Delhi District Court
Mohammad Muuzammil vs Sayyyed Murtaza Hussain on 6 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF CCJ-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Devanshu Sajlan
RC ARC -: 175/2024
Unique Case ID -: DLCT030021902024
In the matter of -
MOHAMMAD MUUZAMMIL
.... Petitioner
VS
SAYYYED MURTAZA HUSSAIN
... Respondent
1. Date of Institution : 19.03.2024
2. Date of Reserving Order : 05.12.2025
3. Date of Decision : 06.01.2026
4. Decision : Petition allowed.
Argued by -: Sh. Vinay Gupta, Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
Respondent is ex-parte.
JUDGMENT
1. The present eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, "the Act") has been filed by Mohammad Muzammil (hereinafter, "petitioner") against Mr. Sayyed Murtaza Hussain (hereinafter, "respondent") in respect of one shop bearing private No. 20, Third Floor, out of property No. 5333, Gali Peti Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 as shown in red RC ARC 175/24 Mohammad Muzammil v. Sayyed Murtaza Hussain Page No.1 of 9 colour in the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter, "the tenanted premises").
2. Brief facts pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of one shop bearing private No. 20, Third Floor, out of property No. 5333, Gali Peti Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 and the respondent is a tenant under the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid shop, shown in red colour in the site plan. It has been averred that the tenancy of the respondent qua suit premises is an old one, created decades back. It has been further averred that the respondent was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises by the then owner/landlord Shri Mohammed Azam and the respondent was paying the rent of the said tenanted premises to the then owner/landlord namely Shri Mohammed Azam through his attorney/ son Shri Mohammed Mubashshir at the then rate of rent against rent receipt/s, which rent was subsequently increased. It has been further averred that after the demise of Shri Mohammed Azam on 08.10.1998, the suit premises alongwith other properties devolved upon his legal heirs as per the law of succession with proportionate right in the said property. However, the aforesaid legal heirs of late Shri Mohammed Azam had authorised Shri Mohammed Mubashshir S/o Shri Mohammed Azam to collect the rent on their behalf from the tenants in the said property/ies including the rent in respect of the tenanted premises and thereafter, the rent was distributed amongst the legal heirs. It has been further averred that the respondent continued paying the rent of the suit premises to Shri Mohammed Mubashshir for the period ending 30.11.2002 @ Rs.125/- per month and thereafter the respondent defaulted in the RC ARC 175/24 Mohammad Muzammil v. Sayyed Murtaza Hussain Page No.2 of 9 payment of rent. Subsequently, the legal heirs of Shri Mohammed Azam relinquished their respective rights in respect of property No. 5333 including the tenanted premises of the respondent i.e. the suit premises and other property/ies/ premises in favour of the petitioner Shri Mohammad Muzammil vide Release Deed dated 18.07.2022, duly registered with the office of Sub Registrar. It has been further averred that immediately after the execution and registration of the said Release Deed, the petitioner apprised the respondent about the said Release Deed and asked the respondent to pay the entire arrears of rent @ Rs.125/- per month exclusive of any other charges, as permissible under law to the petitioner and the respondent promised to clear the same within a fortnight but the respondent failed to honour his words.
3. It is averred in the plaint that the statutory notice under Section 14(1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, read with Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was sent to the respondent on 16.10.2023, thereby calling upon the respondent to pay the entire arrears of rent (i.e. for the three years), legally recoverable under law @ Rs.125/- per month exclusive of any other charges with interest @ 15% per annum as per the provisions of the DRC Act and further, the respondent was also called upon to increase the rent of the tenanted premises by 10% in accordance with law and further, the tenancy of the respondent was also terminated through the said legal notice. It has been further submitted that the respondent, with malafide intentions, did not accept the said legal notice and got a collusive report prepared with the concerned local postman with the report "Addressee Left" despite the fact that the respondent is RC ARC 175/24 Mohammad Muzammil v. Sayyed Murtaza Hussain Page No.3 of 9 running his business at the suit premises and that the notice was sent at the address of the tenanted premises and the petitioner is not aware of any other address of the respondent/tenant. Hence, the present petition.
4. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent, however, the respondent failed to appear and therefore, vide order dated 06.03.2025 and 19.05.2025, the respondent was proceeded ex- parte. Thereafter, the matter was listed for petitioner's evidence.
5. In support of his petition, the petitioner has led the following oral and documentary evidence:
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Mohd. Muzzamil (petitioner) PW-2 : Mr. Mohd. Mubashshir DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/1 : Site plan Counter foil of rent receipt issued by Sh. Mohd. Mubishar (brother of the petitioner) on Ex. PW1/2 :
behalf of his father Sh. Mohd.
Azam, being his Attorney Holder Copy of death certificate of Sh.
Ex.PW1/3 : Mohd. Azam (petitioner's
father)
Counter foil of rent receipts
Ex.PW1/4 to
: issued on behalf of all the LRs
Ex. PW1/6
of late Sh. Mohd. Azam
Ex.PW1/7
: Release deed dated 18.07.2022
(OSR)
Copy of legal notice of demand
Ex. PW1/8 :
dated 16.10.2023
Ex. PW1/9 and
: Two postal receipts
Ex. PW1/10
RC ARC 175/24 Mohammad Muzammil v. Sayyed Murtaza Hussain Page No.4 of 9
Registered envelope along-with
Ex. PW1/11 :
AD card
Ex. PW1/12 Two postal track reports
and Ex. : pertaining to notice dated
PW1/13 16.10.2023
Ex. PW1/14 Certified copy of the summons
:
(Colly.) issued in the Slum Court
Certified copy of the judgment
Ex. PW1/15 : passed by Competent Authority
Slum
Certified copy of the site plan
Ex. PW1/16 : filed by the petitioner with the
said slum petition
Declaration/Certificate of the
Ex. PW1/17 : petitioner u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act
Affidavit alongwith the present
Ex. PW2/A-1 :
eviction petition
Copy of the attorney executed
Ex. PW2/1
: by my father Shri Mohd. Azam
(OSR)
in my favour
Copy of the certified copy of the
litigation records of the civil suit
in Re:- Akbar Sultana
(deceased) through LRs. Vs.
Ex.PW2/2
Mohd. Azam (deceased) through
(Colly.) :
LRs. vide civil suit No.
(OSR)
609844/2016, disposed off by
the court of Shri Praveen Singh,
the then Additional District
Judge, Delhi
6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at length. I have also given my thorough consideration to the material on record.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has proved his case by demonstrating that the respondent has not paid any dues of the petitioner. It is argued that the RC ARC 175/24 Mohammad Muzammil v. Sayyed Murtaza Hussain Page No.5 of 9 respondent has not contested this case by impeaching the evidence of the petitioner in any manner, and the case of the petitioner stands proved. As such, it is prayed that the petition be allowed, and the eviction be ordered.
SECTION 14(1)(A)
8. The first ground of the present petition is under under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act, which reads as under-
"(a)- that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served of him by the landlord in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882"
Thus, in order to succeed under this provision, the first requirement is that the tenant has not paid or tendered the complete dues of the arrears of rent to the landlord. The requirement on part of the landlord is to serve a notice of demand of such arrears of rent as per the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as stipulated under Section 106 of that Act.
9. With regard to the ground under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, the petitioner has to first prove that the parties had a landlord and tenant relationship. In this regard, the petitioner has primarily relied upon the release deed Ex. PW1/7 (OSR), vide which the siblings of the petitioner released their respective share in the tenanted premises in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner has also relied upon the rent receipts Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/6, which were issued by Shri Mohd. Mubashshir as attorney holder of the petitioner's father Shri Mohd. Azam/as the Attorney holder of the successors of the petitioner's deceased father.
RC ARC 175/24 Mohammad Muzammil v. Sayyed Murtaza Hussain Page No.6 of 9
10. The status of the petitioner as a landlord was supported by PW-2 Mohd. Mubashshir who admitted to have issued the rent receipts to the respondent on behalf of the petitioner's father namely Shri Mohd. Azam (in terms of the Power of Attorney Ex. PW-2/1 executed by Shri Mohd. Azam in his favour), and subsequently as the Attorney holder of the LRs of the deceased father of the petitioner.
11. As such, the petitioner has successfully proved that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises, which he inherited from his father. The evidence of the petitioner has remained unchallenged by the respondent and therefore, this ingredient stands amply proved by the petitioner.
12. Moving forward, the petitioner has also tendered into evidence the demand notice sent by him to the respondent, which is dated 16.10.2023, and is Ex. PW1/8. The demand notice is as per the requirement of the law, and the arrears of rent from 01.12.2002 at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month have been claimed from the respondent by the petitioner. It is also demanded that the tenanted premises be vacated. Given the fact that the notice lays down all the factual foundation of the claims, and highlights the claim of the petitioner, the same is proved as per the requirement of the provision. Evidence by way of postal receipts and tracking reports have also been filed by the petitioner. Therefore, this ingredient has also been satisfied by the petitioner. While the legal notice has been returned with the noting "Addressee left", it is pertinent to note that the legal notice was sent at the address of the tenanted premises. Therefore, the requirement of law has been complied with once the RC ARC 175/24 Mohammad Muzammil v. Sayyed Murtaza Hussain Page No.7 of 9 legal notice was sent at the correct address i.e., the address of the tenanted premises.
13. The fact that the respondents have not paid the arrears of rent within 2 months from the notice is also borne out from the evidence of the petitioner. Therefore, since the whole case of the petitioner has remained unchallenged qua the ground under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, the respondent/tenant is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises i.e. one shop bearing private No. 20, Third Floor, out of property No. 5333, Gali Peti Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition.
14. However, given the provision under Section 14(2) of the Act, eviction cannot be straightaway be ordered under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act, without complying with the provisions under Section 15(1) of the Act, and giving the tenant an opportunity to make the payment, as directed. In this regard, an application under Section 15(1) of the Act filed by the landlord is also pending consideration.
15. Keeping in view the above discussion, the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the respondent has not addressed any arguments being ex-parte, in terms of Section 15(1) of the Act, the tenant/respondent is directed to pay the landlord/petitioner the arrears of rent qua the tenanted premises at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month for a period commencing from 03 years prior to the date of filing till date along-with simple interest of 15% per annum from the date on which such arrear became due within 30 days from today.
16. Issue court notice to the respondent, who be served with the copy of this judgment. The Process Server is directed to serve the RC ARC 175/24 Mohammad Muzammil v. Sayyed Murtaza Hussain Page No.8 of 9 respondent by way of affixation, in case of refusal/ non- availability/lock on the premises. Further, photographs of affixation be obtained at the expenses of the petitioner which be filed in the Court alongwith his report by the Process Server.
17. Nazir to maintain miscellaneous file for consideration of benefit under Section 14 (2) of the DRC Act, for 10.03.2026. Nazir to report regarding compliance of order under Section 15 (1) of the DRC Act. The question whether respondent is entitled to benefit under 14 (2) of DRC Act, or not be considered on 10.03.2026. A copy of this judgment be placed in the miscellaneous file.
18. The eviction petition is accordingly disposed off.
19. No order as to costs. Digitally signed by DEVANSHU SAJLAN DEVANSHU Announced in open Court SAJLAN Date:
2026.01.06 on 06th Day of January, 2026 17:26:38 +0530 (Devanshu Sajlan) CCJ-cum-ARC (Central) THC/Delhi/06.01.2026 RC ARC 175/24 Mohammad Muzammil v. Sayyed Murtaza Hussain Page No.9 of 9