Delhi District Court
Sh Harvinder Singh vs Ms Kiran Walia on 19 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT No. 46/2024
CNR No. DLWT01-010961-2024
Sh. Harvinder Singh
S/o. Sh. Manmohan Singh
Shop No. 10 & 12, At WZ 9,
Street No. 18, Krishna Park
Extension, Mahavir Nagar,
New Delhi - 110018. ....Appellant
Versus
Ms. Kiran Walia
W/o. Sh. Rakesh Walia
R/o. AD-13, Tagore Garden,
New Delhi - 110027. ....Respondent
Date of institution of the appeal : 17.12.2024
Conclusion of final arguments : 08.01.2026
Date of judgment : 19.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act') has been filed by the appellant/tenant assailing the judgment dated 22.10.2024 of the Ld. SCJ-cum-RC (West), Delhi in RC ARC No. 60/2021 titled 'Kiran Walia v. Harvinder Singh', whereby the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was allowed.
Factual Matrix
2. The respondent/landlord filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act with regard to shop Nos. 10 and 12, Ground Floor, RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 1 of 35 WZ-9 (new No. WZ-9A), Street No.18, Krishna Park Extension, Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi- 110018 (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises') as shown in the site plan Ex.PW1/1, which was given on rent at the rate of Rs. 2,300/- per month to the appellant/tenant, by the previous owner Peer Shiv Nath.
2.1 As per the respondent/landlord, the tenanted premises were owned by Peer Shiv Nath. On 12.12.2001, (vide Rent Deed Ex. RW1/3) the tenanted premise was let out by Peer Shiv Nath to the appellant/tenant through GPA holder Manohar Singh. Thereafter, Peer Shiv Nath executed a registered Will dated 12.12.2003 (Ex.PW1/5) in favour of Peer Rattan Nath. By virtue of the said registered Will, Peer Rattan Nath became the owner of the entire property i.e. WZ-9, Street No. 18, Krishna Park, Extension, Mahavir Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi 110018 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Krishna Park property'). One eviction petition No. E-90/08/06 titled Peer Rattan Nath Chela Peer Shiv Nath v. Rakesh Chhibbar was filed with regard to another shop in the Krishna Park property, in which, the then Ld. ARC Ms. Charu Aggarwal passed the judgment dated 21.08.2013 (Ex. PW2/1) in favour of Peer Rattan Nath admitting the registered Will dated 12.12.2003. In ARC No. 25722/16 titled Mahant Peer Rattan Nath v Rakesh Dua with regard to another shop in the Krishna Park property decided on 04.07.2018 (Ex. PW6/1) by Mr. Ajay Nagar Ld. ARC, the said Will was admitted. The appeal RCT No. 26/2018 titled Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath filed by the appellant/tenant against the said order dated 04.07.2018 was dismissed by the then Ld. RCT RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 2 of 35 vide judgment dated 22.12.2021 (Ex. PW4/1), in which the registered Will dated 12.12.2003 in favour of Peer Rattan Nath was admitted.
2.2 After Peer Rattan Nath became the owner of the Krishna Park property vide registered Will dated 12.12.2003, after the death of Peer Shiv Nath in 2004, he gave SPA dated 27.02.2013 to his chela Peer Ranveer Nath. In the case No. 13759/2016 titled Peer Rattan Nath v. Kultar Singh, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, the then Ld. ADJ did not admit the registered SPA of Peer Rattan Nath due to typographical error whereby his name was mentioned as "Ravi Nath". Thereafter, a new registered GPA was prepared by Peer Rattan Nath in favour of Peer Ranveer Nath dated 27.08.2018 (Ex. PW1/6), which was filed before the Court of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, the then Ld. ADJ and was taken on record. Peer Ranveer Nath was impleaded in the case by virtue of the registered GPA dated 27.08.2018 and due rent of about Rs. 3 lacs was awarded to Peer Ranveer Nath by the Ld. Court.
2.3 Peer Rattan Nath filed 14 cases against the different tenants of the Krishna Park property through his SPA dated 27.02.2013 and thereafter, registered GPA dated 27.08.2018 (Ex. PW1/6), which was filed in all the cases. The cases were withdrawn by Peer Ranveer Nath in the Court of Mr. Ajay Nagar, the then Ld. ARC due to formal defect in the petition which was allowed vide order dated 03.10.2019, subject to costs of Rs.2,000/- in each case. The respondent/landlord deposited the costs. Thereafter, fresh cases under Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, were filed by Peer Ranveer Nath for shop Nos. 1-7 and RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 3 of 35 15 which are pending in the Court of Mr. Deepak Kumar, Ld. ARC. Rest of the five shops i.e. shop Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were sold by Peer Ranveer Nath to Kiran Walia/respondent vide registered Sale Deed dated 25.01.2021 (Ex. PW1/4).
2.4 Vide notice of attornment dated 11.06.2021 (Ex.PW1/2) sent by the respondent/landlord, the tenant/appellant was informed that Peer Ranveer Nath has sold the tenanted premises to Kiran Walia/respondent/landlord and that from 01.01.2021, Kiran Walia was entitled to get the rent and accordingly, the appellant/tenant was asked to pay the rent to respondent/landlord Kiran Walia at the rate of Rs. 2300/- per month. On 11.06.2021, the legal notice was served by the respondent/landlord to the appellant/tenant, for the demand of rent from 01.01.2021 to 31.05.2021, as the respondent/landlord was the owner of the tenanted premises, by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 25.01.2021 (Ex. PW1/4).
2.5 Peer Rattan Nath, the subsequent owner of the property (after Peer Shiv Nath) had given GPA to Manohar Singh on 03.01.2006 and the said GPA was canceled by Peer Rattan Nath on 13.04.2007 through notice and several publications in different newspapers due to the forgery done by Manohar Singh. Because of the cancellation of the GPA of Peer Rattan Nath in favour of Manohar Singh, he had no power to deal with the property. Accordingly, Manohar Singh had no power to file the case under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act i.e. case No. 21/2010 titled Manohar Singh v. Harvinder Singh. In this case, by way RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 4 of 35 of collusion Brahaspati Nath and the appellant/tenant got themselves referred for mediation to the Mediation Centre and fraudulently settled the matter with each other in the absence of Manohar Singh vide Mediation Settlement dated 03.02.2014 (Ex. PW1/R1) (copy of the petition or judgment in the said case was not produced or proved before the Ld. RC). It is averred that the Mediation Settlement cannot be accepted since the mediator did not have the power to settle in the absence of the parties. The Mediation Settlement dated 03.02.2014, shows that the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. H. S. Rautela signed the Mediation Settlement / Agreement in the absence of the petitioner / Manohar Singh. The appellant/tenant was very well aware about the ownership of Peer Rattan Nath vide the registered Will dated 12.12.2003 (Ex. PW1/5). The settlement in the Mediation Centre by Manohar Singh and the appellant/tenant was cheating done in collusion, with Ld. Counsel Mr. R. Vasudev who was well aware about the ownership of Peer Rattan Nath.
3. The appellant/tenant in his version has admitted that the tenanted premises were owned by Peer Shiv Nath and that Peer Shiv Nath gave a notarised GPA in favour of Manohar Singh with regard to the tenanted premises, who entered into a registered Rent Deed dated 12.12.2001 (Ex.RW1/3) with the appellant/tenant@ Rs. 1700/- per month excluding electricity charges. However, he has claimed that Peer Shiv Nath died without a Will and one Brahaspati Nath became the owner being the disciple and he got the Succession Certificate in his favour. The appellant/tenant has claimed that it was Brahaspati Nath RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 5 of 35 who was the landlord of the tenanted premises and not Kiran Walia/respondent/landlord. Thus, there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Manohar Singh filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act against the appellant/tenant. The same was referred to mediation and the matter was settled between the parties vide settlement dated 03.02.2014 (Ex. PW1/R1). Accordingly, the said petition was disposed off by the Ld. ARC and the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 2300/- per month for both the shops. It has been claimed that thereafter, the appellant/tenant is paying the rent either to Manohar Singh or Brahaspati Nath.
3.1 Peer Ranveer Nath filed a petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act, against the appellant/tenant, wherein it has been alleged that Peer Shiv Nath was the owner of the property in question, who expired in 2004 and left behind a registered Will dated 12.12.2003 in favour of Peer Rattan Nath and thereafter, Peer Rattan Nath executed a registered SPA in favour of his chela Peer Ranveer Nath on 27.02.2013 and on the basis of the said SPA, the aforesaid eviction petition was filed against the appellant/tenant for the shops in question. The appellant/tenant filed the written statement stating, that Peer Shiv Nath never left any Will in favour of Peer Rattan Nath, so Peer Rattan Nath is not the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises. This petition was withdrawn and now the present petition has been filed claiming that the respondent/landlord had purchased the tenanted premises from Peer Ranveer Nath vide Sale Deed dated 25.01.2021.
RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 6 of 35Landlord's Evidence before the Trial Court
4. During evidence, the respondent/landlord examined herself as PW1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and has relied upon the following documents :-
(i) Site plan of the tenanted premises Ex. PW1/1.
(ii) Legal Notice of Attornment letter dated 11.06.2021 with receipts and tracking report Ex. PW1/2 (colly).
(iii) Legal (Demand) Notice dated 11.06.2021, speed post receipt and tracking report Ex. PW1/3 (colly).
(iv) Copy of registered Sale Deed dated 25.01.2021 executed by Peer Ranveer Nath in favour of Kiran Walia/respondent/landlord Ex.PW1/4.
(v) Copy of the certified copy of the registered Will executed by Peer Shiv Nath with regard to property WZ-9 in favour of Peer Rattan Nath Ex. PW1/5.
(vi) Registered GPA dated 28.08.2018 made by Peer Rattan Nath in favour of Peer Ranveer Nath as the lawful owner of the tenanted premises in respect of Krishna Park property authorizing him inter alia to control to look after the said property, sell the property, let out the property on rent Ex.PW1/6.
(vii) Order dated 03.10.2019 passed by Mr.Ajay Nagar, the then Ld. ARC in ARC No. 25443/2016 titled as Mahant Ranveer Nath v.
Raj Malhotra and order of Mr. Rajinder Singh, the then Ld. ADJ dated 22.12.2020 are marked as Mark 'A'.
4.1 Mr. Anuj Kumar Amal, Assistant Ahlmad in the Court of Mr. Fahad Uddin, Ld. CCJ-cum-ARC, THC, Delhi, PW2 brought the summoned record i.e. judgment dated 21.08.2013 in E-90/08/06 titled as Peer Rattan Nath Chela Peer Shiv Nath v. Rakesh Chibber passed by Ms.Charu Aggarwal, the then Ld. CCJ-cum-ACR - Ex.PW2/1.
4.2 Mr. Sumit Kumar, Office Assistant, Office of Sub-Registrar, Janakpuri, District West, Delhi, PW3 brought the summoned record i.e. RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 7 of 35 Sale Deed dated 25.01.2021 executed by Mahant Yogi Ranveer Nath Chela of Peer Rattan Nath in favour of Kiran Walia - Ex.PW1/4.
4.3 Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma, Ahlmad in the Court of Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, West, THC, Delhi, PW4 brought the summoned record i.e. judgment dated 22.12.2021 titled as Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath (concerning another shop on the Krishna Park property) bearing No. RCT 26/2018 passed by the then Ld. RCT - Ex.PW4/1 (in which judgment of the Ld ARC Mr. Ajay Nagar dated 04.07.2018 in ARC No.25722/16 was challenged).
4.4 Mr. Surender, JJA/Ahlmad in the Court of Ms. Saumya Chauhan, Ld. ADJ-02, Central, THC, Delhi, PW5 brought the summoned record i.e. copy of GPA executed by Peer Rattan Nath dated 27.08.2018 in favour of Peer Ranveer Nath - Ex.PW1/6.
4.5 Mr. Mukesh Kumar, JA/Record Room, Civil, THC, Delhi, PW6 brought the summoned record i.e. judgment in ARC No. 25722/16 titled Mahant Peer Rattan Nath v. Rakesh Dua decided on 04.07.2018 passed by Mr. Ajay Nagar, Ld. CCJ-cum-ARC (West), THC, Delhi, Ex.PW6/1.
4.6 Peer Ranveer Nath, GPA of Peer Rattan Nath stepped in the witness box as PW7 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW7/A. He was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant/tenant.
RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 8 of 35Tenant's Evidence before the Trial Court
5. The appellant/tenant, Mr. Harvinder Singh examined himself as RW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A. He has relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Copy of the petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act (petition number not mentioned) filed by Peer Ranveer Nath against the appellant Ex.RW1/1.
(ii) Copy of application of leave to defend in RC ARC No. E82/2014 titled Mahant Ranveer Nath v. Harvinder Ex.RW1/2.
(iii) Copy of Rent Deed executed on 12.12.2001 by Peer Shiv Nath through GPA holder Mr. Manohar Singh in favour of the appellant/tenant with regard to the tenanted premises Ex.RW1/3.
(iv) Copy of Mediation Settlement dated 03.02.2014 in the case E. No. 21/2010 titled Manohar Singh v. Harvinder Singh arrived in the course of mediation in the Delhi Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Ex.PW1/R-1.
5.1 Mr. Mukesh Kumar, JA/Record Room, Civil, THC, Delhi, RW2 brought the summoned record i.e. judgment dated 09.09.2010 of Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, the then ld. ACJ (Central), Delhi in succession Petition No. 672/2006 titled as Peer Braspati Nath v. The State & Ors. Ex.RW2/1.
5.2 Mr. Vikram, JJA/Record Room, Civil, West District, THC, Delhi, RW3 brought the summoned record i.e. copy of Mediation Settlement dated 03.02.2014 in the case E. No. 21/2010 titled Manohar Singh v. Harvinder Singh Ex.PW1/R1.
Impugned Judgment Relationship of Landlord and Tenant
6. Vide the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2024, the eviction RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 9 of 35 petition filed under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC was allowed. The Ld. RC in the impugned judgment, has held that it is settled law that the respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, from disputing the ownership of the respondent/landlord over the tenanted premises and that the eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The respondent/landlord has to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. While relying upon the cases i.e. T. C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral, ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028, which discussed the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it was held that the general rule is to the effect that the respondent/landlord has to have a better title than the appellant/tenant and he is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership and the petitioner to an eviction petition need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and he has to show only a better and superior title to the tenant, as reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash AIR 2002 SC 1264. [Reliance was also placed on Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413 and Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646].
7. It has been held in the impugned judgment that on the one hand, the petitioner has the registered Sale Deed in her favour, which is supported by a duly registered chain of documents. On the other hand, RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 10 of 35 it is nowhere the case of the appellant/tenant that he is not the tenant. The only defence which he has taken is that the respondent/landlord is not the owner of the tenanted premises. Once the appellant/tenant has admitted that he is the tenant in the tenanted premises and he has also executed the Rent Deed, it does not lie in his mouth to deny the title of the petitioner, in view of the bar contained in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act.
8. It has been further held in the impugned judgment that the appellant/tenant in his evidence has not produced anything to prove that he is the owner. On the contrary, he has relied upon the Rent Deed Ex.RW1/3. The respondent/landlord has produced in the Court the Attornment letter Ex.PW1/2, Sale Deed Ex.PW1/4, legal notice Ex.PW1/3, certified copy of registered Will Ex.PW1/5, registered GPA Ex.PW1/6 and various judgments rendered in her favour. After going through the entire material on record and testimonies of the witnesses, it was held that the respondent/tenant has been able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant and as such, the ingredient of Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was satisfied.
Service of Legal Demand Notice
9. With regard to the service of the demand notice it was held that the evidence reflects that the legal demand notice dated 11.06.2021 Ex.PW1/3, demanding rent for the period 1st January, 2021 to 31 st May, 2021, was sent by speed post to the appellant/tenant. The address as mentioned on postal receipts was the same as mentioned in the eviction petition and legal notice. Tracking report supporting the RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 11 of 35 delivery of the demand notice was also filed. It was held that the legal demand notice Ex.PW1/3 was served upon the appellant/tenant. Moreover, no evidence has been led by the respondent to refute the service of such legal demand notice.
Non payment of Legally Recoverable Rent
10. It was held by the Ld. RC in the impugned judgment that the respondent has failed to produce any document on record which could show that he made the payment of rent demanded in the legal notice Ex.PW1/3. It was held that the appellant/tenant had failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him to show that he tendered the rent to the respondent/landlord. The appellant/tenant had also failed to prove that any rent was deposited with the Court under Section 27 of the DRC Act.
Conclusion in the Impugned Judgment
11. The concluding part of the impugned judgment reads as under :
"64. It is pertinent to mention here that in terms of the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by Learned Predecessor under Section 15 (4) of the DRC Act, the respondent had deposited three FDRs in the sum of Rs.42,320/- drawn on SBI Bank, Tis Hazari dated 05.05.2022, Rs.13,800/- drawn on SBI Bank, Tis Hazari dated 15.06.2022 and Rs.27,600/- drawn on HDFC Bank dated 17.12.2022.
65. The order passed under Section 15 (4) DRC Act is read as order passed under Section 15 (1) DRC Act. Therefore, there is no need to pass separate order under Section 15(1) DRC Act. Accordingly, the benefit under Section 14 (2) cannot be granted as the respondent has defaulted in payment of rent, as per the report of the Nazir.
66. Therefore, it is held that the respondent is a defaulter within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act and RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 12 of 35 accordingly an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent with respect to the tenanted premises i.e. Shop No. 10 depicted in red colour in the site plan filed with the petition & 12 at Ground Floor, WZ-9, (New No. WZ-9A), Street No.18, Krishna Park Extn., Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi-110018. The afore-stated FDRs filed by the respondent be released to petitioner, as per rules."
Grounds of Appeal
12. The appellant has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds :
(i) The Ld. RC has committed an illegality and judicial error by wrongly observing that there exist a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, whereas, the appellant/tenant had successfully proved by his evidence that there is no relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties.
(ii) The case of the respondent/landlord is that earlier Peer Shiv Nath was the owner of the tenanted premises, who left a Will (Ex.PW1/5) and after his death, Peer Rattan Nath became owner of the tenanted premises, by virtue of the said Will and Peer Rattan Nath executed registered GPA (Ex.PW1/6) in favour of Peer Ranveer Nath who executed the registered Sale Deed (Ex. PW1/4) in favour of the respondent/landlord and she became the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises. However, the respondent neither filed the original copy of the aforesaid Will nor the certified copy of the same but filed the copy of the certified copy of the same on record Ex.PW1/5, to prove the said Will. The respondent PW-1 and Mahant Ranveer Nath PW2, both specifically stated in their cross-examination they were not having the original Will with them. The respondent failed to prove the Will on record as per the settled law.
(iii) To prove her ownership, the respondent further stated that Mahant Yogi Ranveer Nath had executed a registered Sale Deed (Ex.PW1/4) in her favour. The respondent PW-1 and Mahant Yogi Ranveer Nath as PW-7 both stated in their cross-examination that Mahant Yogi Ranveer Nath is the owner of the tenanted premises. As per the terms of the Sale Deed i.e. Ex.PW1/4 at one place, it is written that Mahant Yogi RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 13 of 35 Ranveer Nath is executing the aforesaid Sale Deed as owner of the tenanted premises and at another place, it is mentioned that Mahant Yogi Ranveer Nath was executing the Sale Deed as attorney of Peer Rattan Nath. Both the terms of the aforesaid Sale Deed are contradictory to each other and made it uncertain. The alleged registered Sale Deed (Ex.PW1/4) executed in favor of respondent is void as per Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, as the terms of the said Sale Deed are uncertain, despite this, the Ld. RC while passing the judgment relied on the said Sale Deed.
(iv) To prove that Peer Brahaspati Nath is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises, the appellant/tenant examined himself and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A, where he stated that earlier Peer Shiv Nath let out the tenanted premises to the appellant through his attorney vide Rent Deed dated 12.12.2001. Thereafter, Peer Shiv Nath filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act through his attorney Manohar Singh against the appellant, the matter was referred for mediation and the Mediation Settlement was passed and since then he is paying the rent either to Manohar Singh or to Brahaspati Nath.
The said Mediation Settlement (Ex.PW1/R1B) was admitted by the respondent/ landlord. The appellant/tenant further stated in his said affidavit that after the death of Peer Shiv Nath, the property devolved upon Brahaspati Nath being his disciple, who filed the petition for grant of Succession Certificate with regard to debt and securities left by Peer Shiv Nath and Brahaspati Nath in the said petition deposed that the properties of Shiv Nath devolved upon him and that Peer Shiv Nath left no Will. The Succession Certificate was granted and even Brahaspati Nath got released all his debts and securities on the basis of the same. The appellant summoned the original case file of the Succession Certificate through RW2 who proved the judgment dated 09.09.2009 as Ex. RW2/1. The aforesaid statement of the appellant in his affidavit Ex. RW1/A was nowhere challenged in his cross examination which amounts to an admission on the part of respondent. But despite this, the Ld. RC did not refer to the said admission and did not see the evidence on record and misread the same while passing the impugned judgment.
(v) In the impugned judgment in para 34, the Ld. RC admitted that Brahaspati Nath took the Succession Certificate but on other hand, he RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 14 of 35 stated that the case is pending for the revocation of the same, hence the Ld. RC did not rely on the same. As per the settled law, till the Court revoked the Succession Certificate it is very much authenticated and exists. So, the Ld. RC did not consider the settled position of law on this aspect and merely on the ground of pendency of the case, the Ld. RC cannot discard it.
(vi) The Ld. RC while passing the impugned judgment, at para 35, relied upon the cross-examination of Brahaspati Nath in the case titled as Rattan Lal v. Rakesh Dua under Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act, which was neither brought in evidence nor exhibited. The respondent simply filed the application in Court for filling the cross-examinations without filing his affidavit in evidence when the case was fixed for final order. The Ld. RC simply allowed the said application. But the said cross-examinations was never produced as evidence nor exhibited as evidence. The title of the aforesaid case is Peer Rattan Nath v. Rakesh Dua and Civil Miscellaneous Main Petition No. CM(M) 695/2022 is pending before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court against the judgment in the said case passed by the Ld. RCT. The respondent/landlord has admitted the pendency of the same before Hon'ble High Court in her cross examination and has also mentioned the same in her written argument before the Ld. RC, but despite this, the Ld. RC used the said cross-examination in favour of the respondent/landlord against the provision of law and discarded the claim of Brahaspati Nath. Since the Civil Miscellaneous Main is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, the Ld. RC cannot give such type of finding, which is against the record. Hence the judgment is liable to be set aside.
(vii) In para 47 of the impugned judgment, the Ld. RC held that the appellant/tenant in his evidence did not lead any evidence to prove that he is the owner. The case of the appellant/tenant was never that he is the owner, his case is that Brahaspati Nath is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises.
(viii) After passing of the order under Section 15(1) of the DRC Act, initially the appellant was depositing the rent to the Court but meanwhile he was going under severe depression due to family disputes and could not deposit the rent in the Court. The mistake on the RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 15 of 35 part of appellant/tenant is due to the aforesaid reason, it was neither intentional nor deliberate.
13. Vide order of my Ld. Predecessor dated 18.03.2025 in this appeal, the appellant was directed to deposit rent in respect of Shop No. 10 @ Rs. 2,060/- per month and in respect of Shop No. 12 @ Rs.4,446/- per month. The appellant was directed to pay / deposit the arrears of said rent w.e.f. the date of judgment i.e. 22.10.2024 till the month of February, 2025 on or before next date, failing which, the appeal would be dismissed. The appellant was also directed to thereafter continue to pay / deposit the aforesaid rent on a monthly basis from the month of March, 2025 till disposal of the appeal. On the deposit of arrears, the execution of the impugned judgment was stayed till disposal of the appeal.
Arguments addressed
14. Arguments were addressed by Ms. Sidakwant Kaur, Ld. Counsel for the appellant/tenant and Mr. Rakesh Walia, Ld. Counsel for the respondent/landlord.
15. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the Ld. RC failed to consider that when there is a derivative title with the landlord then the tenant can challenge it in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. M. R. Murali & Anr. AIR 2002 SC 1061. It was also argued that since in the Sale Deed Ex. PW-1/4 at one point Mahant Ranveer Nath has been referred to as the vendor and it is stated that the vendor is the absolute owner of RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 16 of 35 the property, however in the next para it is stated that the vendor is the General Attorney of Peer Rattan Nath chela of Mahant P. Shiv Nath vide GPA. This goes to show that the Sale Deed is ambiguous and void in terms of Section 29 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. She relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Rajinder Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., JT 1990 (3) SC 215, wherein it has been held that if the language of the document is ambiguous and admits variety of meaning, then 6 th proviso Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act can be invoked to gather the intention of the parties by oral evidence. In view of the aforesaid law, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant during cross-examination of the respondent/landlord/PW-1 inquired that in which right, Peer Ranveer Nath executed the Sale Deed, on which, she replied that "at the time of the sale of the suit property, Sh. Ranveer Nath was the owner of the same". During the cross-examination of PW-7 Sh. Ranveer Nath, he specifically stated that "it is correct that I had written in the aforesaid Sale Deed that I am the owner of the suit property". In view of the above cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-7, it is clear that at the time of executing Sale Deed Ex. PW-1/4, the intention of the parties was that Peer Ranveer Nath was the owner of the suit property, however, they have not filed any document to show the ownership of Peer Ranveer Nath. Hence, they have failed to prove the transfer of a valid title upon the respondent through the Sale Deed Ex. PW-1/4.
15.1 It was also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, that the appellant (RW-1) in his affidavit by way of evidence (Ex. RW-1/A) RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 17 of 35 stated that the Succession Certificate was issued in favour of Brahaspati Nath for debts and securities left by Peer Shiv Nath, being his chela/sole legal heir and the said witness was not cross-examined on the said aspect which amounts to admission. The respondent has taken the ground that the issue of Will has already been decided in the judgment passed by Mr. Ajay Nagar, the then Ld. ARC and in the appeal dismissed by Mr. Dharmesh Kumar Sharma, the then Ld. RCT, Delhi, however the dismissal order of the appeal has been challenged by the tenant Rakesh Dua by filing Civil Misc. (Main) No. 695/2022 titled as Rakesh Dua v. Mahant Peer Rattan Nath, which is pending disposal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and so the said judgments cannot be relied upon. It was also argued that earlier in the Trial Court, the appellant was paying the admitted rate of rent under Section 15(1)(a) of the DRC Act however after that he could not pay the same due to ill-health. In this appeal, vide order dated 18.03.2025 of my Ld. Predecessor, the appellant was directed to pay the arrears of rent and future rent month wise as per the market rate of rent as directed in the order and the appellant is paying the same.
16. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent has duly established her ownership and status as a landlord and the appellant's status as a tenant. It has been clearly proved before the Ld. RC that Late Peer Shiv Nath, the original owner of the tenanted premises had executed a registered Will dated 12.12.2003 (Ex.PW1/5) in favour of Peer Rattan Nath. Peer Rattan Nath executed a GPA dated 27.08.2018 (Ex.PW1/6) in favour of Peer Ranveer Nath and RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 18 of 35 subsequently, Peer Ranveer Nath executed a registered Sale Deed (Ex.PW1/4) in favour of the respondent for valid consideration. Since the chain of title stands duly proved in the proceedings before the Ld. RC, the appellant had no locus to dispute the same. The appellant cannot dispute the title of the landlord as he is estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. The landlord is only required to prove her better title and the registered Sale Deed in the present case is sufficient to maintain an eviction petition and the appellant's grounds of challenge are untenable. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. v. Ved Prabha & Ors. MANU/SC/0816/1987. Reliance was also placed on Bismillah Be (Dead) by LRs v. Majeed Shah MANU/SC/1557/2016 where in it was held that once the assignee/vendee proves his title to the demised property, the original tenancy devolves on the assignee/vendee and tenant/lessee by operation of law on the same terms and conditions on which it was entered into with the original landlord/lessor and continues till either modified by the parties or is determined by the landlord in accordance with law. It enables the assignee/vendee to acquire the status of a "new landlord" in place of the original landlord of the demised premises qua tenant/lessee.
16.1 It was further argued that the appellant/tenant has no right to challenge the landlord's Sale Deed in proceedings under the DRC Act. Under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, a tenant cannot introduce oral or indirect evidence to contradict a registered document. Minor drafting variations such as references to "owner" or "attorney" do not RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 19 of 35 assist the tenant in any rent control appeal. In the registered GPA dated 27.08.2018, Peer Rattan Nath expressly conferred the power of sale to Peer Ranveer Nath, therefore, the appellant's challenge to the validity of respondent's title is barred and devoid of merit.
16.2 The Ld. Counsel for the respondent/landlord further submitted that the alleged Succession Certificate was for the limited purpose of debts and securities and not for any immovable property. FIR No. 0252/2017 PS. Tilak Nagar was already registered for forgery against Brahaspati Nath and Manohar Singh, in which, both are on bail vide the order of the Ld. MM. The revocation proceedings before the Civil Court are also pending. The order of the Ld. RCT challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi is with regard to a different aspect i.e. notarized documents such as GPA, possession letter, Will, agreement to sell, not regarding creating the right of ownership in Rakesh Dua.
16.3 It was also pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the appellant has admittedly committed default for a regular period of three years and the Ld. RC rightly denied him the benefit of Section 14(2) of the DRC Act. He enlisted the faults as under :
(i) FDR dated 05.05.2022 vide No. 40962477924 of Rs. 42,320/-
deposited for the period of 01.01.2021 to 31.05.2022 with interest.
(ii) FDR dated 15.06.2022 vide No. 41054501146 of Rs. 13,800/- deposited for the period of 01.06.2022 to 30.11.2022 without interest. First default of interest i.e. Rs. 2070/- was not deposited by the appellant.
RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 20 of 35(iii) FDR dated 17.12.2022 vide No. 300720610383 of Rs. 27,600/- deposited for the period of 01.12.2022 to 30.11.2023 without interest. Second default of interest i.e. Rs. 4140/- was not deposited by the appellant.
(iv) Third default of rent from 01.12.2023 till 22.10.2024 i.e. Rs. 25,300/- and interest Rs. 3795/-, total Rs. 29,095/-.
Decision in the Appeal
17. It would be expedient to refer to the provision of Section 14(1)
(a) of the DRC Act which reads as under:-
"Section 14 : Protection of tenant against eviction - (1) Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any Court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant.
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more grounds only.
Section 14(1)(a) : that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the day 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, 1881 (4 of 1882)."
18. It is well settled that in order to prove a case under Section 14(1)
(a) of the DRC Act, the Landlord has to show that :
i) There is relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties;
ii) That the tenant has failed to pay or tender the
whole of the legally recoverable arrears of rent within two months of the service of demand notice upon him by the landlord.
RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 21 of 3519. The grounds of challenge raised in this appeal are with regard to the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is the claim of the appellant/tenant that the owner of the tenanted premises is not the respondent but Brahaspati Nath and he is the tenant of Brahaspati Nath and not of the respondent/landlord. The term 'Landlord' is defined in Section 2(e) of the DRC Act, to mean a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant. A landlord may or may not be the owner of the premises let out to a tenant. It is settled law that a legal owner to any premises/property has several rights one of which is that he can demand and collect rent from the tenant in his own right, to reap the benefit of his property. On the other hand, the term 'tenant' is defined in Section 2(l) of the DRC Act, as a person by whom or on whose account or behalf rent of any premises, is, or, but for a special contract, would be, payable and includes inter alia any person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy.
20. Reverting back to the facts of the instant case, there is no gainsaying that the primary burden of proving the relationship of 'landlord and tenant' is certainly upon the respondent/landlord by not only showing that she is the landlord but it is also incumbent upon her to show as to how, when and on what grounds the lease was created. PW1 Kiran Walia in her deposition has stated about being the owner RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 22 of 35 and landlord of the tenanted premises by virtue of the Sale Deed Ex.PW1/4 by which she bought the said property from Peer Ranveer Nath. The tenanted premises were given on rent to the appellant/tenant at a rental of Rs. 2300/- per month. She has proved the Attornment letter sent by her to the appellant/tenant Ex.PW1/2 and; legal (demand) notice dated 12.06.2021 sent by her to the appellant/tenant Ex.PW1/3.She has also relied upon judgments and orders passed by Ms. Charu Aggarwal Ld. ARC, Mr. Ajay Nagar Ld. ARC and the Ld. RCT in eviction proceedings filed by Peer Ratan Nath through his GPA holder Peer Ranveer Nath relating to other shops in the Krishna Park property where the Will of Peer Shiv Nath was admitted. PW1 in her cross examination clearly reiterated that Brashpati Nath was not the owner of the property and he was not entitled to receive rent of the tenanted premises. She has deposed that the Will of Peer Shiv Nath is in favour of Peer Rattan Nath.
21. Peer Ranveer Nath, GPA holder of Peer Rattan Nath examined as PW7 has corroborated the version of PW1. He has deposed that he was the registered GPA holder vide GPA dated 27.08.2018 (Ex. PW1/6) of Peer Ratan Nath qua the entire Krishna Park property which included the tenanted premises. The respondent was the absolute owner of the tenanted premises by virtue of the Sale Deed (Ex.PW1/4) executed by him as GPA holder of Peer Ratan Nath who was the owner of the said property by virtue of the registered Will dated 12.12.2003 (Ex. PW1/5). The tenanted premises were given to the appellant/tenant on rent vide a registered Rent Deed (Ex. RW1/3). In his cross-examination he denied RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 23 of 35 the suggestion that the GPA in his favour was a fabricated document. He had got a FIR registered against Brihaspati Nath with regard to obtaining the Succession Certificate of Peer Shiv Nath. He had also filed a suit for cancellation/revocation of the said Succession Certificate.
22. The appellant/tenant has disputed the title of ownership of the respondent/landlord to the tenanted premises. It is the settled legal position that rent proceedings cannot be converted into a litigation to determine the title of the parties and that the meaning of the term 'owner' vis-a-vis the tenant is to be understood as being that the owner should be something more than the tenant. In Shanti Sharma and Ors. v. Ved Prabha and Ors. MANU/SC/0816/1987 while interpreting the term owner under the DRC Act, it was observed as under:
"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. .......................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 cases where the plot of land is taken on lease the structure is built by the landlord and admittedly he is the owner RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 24 of 35 of the structure. So far as the land is concerned he holds a long lease and in view of the matter as against the tenant it could not be doubted that he will fall within the ambit of the meaning of the term 'owner' as is contemplated under this Section. This term came up for consideration before the Delhi High Court and it was also in reference to Section 14(1)(e) and it was held by the Delhi High Court in T.C. Rekhi v. Smt. Usha Gujral [1971] R C J 322 as under:
The word "owner" as used in this clause, has to be construed in the background of the purpose and object of enacting it. The use of the word 'owner' in this clause seems to me to have been inspired by the definition of the word 'landlord' as contained in Section 2(e) of the Act which is wide enough to include a person receiving or entitled to receive the rent of any premises on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person. Construed in the context in which the word "owner" is used in Clause (e), it seems to me to include all persons in the position of Smt. Usha Gujaral who have taken a long lease of sites from the Government for the purpose of building houses thereon. The concept of ownership seems now to be eclipsed by its social and political significance and the idea of ownership, in case like the present is one of the better right to be in possession and to obtain it. To accede to the contention raised by Shri Kapur would virtually nullify the effect of Clause (e) and would render all such landlords remediless against tenants however badly they may need the premises for their own personal residence. I do not think such a result was intended by the Legislature and I repel the appellant's contention. I consider it proper before passing on to the next challenge to point out that the word "owner" as used in Clause (e) in Section 14(1) does not postulate absolute ownership in the sense that he has an absolutely unrestricted right to deal with the property as he likes."
(Emphasis added)
23. The appellant/tenant has disputed that the respondent is not the landlord as there was no Will dated 12.12.2002 executed in Peer Shiv RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 25 of 35 Nath in favour of Peer Ratan Nath. In Plastic Chemicals Company v. Ashit Chadha and Ors. MANU/DE/0706/2004, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under :
"4. I have heard counsel for the parties and carefully examined the judgment under challenge as also the material on record. As regards the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner challenging the Will, the law has since been crystalised by the Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma vs . Smt. Ved Prabha, MANU/SC/0816/1987 : [1987]3SCR1075 as also in Sheela and others vs . Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, MANU/SC/0150/2002 : [2002]2SCR177 . Once the landlord has been able to show that there is a testament in his favor, the landlord is deemed to have discharged his burden of ownership, vis-a-vis, the Rent Control Act. In the present case, the landlord has been able to prove that a testament has been made in his favor by the previous owner which, at best, could be challenged by the heirs of Smt. Saroj Mohan and certainly not by the tenant. In this view of the matter I hold that the objection of the petitioner herein to the maintainability of the eviction petition by the landlord is frivolous."
(Emphasis added)
24. In Bharat Bhushan Vij v. Arti Teckchandani MANU/DE/1092/2008, on the issue of the extent to which a tenant can challenge ownership of the landlord on the basis of the Will in favour of the landlord, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as follows:
"4. The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 26 of 35 no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/her burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, such an objection cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner.
5. This Court in Ram Chander v. Ram Pyari 109 (2004) DLT 388 and Plashchemicals Company v. Ashit Chadha & Anr. MANU/DE/0706/2004 : 114(2004)DLT408 have laid down the law that it was not for the tenant to challenge the Will of the landlord and any such challenge made by the tenant is a baseless and frivolous challenge. I, therefore, consider that even if the learned Additional Rent Controller did not dwell upon this point, such a challenge made by the tenant would not result into non suiting the landlord. Moreover, the evidence led by the landlady in this case makes it clear that she inherited the property, in question, on the basis of Will left by her father in law. There is no other person who has claimed ownership over the property and this objection was raised just for the sake of raising objection.
(Emphasis added)
25. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Lajjawati Sharma and Ors.
v. Ram Chander Jain MANU/DE/2173/2025, held as under :
"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 Kanaklata Das v. Naba Kumar Das MANU/SC/0041/2018 : 2018:INSC:56 : (2018) 2 SCC 352, 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 RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 27 of 35 (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 suit fails. (See Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal [Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal, MANU/SC/0829/1995 : 1995:INSC:592 : (1995) 6 SCC 580].) ..................
[Emphasis Supplied] 8.1. The Supreme Court in the case of Tribhuvanshankar vs. Amrutlal MANU/SC/1169/2013 : 2013:INSC:754 : (2014) 2 SCC 788 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.
.......................
9. In view of the settled law as discussed hereinabove and the documents placed on record by the Petitioners/landlords, it is clear that the Petitioners/landlords purchased the subject premises by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 27.09.2000. The Respondent/tenant was the tenant of the erstwhile owners of the subject premises and estopped by the provisions of Section 116 of the Evidence Act, 1872 from disputing the ownership of the landlord.RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 28 of 35
9.1. As is the settled law, a title dispute cannot be decided in a revision petition or even an eviction petition filed under the provisions of the Act and the question of title to the tenanted premises is not germane for a decision of an eviction petition."
(Emphasis added)
26. The validity of the Succession Certificate has been disputed by the respondent and Peer Ranveer Nath (PW2). An FIR has been registered by Peer Ranveer Nath against Brahaspati Nath and Manohar Singh with respect to the Succession Certificate being forged, in which both of them were granted bail by the Ld. MM. Peer Ranveer Nath has also filed a civil suit for cancellation/revocation of the Succession Certificate and so it cannot be claimed that the validity of the Succession Certificate has been admitted. During the course of cross- examination of PW-1 Baba Brahaspati Nath Chela P. Shiv Nath in the case E-88/09/06 titled as P. Rattan Nath v. Rakesh Dua, Brahaspati Nath on 18.04.2010 has admitted that "I am not the owner of shop no. 10 and 12. Petitioner is the owner of these two shops. I am only his attorney." Besides the above case and in case bearing E-88/09/06 titled as P. Rattan Nath v. Rakesh Dua, in which Brahaspati Nath has admitted that he is not the owner of the tenanted premises, there are other documents also on record, as discussed below, which show that Brahaspati Nath did not claim himself to be the owner of the tenanted premises.
27. In the judgment dated 21.08.2013 (Ex.PW2/1) in E-90/08/06 titled as Peer Rattan Nath Chela Peer Shiv Nath v. Rakesh Chibber passed by Ms. Charu Aggarwal, the then Ld. CCJ-cum-ACR) which RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 29 of 35 was a case of eviction filed by Peer Rattan Nath through Brahaspati Nath himself as the attorney against another tenant in the Krishna Park property, there is a clear finding in para 11 which reads: " The fact that the suit building including the commercial complex known as 'Gomteshwar Temple' was owned by Mahant Late Peer Shiv Nath was had executed a will dated 12.12.2003 of the said property in favour of the petitioner is not in dispute". In the said suit it was proved that Peer Shiv Nath was the predecessor in title of Peer Ratan Nath. In this case Brahaspati Nath himself has relied upon and has not denied or disputed the Will (Ex. PW1/5) in favour of Peer Ratan Nath nor has he claimed himself to be the owner of the Krishna Park property, in such a situation the appellant cannot dispute the title of the respondent on this ground.
28. In the judgment dated 04.07.2018 (Ex.PW6/1) in ARC No. 25722/16 titled Mahant Peer Rattan Nath v. Rakesh Dua passed by Mr. Ajay Nagar, Ld. CCJ-cum-ARC (West), THC, Delhi, the Ld. ARC gave the finding with regard to a tenanted shop in the Krishna Park property, that Brashapati Nath had no right of ownership or any right as the attorney of Peer Shiv Nath, to sell the said property. In this case it was held that on the basis of the Will (Ex. PW1/5), Peer Ratan Nath has been able to prove that he was something more than a tenant and so the suit was decreed in his favour. The judgment was upheld by my Ld. Predecessor.
RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 30 of 3529. The Succession Certificate in favour of Brahaspati Nath relied upon by the appellant/tenant has been given in Petition No. 672/2006 titled as Peer Brahaspat Nath v. State & Ors. The judgment dated 09.09.2009 (Ex.RW2/1) issuing the Succession Certificate mentions that the same is with regard to the debts and securities as mentioned in annexure A Ex.PW1/2. Significantly, despite the Succession Certificate being in existence in 2009, there is no mention of the same in the Mediation Settlement dated 03.02.2014 (Ex.PW1/R1), which only speaks about the oral arrangement of Brahaspati Nath collecting the rent. No document of title to the tenanted premises of Brahaspati Nath has been produced. Just the Succession Certificate does not prove that Brahaspati Nath (who was neither impleaded nor summoned as a witness) is the landlord of the appellant/tenant. The appellant/tenant RW1 has admitted and relied upon the Rent Deed (Ex.RW1/3) between Peer Shiv Nath through his attorney and him. He has claimed he was not aware if the attorney in favour of Manohar Singh was cancelled in 2006. It has been claimed by the appellant/tenant in his written statement that he was paying the rent either to Manohar Singh or Brahaspati Nath however, no rent receipts showing the same have been produced or proved by him. Where Brahaspati Nath himself is not claiming to be the owner of the tenanted premises in the aforesaid proceedings, the appellant cannot dispute the title of the respondent on the ground that Brahaspati Nath is the owner. Pertinently, no reply was given by the appellant/tenant to the letter of attornment or legal (demand) notice, alleging such a stand.
RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 31 of 3530. The onus was on the respondent to show the documents by virtue of which she was claiming to have the authority to collect rent as the landlord. The Rent Deed dated 12.12.2001 (Ex.RW1/3) between Peer Shiv Nath through Manohar Singh and the appellant/tenant is admitted and relied upon by both sides as being the document on the basis of which the appellant became the tenant. The certified copy of the registered Will dated 12.12.2002 of Peer Shiv Nath vide which the tenanted premises were bequeathed to Peer Rattan Nath was produced in Court and the copy of the certified copy was proved as Ex.PW1/5 (original certified copy was seen and returned). The registered GPA executed by Peer Rattan Nath in favour of Peer Ranveer Nath to handle (including the power to sell) the tenanted premises was proved as Ex.PW1/6 and Sale Deed dated 25.01.2021 executed by Peer Ranveer Nath in favour of the respondent/landlord was proved as Ex.PW1/4. All the said documents clearly go to prove how the respondent came to acquire the status of a landlord. The Will is for the legal heirs of Peer Shiv Nath to challenge and not the appellant through a litigation before the Ld. Rent Controller. There was no requirement for the appellant to prove the Will in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 or Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by calling the two attesting witnesses in an eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act, as has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Chunni Lal and Ors. v. Vidya Devi and Ors. MANU/DE/0429/2007.
31. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J. J. Lal Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. v. M. R. RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 32 of 35 Murali and Ors. MANU/SC/0091/2002 where in with reference to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act it was held that the tenant is not estopped from denying the title of the landlord if it comes to an end subsequent to the creation of the tenancy nor is he estopped from questioning the derivative title of a transferee of his landlord. Accepting this position, does not take away the right of the landlord to show that she was something more than the tenant and was entitled to receive rent which in the present case the respondent/appellant has succeeded in proving by showing the Sale Deed (Ex.PW1/4) and previous chain of documents.
32. Coming to the challenge to the registered Sale Deed (Ex.PW1/4), the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. The inadvertent use of the word "owner" at a single place does not change the import of the document and the legal position of Peer Ranveer Nath as the attorney, since the Sale Deed clearly mentions that the vendor Peer Ranveer Nath is the general attorney of Peer Rattan Nath by virtue of the GPA and that he has the power to sell and also that the general power of attorney was still alive. Peer Ranveer Nath as PW-7 has proved the Sale Deed executed by him. He has categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief on affidavit (Ex.PW7/A) that the Sale Deed was executed by him as a GPA holder of Peer Rattan Nath who had given him the power to sell the same by a registered GPA and that Peer Rattan Nath was the owner vide a registered Will dated 12.12.2003.
RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 33 of 3533. It was not necessary for the respondent/landlord to prove her title and the documents of ownership as in a title suit. The respondent was not required to prove her title in the absolute sense of the term of ownership or that she had the best possible title. In an eviction proceeding under the DRC Act, there was no requirement for the respondent to show that she was the absolute owner, in the strict sense and all she had to show was a better and superior title to the tenant. The respondent has shown the chain of legal documents in her favour and so she has discharged this burden. She has been able to show that she was something more than the tenant, she was entitled to receive rent and there was the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The respondent/landlord by virtue of the Sale Deed (Ex.PW1/4) was legally entitled to institute the present eviction petition and prosecute the same for being something more than the tenant. The service of the notice of attornment dated 11.06.2021 (Ex.PW1/2) sent by the respondent/landlord to the tenant has been proved. The respondent has proved herself as the landlord of the tenanted premises and the relationship of landlord and tenant with the appellant in relation to the tenanted premises. Thus, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment holding that the respondent/landlord has proved that she is the landlord and there was a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
34. There is nothing produced by the appellant/tenant to show that he has made any payment towards arrears of rent as demanded in the legal (demand) notice to any person or that he has deposited the same RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 34 of 35 in the Court, thus proving default in payment of rent on his part. The default is an admitted position. In view of the defaults made by the appellant/tenant, it has been rightly held by the Ld. RC that the appellant/tenant cannot be granted the benefit under Section 14 (2) of the DRC Act and that he was a defaulter within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act.
35. In the light of the above observations, there is no merit found in the appeal and accordingly the same is dismissed. Copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with the Trial Court record. Appeal file be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed by ADITIAnnounced in the open ADITI CHOUDHARY
Court on 19th January, 2026 CHOUDHARY Date: 2026.01.19
18:19:36 +0530
(Dr. Aditi Choudhary)
Rent Control Tribunal (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
RCT No.46/2024 Harvinder Singh v. Kiran Walia Page 35 of 35