross examination, the tenant, as per Geeta Kapoor vs. Jaipal and Another21 is barred from raising a dispute qua the title/ ownership, once the tenancy is admitted and as held in Lajjawati Sharma & Anr. vs. Ram Chander Jain 2019 SCC OnLine Del 10463 (Deceased) Thr.22 the issue of title/ ownership cannot be decided by the learned ARC either in an eviction proceeding or in a revision petition like the present one. In light of the above, as this Court concurs with the findings of the learned ARC qua there being a landlord tenant relationship, the same does not warrant any interreference.
25. Be that as it may, at the end of the day, all that the landlord was to show/ establish that he had a better title than that of the tenant on the date of initiation of the Eviction Petition. The position of law qua filing of an eviction petition by one of the co-owners with respect to the subject premises has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. (supra) and Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain23, which has repeatedly been followed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in Khanna Jewelers vs. Kapil Tandon & Ors.24 and Ajay Gupta & Anr. vs. M/S Greenways25, wherein it has been held that in an eviction petition filed by one of the co-owners, the same need not be accompanied by any affidavit and/ or ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) of any of the other co-owners. Hence, an eviction petition filed by one of the co-owners is very much sustainable unless there is any kind of opposition(s)/ objection(s) and/ or alike, filed by any of the co-owners.
26. In fact, filing of an application under Order I rule 10 of the CPC by any of the other co-owners in an eviction petition filed by one of the coowners cannot, ipso facto, be treated as an opposition(s)/ objection(s) and/ 2025:DHC:2192
2021:DHC:88 2024: DHC: 4913 or alike. More so, it is also an admitted position that by virtue of the said application under Order I rule 10 of the CPC, Smt. Manju Devi merely sought her impleadment in the pending eviction proceedings, and never disputed the maintainability of the Eviction Petition by the landlord. What has to be taken into consideration are the assertions made by such coowners in the said application i.e., the purpose for which the said coowner is seeking impleadment in the pending Eviction Petition.
27. Qua the issue of non impleadment of Smt. Manju Devi in the eviction proceedings before the learned ARC, Smt. Manju Devi herself did not challenge the order dated 03.04.2018 rejecting her application for impleadment and in fact, as per the record, Smt. Manju Devi although was duly summoned as a witness, however, she failed to appear before the learned ARC. Pertinently, it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to plead the case of Smt. Manju Devi as he is a rank outsider as also since there is no locus standi for him to do the same. The attempt of the tenant to plead Smt. Manju Devi’s case, all the more augments, this Court has a suspicion that they were hands in glove with each other to the detriment of the landlord.
28. Admittedly, the landlord had filed the Eviction Petition before the learned ARC on 26.05.2016 whereas the Sale Deed inter se Smt. Manju Devi and the tenant was executed only thereafter on 15.12.2016. It is also noteworthy that the said Sale Deed was executed much prior to the order dated 03.04.2018, whereby the application of the tenant seeking leave to defend was allowed by the learned ARC and the impleadment application moved by Smt. Manju Devi under Order I rule 10 of the CPC was dismissed.
29. Despite all the aforesaid, strangely the tenant went ahead with execution of the Sale Deed with the very same Smt. Manju Devi, whom he already very well knew as also with respect to the very same subject premises, qua which he was embroiled in litigation. No prudent person having due knowledge thereof, and who was also a party to the litigation qua the very same property, would proceed with execution of the Sale Deed during the pendency thereof, and that too without apprising the Court. The same itself raises a serious suspicion about the conduct of the tenant.
30. As such, in view of the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja vs. Union India Insurance Company Ltd.26 and Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua27, wherein it has been held that it is no more res-integra that in a revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, setting aside the impugned judgment is only possible under exceptional circumstances, the tenant is unable to make out a case for interference by this Court.
31. Considering the aforesaid analysis and findings, as also since the tenant has merely reargued the very same contentions which have been duly negated by the learned ARC, with which this Court is in concurrence, the tenant has been unable to raise any grounds for interference by this Court, the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned ARC is upheld.
32. Accordingly, the stay granted vide order dated 28.03.2025 by this Court stands vacated.
33. As such, the tenant is liable to hand over vacant, peaceful and physical possession of two shop(s) measuring 6’4” X 10’6” and 6710” X 14’5” at property bearing No.6165/1, Facing Gali No.3, Block-1, Khasra No. 4084/193, Basti Regar, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 005 to the landlord as the benefit of the six months’ period as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act has already lapsed.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J. NOVEMBER 26, 2025/bh/aks