Delhi District Court
Ram Pratap Sharma vs Indira Jain on 21 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY SINGH PARIHAR
ACJ-CUM-ARC, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI, DELHI
RC ARC No. 35/2016.
CNR No. DLNT030000282011.
Ram Pratap Sharma
S/o Late Hazari Lal Sharma
R/o House No. 135-36, III Floor
Pocket No. 16, Sector-24
Rohini, Delhi-110085
......Petitioner
VERSUS
Indira Jain (Since Deceased through LR's)
Sh. Sanjay Jain ...... Respondent no. 1A
Sh. Atul Jain ...... Respondent no. 1B
M/s Jain Diamonds
Shop No. 2, Plot No. 24, Central Market
Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052
Also at:
Indira Jain W/o Sh. Vakil Chand Jain
R/o B-2/34, Safdarjung Enclave
New Delhi
RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 1 of 33
Date of Institution : 08.12.2011
Date of reserving the order : 15.04.2026
Date of pronouncement : 21.05.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitioner seeks the eviction of the respondent from one shop bearing no. 2, Plot No. 24, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises") under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") read with Section 25B of the DRC Act.
Facts disclosed in petition
2. The tenanted premises was let out to the respondent Late Indira Jain in the year 1977 by Sh. Ram Narain Sharma, the brother of petitioner. It is averred that petitioner is the owner of tenanted premises vide Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 08.06.2001 as the same fell in his share. It is stated that in July 2001, the petitioner approached the respondent and informed her that by virtue of Memorandum of Family Settlement dated 08.06.2001, the tenanted shop has fallen in his share and henceforth, she should pay the rent to the petitioner. It is averred that petitioner authorized his brother Sh. Ram Narain Sharma to collect the rent from the respondent therefore, Sh. Ram Narain Sharma has been receiving the rent from the respondent. It is stated that in May 2010, the petitioner approached the respondent to stop paying rent to Sh. Ram Narain Sharma instead pay rent directly to him/ petitioner RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 2 of 33 whereafter the respondent paid rent to petitioner upto November 2011.
3. It is averred that petitioner had been doing business of sale of clothes under the name & style 'Sharma Store' at Railway Road, Rohtak, Haryana but few years back, he had to close his said business. Thereafter, the petitioner started his said business at A Block, Main Road, Raj Park, Delhi on taking one shop on rent, however, in February 2011 the owner of said shop got the same vacated on the ground that he would demolish the entire building for reconstruction. It is stated that petitioner tried to arrange for alternate accommodation for his business but he could not get any suitable shop on rent therefore, the petitioner wants to start his business at the tenanted premises.
4. In May 2011, the petitioner approached the respondent and informed her about his bonafide need and requirement of tenanted premises for running his business there and also requested her to vacate the same and handover the vacant and peaceful possession by taking back advance rent paid by her. At that time, respondent assured the petitioner that she would vacate the tenanted premises within 2-3 months after arranging suitable alternative accommodation for her business. It is averred that the petitioner again approached the respondent in September 2011 when more time was sought by the respondent for vacation. On 01.12.2011 the petitioner again approached the respondent for vacation of tenanted premises but this time, the respondent refused to vacate the shop on the ground that she has been occupying the tenanted premises RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 3 of 33 since 1977 and demanded ₹ 5 lacs from petitioner for vacation of premises. It is stated that petitioner is suffering huge monetary loss as he has not been able to run his business due to illegal and unlawful occupation of respondent in the premises. It is stated that petitioner requires the premises for his bonafide need and that he does not have any other suitable accommodation available to run his business. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.
5. Notice of the petition was sent to the respondent in the prescribed format which was duly served upon the respondent, in response to which the respondent filed affidavit disclosing grounds on which leave to defend application of eviction is sought.
6. The respondent was granted leave vide order dated 26.04.2012, whereafter respondent filed his written Statement on 19.05.2012.
7. In written statement, the respondent has averred following facts:-
• The petitioners and respondent have no landlord-tenant relationship. The entire building wherein the tenanted premises is situated is a lease hold property of Smt. Shanti Devi widow of Late Ram Kishan S/o Sh. Hazari Lal, Ms. Usha and Ms. Nisha, both daughters of Late Ram Kishan, Sh. Khaneju Sharma S/o Late Ram Kishan, Sh. Ram Narain S/o Sh. Hazari Lal R/o Sharma Store Rohtak. The rent has always been paid by way of the cheque drawn in the name of "Ram Narain RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 4 of 33 Shanti Devi". The rent stands paid till 31.12.2012 in the same manner.
• It is stated that petitioner has failed to disclose rate of rent of tenanted premises in petition aswell as in legal notice dated 20.10.2010 sent by petitioner hence the petition is not maintainable under DRC Act.
• It is stated that tenanted premises was let out to the respondent by its owners/ lessee Sh. Ram Narain and Smt. Shanti Devi in the year 1977 on a monthly rent of Rs 300/- per month after taking huge amount of ₹ 45,000/- as 'Pagri' from the respondent but no receipt for the same was issued by the landlords as per practice prevalent at the time. It is stated that landlords/ owners of tenanted premises again approached the respondent with request to pay them ₹ 10,000/- extra as they were in great hardship with the condition that they would reduce the rent from Rs 300/- p.m. to Rs 200/- p.m which the respondent paid and thus, the rent was reduced to ₹ 200/- per month. It is stated that the rent of the tenanted premises was increased from time to time and at present, with consent of owners, the respondent is paying rent @ ₹ 484/- per month. The respondent never paid rent to the petitioner. • As per clause 4(a) of Lease Deed by DDA, the property wherein the tenanted premises is situated can not be transferred except with the previous consent in writing of the lessor which the petitioner did not obtain. Since the permission of DDA was not obtained, the family settlement is in contravention of clause of lease deed which is not valid and effective against respondent.
RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 5 of 33• No site plan has been annexed by the petitioner alongwith the petition.
• It is averred that in para 14 of the petition the petitioner has submitted that the premises was let out in the year 1997, however no rent agreement was ever executed. Whereas in the list of documents filed alongwith the petition petitioner has filed a rent deed dated 01.10.1977 hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
• It is stated that the sole purpose behind filing the present petition is not to use the tenanted premises for his business but to let out the same in order to fetch much higher rate of rent as well as 'Pagri'.
• It is stated that petitioner is already doing business of Travel agency in the name and style of 'Destination Travels' at FD-33, Visakha Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi besides a boutique which is also being run by the petitioner.
• The requirement of petitioner is not bonafide as the petitioner and his brothers are in possession of a very big premises at the ground floor of property wherein the tenanted premises is situated. At the ground floor petitioner was running a flour mill, however, petitioner stopped the flour mill and started a Bata Showroom in part of the same premises besides running a business of stuffing of quilts, pillows etc in the remaining portion which is still going on at the premises. • The corner shop was re-let to Relaxo Shoes about 3 years back after closing their own shop of Bata Showroom. • Petitioner and his brother have also carved out two shops on mezzanine floor and the same had recently been let out and in one of them, Dr. Pritam Gupta is running a clinic and other shop is functioning under the name and style of M/s B S Tailors and Drapers.
RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 6 of 33• There was toilet existing on ground floor for common usage which was illegally demolished by the petitioner to convert the same into a shop and petitioner has let it out to Union Bank of India which is running ATM at present there.
• The entire first floor has been rented out to 'Elan Unisex Saloon' at a monthly rent of ₹ 80,000/- after getting it vacated from the earlier tenant.
• In June 2009, the landlords got vacated the second floor of building where tenanted premises is situated and re-let the same to 'Share Khan' share brokers at a monthly rent of Rs 90,000/- and to 'Institute of Economics'.
• Remaining averment of petition were also denied by respondent.
8. Thereafter, matter was fixed for plaintiff evidence. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined three witnesses including himself. Plaintiff examined Sh. Ravinder Chikkara, UDC, Office of Sub Registrar VI-A, Pitampura as PW1, Sh. R.K.Aggarwal, Asstt. Manager, Union Bank of India, Ashok Vihar Branch, New Delhi as PW2 and Himself as PW3.
9. PW3 / Plaintiff filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-3/A and relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Description of
Marking
document
1 Eviction Petition Ex. PW3/1
Rent Agreement
2 Mark A
dated 01.10.1977
3 Site Plan Ex. PW3/3
Legal Notice dated
4 Ex. PW3/4
03.09.2012
Postal tracking
5 Ex. PW3/5 (Colly)
report of legal
RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 7 of 33
Reply of Legal
6 Ex. PW3/6
Notice dated
All three witnesses were duly cross-examined by Respondent.
10.During the pendency, Respondent expired and consequently LR's of Respondent namely Sh. Sanjay Jain and Atul Jain were substituted vide order dated 18.01.2022 as Respondent no. 1A and Respondent no. 1B (hereinafter referred as R1A and R1B)
11.Thereafter, respondent lead evidence. Respondents examined five witnesses in their defence. R1A examined himself as RW1, Sh. Ram Jatan Yadav, UDC, Commercial Land, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi as RW2, R1B Sh. Atul Kumar Jain as RW4, Sh. Rakesh Kumar, AZI, A&C Department, Keshav Puram Zone, MCD, Delhi as RW5 and Sh. Ajay Kumar, Senior Secretariat Assistant, Commercial Land, DDA, INA, Vikas Sadan, Delhi. All the witnesses were cross examined on behalf of petitioner.
12.Thereafter Respondent evidence was closed and matter was listed for final agreements.
Arguments of petitioner
13.It is argued that registered copy of Memorandum of Family Settlement Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) proved through UDC from office of Sub- Registrar office proves that the building out of which tenanted premises is forming part, was a joint family property and the tenanted premises came into the share of the petitioner as per the Memorandum of Family settlement. As RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 8 of 33 such the petitioner became the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that it is settled law that every owner is a landlord but it is not necessary that landlord be the absolute owner of the tenanted premises. Further there is no requirement under the law to obtain NOC from DDA before distribution/partition of allotted property.
14.It is submitted that the certified copy of account opening f o r m / r e g i s t e r E x . P W- 2 / 1 b e a r i n g a c c o u n t N o . 396602010003650 proves that rent was deposited by respondent in the joint account of petitioner, Sh. Ram Narain Sharma, Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma, Sh. Khaneju Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi. It is argued that as per the definition of the "Landlord" u/s section 2 (e) of the DRC Act, any person who is collecting rent of tenanted premises becomes landlord. Since the petitioner was receiving rent from the respondent, he became the landlord.
15.It is argued that attornment notice dated 03.09.2012 Ex PW-3/4 was issued by Sh. Ram Narain Sharma (brother of the petitioner) and Smt. Shanti Devi (Sister-in-law/bhabhi of the petitioner) to the respondent thereby apprising the respondent regarding the change of landlordship of the tenanted premises from them to the petitioner as per family settlement. As per this document, the earlier owners/landlords (whom the respondent recognize, accept and acknowledge as landlords/ owners) have conveyed the change of landlordship qua the tenanted premises to respondent.
16.It is argued that the tenanted premises is forming part of building plot no. 24, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 9 of 33 which was purchased by the father of the petitioner out of common funds of joint Hindu family in the name of Sh. Ram Narain Sharma (brother of the petitioner) and Smt. Shanti Devi (Sister-in-law / bhabhi of the petitioner). Later on, in the month of June 2001 a family settlement was arrived amongst the family members and the tenanted premises was devolved upon the petitioner. The tenanted premises was let out way back in year 1977 by the erstwhile owners Sh. Ram Narain Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi in favour of the respondent. The factum of the change of ownership and landlordship was duly communicated to the respondent and she has duly acknowledged accepted & admitted the ownership as well as landlordship of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises.
17.It is argued that memorandum of family settlement dated 08.06.2001 is duly registered bearing registration no. 8258, in additional book no.1, volume no. 1662 pages 162 to 178 dated 13.06.2001. The said document proves the change of ownership and landlordship qua the tenanted premises in favour of the petitioner. The legal notice was duly served upon the respondent thereby communicating the change in ownership and landlordship of the tenanted premises in favour of the petitioner. It is also argued that present proceedings are not civil suit for declaration of ownership but the same are only eviction petition where the petitioner need not to prove the absolute ownership rather he has to prove that he is something more than a tenant qua the tenanted premises.
Arguments of R1A and R1B RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 10 of 33
18.It is argued that the petitioner is neither the landlord nor the owner of the tenanted premises. The entire building where the tenanted premises is situated is a leasehold property. It is argued that perpetual lease deed Ex. RW2/A executed by DDA stands in the name of Smt. Shanti Devi widow of late Shri Ram Kishan, Ms. Usha and Ms. Nisha daughters of late Shri Ram kishan, Sh. Khaneju S/o late Shri Ram Kishan all minors under the guardianship of Smt. Shanti Devi (mother) and Shri Ram Narian Sharma S/o Sh. Huzari Lal.
19.That as per clause 4 (a) of the lease deed by DDA in favour of the above mentioned persons, the property wherein the tenanted premises is situated cannot be transferred except with the previous consent of the lesser (L.G.Delhi) in writing. It is argued that petitioner has neither obtained the permission from from DDA nor the said property stands in his name in lease deed. That the family settlement relied by petitioner is void and unenforceable as against the DDA, being contrary to the express terms and conditions of the lease deed executed between the DDA and the original lessee. It is argued that any private arrangement between family members cannot confer upon the Petitioner a right or interest which is prohibited by the lease conditions and which the DDA has not recognized.
20.It is argued that the petitioner produced PW2 to prove that the rent was deposited by the respondent in the A/c No:-
396602010003650 in the Joint names of Sh. Ram Narian, Sh. Ram Pratap Sharma, Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma Sh. Khaneju Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi EXPW2/1, however, as per account opening form , the account was opened in the name of RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 11 of 33 Shri Ram Narayan Sharma alone on 16/08/2003 and the name of petitioner has been added fraudulently to it.
21.It is argued that the petitioner is not a part of the family of Shri Ram Narain Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi as is clear from his cross examination where he stated that his family consists of two major sons, one married daughter and wife, and that Sh. Ram Narain and Smt. Shanti Devi are residing at Pitam Pura in different floor of the same house. It is argued that family settlement has been fraudulently made in order to file the present petition on false ground.
22.It is argued that as per the cross examination of PW3 dated 18.11.2014, PW3/petitioner did not take any permission in writing from DDA for the transfer of the said property in his name, did not intimate DDA regarding the family settlement and upon the transfer of property in his name, did not apply for the change of name in DDA, however the same was applied with MCD.
23.It is argued that petitioner is not even aware about the rate of rent of the premises in question which is clear from the false notice dated 20.10.2010 Ex RW1/13 sent by the petitioner through his counsel and para 11 of the petition Ex PW3/1.
24.It is argued that present petition was filed on 08.12.2011 against the respondent by the petitioner and thereafter when the tenant raised objection that the petitioner is neither owner nor landlord of the tenanted premises then in order to show himself as landlord of the tenanted premises he sent a notice dt. 03.09.2012 by the name of the Sh. Ram Narayan & Smt. RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 12 of 33 Shanti Devi during the pendency of the case, which was duly replied by the tenant vide reply dt. 12.09.2012 Ex PW3/6 denying the false plea taken in the said notice. It is submitted that although the petitioner is falsely claiming Sh. Ram Narain and Smt. Shanti Devi the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises as his family but he failed to call them in the witness box to prove the contents of alleged the notice dt. 03.09.2012.
25.It is argued that the petitioners vide notice dt. 20.10.2010 Ex RW1/13 sent a false Legal / Demand Notice falsely claiming himself owner of the tenanted premises by which he claimed that the rent of the tenanted premises is more than ₹ 15,000/- per month and asked the tenant to vacate the tenanted premises and further claimed the rent at ₹ 30,000/- if the tenant failed to vacate the tenanted premises. The said false notice of the petitioner was replied by the tenant vide reply dt. 02.11.2010 Ex RW1/14 and thereafter the petitioner filed the present petition on false ground after making manipulation in Bank Account of Ram Narain Sharma and making false and illegal family settlement without seeking permission of lessor i.e. DDA.
26.Ld. Counsel for R1B gave general rebuttal of the judgments relied by petitioner, which are as follows :-
(a) Cases where absolute ownership was held not to be re-
quired pertain to situations where the Petitioner had some lawful title, even if imperfect. Those judgments dilute the standard of proof but do not eliminate the requirement of lawful entitlement altogether. They cer- tainly do not permit eviction by a person whose claim RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 13 of 33 flows from a transfer which is void and prohibited b y DDA lease terms.
(b) Cases dealing with co-owner eviction pertain to free-
hold properties or properties where inheritance has taken place and has been recognized. In DDA lease- hold properties, the concept of co-ownership does not arise without recognition and substitution by the DDA.
(c) Cases dealing with inheritance and legal heirs apply only in situations where the lessor has recognized the succession. In DDA leasehold properties, substitution of the name of the lessee by the DDA is mandatory, which is completely absent in the present case.
(d) Cases where eviction was permitted on the basis of imperfect title must be understood in the context that imperfect title is fundamentally different from no title at all. Courts have never recognized eviction based on a void or prohibited transfer.
(e) Cases holding that the Rent Controller cannot go into disputed questions of title pertain to situations where both parties claim title and there is a genuine dispute. The present case does not involve adjudication of dis- puted title but rather examination of whether the Peti- tioner qualifies as a landlord, which is a mandatory ju- risdictional requirement under Section 14(1)(e).
(f) Cases dealing with attornment or rent receipts pertain to situations where there is proved attornment or rent has been paid in the name of the Petitioner. No such attornment or rent receipt exists in the present case.
(g) Cases permitting eviction by GPA holders pertain to situations where the GPA holder is acting on behalf of a lawful owner or lessee and not in his own right. In RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 14 of 33 the present case, the Petitioner has filed the petition in his own name claiming to be the landlord.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
27.In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish that:-
i. He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii.He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
Ownership and landlord-tenant relationship
28.First and foremost argument made on behalf of respondents is that the petitioner is not the owner of tenanted premises and there is no landlord tenant relationship between petitioner and respondent on the ground that tenanted premises is on lease granted by DDA which as per terms of lease can not be transferred without the consent of DDA. The respondent has challenged the family settlement on the ground that petitioner can not be transferred the tenanted premises by way of family settlement as the permission of DDA, who is lessor of tenanted premises, has not been obtained. It is argued that family settlement can not give ownership to petitioner as the same is in violation of terms of lease granted by DDA to Sh. Ram Narain and Smt. Shanti Devi. It is argued that family settlement relied by petitioner to show his ownership is in violation of terms of lease hence this family settlement is not RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 15 of 33 valid and consequently it can give any right, title or interest in the tenanted premises to petitioner.
29.Petitioner has argued that tenant can not challenge the family settlement as present proceedings are eviction proceedings and not a declaratory suit of ownership. It is also argued that there is no requirement of NOC from DDA for distribution of property in which tenanted premises is located.
30.Now the question arises whether family settlement can be challenged by a tenant in eviction proceedings under DRC Act?
31.Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in A.K. Nayar Vs Mahesh Prasad, 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1025 made following observation qua challenge to family settlement:-
"8. Counsel for the petitioner contended that a family settlement is required to be registered and if it is not registered it cannot be looked into. As already stated this Court has not to look into the ownership of respondent for the purpose of the Transfer of Property Act. If Sh. J. P. Srivastava or other family member had challenged the family settlement, the Court could look it from the angle of the Transfer of property Act. But a tenant cannot challenge the family settlement nor can ask the Court to ignore the document on the ground of its not having been registered."
32.Thought in A.K. Nayar (supra) the family settlement was challenged on the ground of its non registration nevertheless the observation made by Hon'ble High Court squarely applies to the present case. The non registration of family settlement is a technical objection so as the non taking of consent from the DDA. Had it been the case where one of the family members has challenged the family settlement then the court would RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 16 of 33 surely go into the assessment of respective rights of family members and would have adjudicated the formalities and process of making family settlement. A tenant cannot be permitted to step into the shoes of the landlord's family members to dispute inter se arrangements. There is nothing on record which can show that there are inter se disputes between the co-owners, and the other co-owners are disputing or challenging the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted shop. In the present case, none of the family members have objected to the family settlement, in fact pursuant to family settlement dated 08.06.2001 petitioner and other family members applied for mutation of their respective share in the property allocated in family settlement in their name on 27.05.2002 vide application Ex RW5/1 (Colly) (OSR). The application made by family members including petitioner clearly shows that family members have accepted and acted upon the family settlement. If the tenant is allowed to question the family settlement then it would amount to give him a right which is exclusively within the domain of family members.
33.During cross examination dated 17.08.2019, RW1 denied the suggestion of Ld. counsel for petitioner that in July 2001 the fact of transfer of rights in the tenanted premises by Sh. Ram Narain Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi was communicated to his mother (original respondent) or that she acknowledged the said family settlement as well as recognised petitioner as landlord of tenanted premises.
34.During cross examination dated 29.04.2023, RW1 has deposed that he did not receive the notice dated 03.09.2012 Ex PW 3/4. He also deposed that his mother (original respondent RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 17 of 33 Late Indira Jain) might have received the notice. He also deposed that he does not know whether his mother was informed about change of ownership in favor of petitioner. It is a matter of record that this notice was replied by Late Indira Jain vide reply dated 12.09.2012 Ex PW3/6.The RW1 is not aware about the receipt of notice and its reply which shows that he has limited knowledge of the present case.
35.Smt. Indira Jain expired on 07.07.2020. Prior to the death of Smt. Indira Jain, RW1 deposed in the capacity of SPA and after the death he deposed in the capacity of LR. Either way, RW1 is not having personal knowledge of the facts of the present case as is clear from the cross examination enumerated above. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani & Anr vs Indusind Bank Ltd. & Ors, AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 439 has held that a power of attorney holder can depose only about facts within his personal knowledge and cannot depose about the principal's state of mind or acts not personally known. The original respondent/tenant is the relevant person who could have deposed on the fact of intimation of transfer of rights, family settlement, receipt of notice dated 03.09.2012 Ex PW 3/4 and its reply, however, original respondent never entered the witness box. Clearly the RW1 has deposed upon a fact which is within the personal knowledge of original respondent who never deposed in the matter. The respondents have clearly failed to establish that this communication was not done to original respondent Smt. Indira Jain.
36.The R1A had admitted the receipt of letter dated 20.10.2010 Ex RW1/13 and its reply dated 02.11.2010 Ex RW1/2. The RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 18 of 33 petitioner has argued that vide letter dated 20.10.2010 Ex. RW1/13 he recommunicated his ownership to respondent Late Smt. Indira Jain and called upon her to vacate the premises. The respondent replied to his letter vide reply dated 02.11.2010 Ex RW1/2 wherein late respondent denied the ownership and refused to vacate the tenanted premises. Though no substantial cross examination has been done on these two documents nevertheless the letter Ex RW1/1 does show the communication of ownership of petitioner.
37.In para 10 of the WS, it is averred by the late respondent that a common toilet was provided to the respondent by his owner/ landlord at the time of giving the shop on rent but the petitioner has unlawfully, unauthorizedly and mischievously demolished the toilet meant for joint use by the respondent and the other shopkeepers of the premises where tenanted premises are situated and converted the said space into a shop and let out the same to Union Bank Of India for the use as an ATM.
38.It is alleged that the common toilet was demolished by petitioner and same was let out to Bank. This fact has been denied by the petitioner, however if the averment of late respondent is taken to be true then this fact goes against the respondents. It is alleged that toilet was common to be used by respondents too, however there is nothing on record which may suggest the late respondent complained the act of demolition to the earlier owners of the property despite having information of family settlement via letter dated 20.10.2010 Ex RW1/13. Perusal of family settlement shows that the tenanted premises located on the ground floor was allotted to petitioner and the petitioner destroyed the common toilet and RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 19 of 33 converted it into a shop. This act of petitioner shows that family settlement was acted upon by the petitioner by doing overt act qua allotted property and at the same time the non complaining the act of petitioner by late respondent show her acquiescence.
39.It is argued on behalf of petitioner that attornment notice dated 03.09.2012 Ex PW 3/4 was issued by Sh. Ram Narain Sharma (brother of the petitioner) and Smt. Shanti Devi (Sister-in-law/ bhabhi of the petitioner) to the respondent thereby apprising the respondent regarding the change of landlordship of the tenanted premises from them to the petitioner as per family settlement. It is argued that the earlier owners/landlords have conveyed the change of landlordship qua the tenanted premises in favour of petitioner. It is argued on behalf of respondent that this letter was replied vide reply dt. 12.09.2012 Ex PW3/6 denying the false plea taken in the said notice. The respondent has argued that this letter was sent during the pendency of present case, hence this letter can not be relied upon by the petitioner. It is argued that did not examine Sh. Ram Narayan and Smt. Shanti Devi to prove the contents of alleged the notice dt. 03.09.2012 Ex PW3/4.
40.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta v. Vishwanath Bhikaji Mogul and others (AIR 1997 SC 2437) made following observation regarding attornment:-
"It is well settled that a transferee of the lands right steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and the liability of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. The section does not require the transfer of the right of the landlord can take effect only if the tenant attorns to him. Attornment by the tenant is not necessary to confer validity of the transfer of the RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 20 of 33 landlords rights. Since attornment by the tenant is not required, a notice under Section 106 in terms of the old terms of lease by the transferor landlord would be proper and so also the suit for ejectment."
41.It is clear that a formal attornment is not required though the same is desirable, however still if the tenant does not attorn the tenancy then also as per section 109 of Transfer of Property Act 1882, the transferee of a property gets all the rights and interest of the transferor in the property transferred and consequently transferee is entitle to receive rent and initiate eviction proceedings. The attornment notice though given during the pendency of present case shows that registered owner of property or lessee have given up the ownership of tenanted premises in favour of petitioner which also shows that there is no objection within the family of petitioner qua family settlement. The lease deed is between the Smt. Shanti Devi, Sh. Kishan, Ms. Usha and Ms. Nisha, Sh. Khaneju and Sh. Ram Narian Sharma and the DDA, if the lessee violates any term of the lease then it is for the lessor to take action against the lessee. The tenant is not party to the lease deed executed between DDA and Smt. Shanti Devi and others. The respondents are stranger to lease deed hence he can not question the transfer of rights within the family and consequently formal attornment is also not required. It is for the DDA to initiate proceedings against lessee for violation of terms of lease deed.
42.The petitioner also examined PW2 Sh. R.K.Aggarwal, Asstt. Manager, Union Bank of India, Ashok Vihar Branch, New Delhi who proved SB A/c bearing no. 396602010003650 Ex PW2/1. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that respondent has RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 21 of 33 deposited the rent in this account which is a joint account of petitioner and Sh. Ram Narain Sharma, Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma, Sh. Khaneju Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi. It is argued on behalf respondents that the original account opening form does not contain the name of petitioner and Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma, Sh. Khaneju Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi. It is argued that only the name of Sh. Ram Narain Sharma is mentioned in the account opening form. A suggestion was also given to PW2 during cross examination that the document Ex PW2/1 is forged document prepared at the instance of petitioner.
43.During cross examination, PW2 deposed that original account opening form does not contain the name of petitioner and other family members including Smt. Shanti Devi. It is also deposed that the name of petitioner and other family members may have been added later on. Since the account was opened by Sh. Ram Narain Sharma alone, the non mentioning of name of petitioner in the original account opening form make sense. Ex PW 2/1 dated 10.09.2013 states that this account is in joint name of petitioner and other family members. Respondents have argued that the name of petitioner was added fraudulently, however there is nothing on record which may suggest so. Had it been the intention of petitioner to defraud the tenant by adding his name to the account then there was no need to add the name of other family members to the account including the name of original lessee Smt. Shanti Devi. The respondents have failed to show by way oral or documentary proof the alleged fraud done by petitioner. Ex. PW2/1 clearly shows that rent paid by respondent was paid into the joint account of petitioner.
RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 22 of 3344.In cross examination dated 15.02.2020, RW1 deposed that "I cannot say whether the Bank account in which we use to deposit rent belong to Sh. Ram Narain, Smt. Shanti Devi, Sh. Ram Pratap Sharma, Sh. Ram Kumar Sharma and Sh. Khaneju Sharma.". It is clear that RW1 who is one of the LR of original respondent/tenant does not know to whom the bank account in which rent was deposited belonged to. It appears that R1A/ RW1 has no knowledge about the fact of rent being paid to whom. Further, the family settlement was made on 08.07.2001 and the bank account was opened by Sh. Ram Narain Sharma on 16.08.2003 as disclosed in cross examination of PW2. It appears that later on, the petitioner and other family members were also added to this bank account, however the rent continued to be deposited in this bank account. It is not a disputed fact that letter dated 20.10.2010 and 03.09.2012 Ex RW1/13 and Ex PW3/4 respectively were received by the original respondent as both the letter were duly replied by original respondent Smt. Indira Jain. In both the letter Smt. Indira Jain was informed about the family settlement and instruction to pay rent to petitioner, hence in such circumstances it is original respondent Smt. Indira Jain who could have deposed about the payment of rent being made to the petitioner in the joint account. The respondent have failed to show that the rent was paid to Sh. Ram Narain Sharma alone and not to the petitioner and other family members in the joint account. In such circumstances, it can reasonably be inferred on a preponderance of probabilities that the rent was paid into the joint account of the petitioner and other family members.
RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 23 of 3345.It is argued on behalf of respondents that the petitioner is not a part of the family of Shri Ram Narain Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi as is clear from his cross examination where he stated that his family consists of two major sons, one married daughter and wife, and that Sh. Ram Narain and Smt. Shanti Devi are residing at Pitam Pura in different floor of the same house. It is argued that family settlement has been fraudulently made in order to file the present petitioner on false ground.
46.The submission of Ld. Counsel for respondents has no merits as term family refers to a group of persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together or having a common lineage or household. RW1 in cross examination dated 17.08.2019 so as RW4 in cross examination dated 15.10.2024 have admitted that erstwhile co-owners Sh. Ram Narain Sharma and Smt. Shanti Devi are elder brother and sister-in- law/Bhabi of petitioner respectively. The petitioner and original lessee are related by birth and marriage even otherwise the tenant can not challenge the family settlement being outsider and stranger, hence this argument is without merits.
47.It is argued on behalf of respondents that the petitioner is not aware about the rate of rent of tenanted premises which is clear from the false notice dt. 20.10.2010 Ex RW1/13 of petitioner and para 11 of the petition Ex PW3/1. Mere non mentioning of rate of rent in the petition and the letter is not fatal as present petition is not filed on the ground of non payment of rent where the rate of rent would be essential to be mentioned.
RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 24 of 33Even otherwise the rate rent is admitted by respondent in her leave to defend at ₹ 484 per month.
48.It is also argued on behalf of respondents that late respondent also paid an amount of ₹ 40,000/- as Pagri at start of tenancy and further paid an amount of ₹ 10,000/- later on due to which rent of tenanted premises was reduced to ₹200/- from ₹300/-. Ld counsel for petitioner has argued that no such Pagri was ever paid.
49.During cross examination, RW1 denied the suggestion of Ld. counsel for petitioner that RW1 does not have any document with regard to the pagri, however no documents was ever produced by the respondents. RW1 deposed that he was not present when the alleged Pagri was paid as he was a child at that time, it is deposed that he heard about it from his mother Late Indira Jain, it is deposed that he can not produce any document of payment of Pagri amount, it is deposed that payment was made in cash. RW4 also deposed on the similar lines.
50.The alleged Pagri amount was paid by Late Indira Jain who has already expired and RW1 and RW4 are having only information which they were told by their mother. The deposition of RW1 and RW4 is hearsay so far as related to payment of Pagri amount. Clearly, the respondents have not been able to establish the payment of Pagri amount through any document. Even otherwise, the payment of Pagri will not make the tenant owner of tenanted premises. At best a tenant RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 25 of 33 can recover Pagri or any other amount from the landlord through appropriate proceedings.
51.It is also argued on behalf respondents that no site plan has been filed by the petitioner to show the tenanted property. It is also argued that there is no mention of shop no. in the family settlement. It is argued that even if family settlement is considered then also petitioner can not be the owner of tenanted premises as there is no description of tenanted premises in the family settlement.
52.The petitioner has filed site plan Ex. PW 3/3. No cross examination was done by respondents qua the site plan, even otherwise the respondents have not disputed the description and details of tenanted premises. In fact in cross examination, RW1 and RW4 have deposed that they are not disputing the property number of tenanted premises and its identity.
53.Perusal of family settlement Ex RW1/1 reveals that three is no detail of the tenanted premisses, however it specifically mentions that petitioner was allotted the shop occupied by Late Indira Jain. It is clear that petitioner was given the shop which was in the tenancy of Smt. Indira Jain, hence there can be no doubt about the description of tenanted premises which fell in the share of petitioner, hence this arguments is without merits.
54.It is also argued that tenancy of respondents is perpetual in nature. The petitioner brought on record the rent agreement Mark A. Though the document has not been proved, however perusal of this document show that there is no mention of the RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 26 of 33 nature of tenancy. The rent agreement at point 5 states that tenancy will be for eleven months. There is nothing on record which may suggest that fresh rent agreement was executed between the parties. Even if the rent agreement is not considered at all then also respondents have failed to establish the perpetual nature of tenancy. In cross examination, RW1 deposed that his mother Late Indira Jain was told by the landlord that tenancy is forever and they would not get it vacated. RW1 denied the suggestion of Ld. counsel for petitioner that RW1 does not have any document with regard to the perpetual nature of tenancy, however no documents was ever produced by the respondents. It is also deposed that he can not bring any document to show that tenancy was perpetual in nature. RW4 also deposed on the similar lines. The respondents have not produced any oral or documentary proof to establish the permanent nature of tenancy. The argument regarding perpetual tenancy remained mere argument without getting any support from evidence and documents and consequently this argument is also rejected.
55.Ld. Counsel for R1B has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Ram Lal Sachdev vs Smt. Sneh Sinha, 83(2000)DLT141 and has argued that conditions of the lease were imperative. It is argued that Court allowed the superstructure to be partitioned leaving the plot to be common. It is argued that petitioner who was not party to the lease however made owner via family settlement which is impermissible. The judgment relied upon by Ld. Counsel recognizes the partition of superstructure impliedly acknowledging the assignment of rights and enjoyment of property among the family members leaving the leased plot RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 27 of 33 common. In the judgment, the parties which objecting were joint lease holder whereas in present proceedings, it is the tenant who is making an objection qua family settlement who is a stranger to the lease deed as well as to family of petitioner. In eviction procedings court acting as Rent Controller has limited jurisdiction and in such limited jurisdiction tenant can not be permitted to question the validity of family settlement especially when no family member has objected to it. The judgment relied by Ld. Counsel is of no help to him.
56.Ld. Counsel for respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Smt. Leelawati & Ors., (2008) 155 DLT 383, and argued that though absolute ownership is not a pre- requisite for maintaining an eviction petition, the Petitioner must nevertheless establish and prove a title which is better than that of the tenant. The Petitioner possesses no title whatsoever which is recognized by the DDA as the lessor and owner of the said premises.
57.As observed in earlier paragraphs, the tenant can not question the family settlement arrived between the family members, hence petitioner can be said to be the owner of tenanted premises. It is settled law that a landlord, for the purpose of eviction proceedings, need not prove absolute ownership, it is sufficient if he is something more than a tenant. Non taking the consent from DDA is a technical defect which at maximum will make the title of petitioner imperfect. In any case the petitioner has shown that he is something more then a tenant by way of family settlement. The petitioner has also proved that rent paid by respondent was paid into the joint account of RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 28 of 33 petitioner and other family members. The petitioner has proved that he was receiving rent from the respondent. As per section 2 (e) of DRC Act a person who is receiving the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any other person will be a landlord. The petitioner has proved the ownership aswell as landlord tenant relationship and consequently he has proved first essential of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
Bonafide requirement & Availability of alternate reasonable suitable accommodation
58.It is argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner wants the tenanted premises to open his business of clothes/readymade garments. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner was doing this business at Railway Road, Rohtak, Haryana in the name and style "Sharma Store". Thereafter he has shifted his business at A-block, Main Road, Raj Park, Delhi on rented accommodation which was vacated by him on the demand of his landlord. It is argued that the petitioner is not having any other alternative suitable reasonable accommodation available to him, as such he wants to get the tenanted premises evicted from respondent and start his business from the tenanted shop.
59.It is also argued on behalf of petitioner that the building out of which the tenanted premises is forming part is situated on ground floor and a showroom business can be more flourishing on ground floor. Whereas the upper floors could not prove to be that much beneficial for a showroom business more particularly when the building in question is not having the lift/escalator facility available.
RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 29 of 3360.It is argued on behalf of respondents that requirement of petitioner is not bonafide. It is argued that petitioner has other suitable accommodation available to him. It is argued that alleged requirement of the petitioner is not genuine and bonafide in view of the fact that the alleged requirement is the manifest result of concealment of reasonably suitable alternative (non-residential) accommodation already in actual physical possession of the petitioner herein and/or his family members. That the petitioner and his brothers are in possession of a very big premises at the ground floor of the property wherein tenanted premises are situated, where a flour mill was being run by him. The petitioner himself stopped running the flour mill and started a Bata showroom in a part of the same premises besides running a business of stuffing of quilts, pillows etc. in the remaining portion of the same, later on the petitioner closed down the Bata showroom but his business of stuffing of quilts, pillows etc is still going on smoothly. It is also argued that petitioner has also created a space below the staircase and included the same in the business of quilts. It is argued that the corner shop was re-let to the Relaxo Shoes about three years back after closing their own shop of Bata Showroom. It is also argued that the petitioner and his brother have also carved out two shops on the mezzanine floor and the same had recently been let-out, and in one of them Dr Pritam Gupta is running his clinic whereas in the other shop one tailoring shop is functioning under the name and style of M/S B.S Tailors and Drappers. It is argued that a toilet was existing on the ground floor of the property wherein tenanted premises is situated which was in the common usage of the occupants on the ground floor including respondent/tenant. The petitioner RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 30 of 33 has unlawfully and illegally demolished the said toilet, got converted the same into a shop and let out the same to the Union Bank Of India which is running ATM from there at present. It is argued that the entire first floor has been recently rented out to "Elan Unisex Saloon" @ Rs 80,000/ p.m after getting it vacated from the earlier tenant. It is also argued that in the month of June 2009 the landlords got vacated the 2nd floor of the building where tenanted premises is situated and re-let the same to "Share Khan" share brokers @ 90,000/p.m and to "Institute of Economics".
61.It is argued that the petitioner is already doing the business of travel agency in the name and style of "Destination Travels" at the property no.FD-33, Visakha Enclave Pitampura, Delhi besides a boutique which is also being run by the petitioner.
62.The PW-3 was not cross examined on this aspect and only some suggestions were addressed to him qua the availability of alternative accommodation. Even otherwise, there is a presumption of bonafide requirement in favor of landlord which the tenant has to rebut. It is not sufficient that other accommodations are available, the tenant also has to show the available accommodations are owned by landlord and same are suitable to his needs. In present case, the respondents did not brought on record any document to show the available premises are owned by petitioner. Further, none of the premises mentioned by the respondents are vacant. It is settled law that a tenant cannot dictate landlord as to how he uses his accommodation. The landlord is best judge of his needs and tenant can not dictate the landlord.
RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 31 of 3363.Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16 and in Uday Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503 held that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the upper floors are generally not commercially viable and consumers and patrons of the market are reluctant to walk into the same and are more prone to walk into a shop on the ground floor. Thus availability of the upper floors above the tenanted premises cannot be said to be alternate suitable accommodation.
64.It is also argued on behalf of respondent that petitioner is already carrying on business of travel agency and running a boutique. The respondents have not brought on record any documentary proof to show that business being run by petitioner, even otherwise it is settled law that even if the landlord has other commercial premises from where he is running the other business, there is nothing to prohibit him from starting another business and running multiple businesses. Reference can be made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s A.K. Woolen Industries and Ors. Vs. Shri Narayan Gupta RC Rev. 495/2017 in which the following was held:-
"19.The law to be applied in this regard has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679, Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimlabai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252 and Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja (2014) 15 SCC 610. It has been held that even if the landlord has other commercial premises available to him and even if the landlord is carrying on other businesses, if it is found that the landlord intends to use the premises in occupation of the tenant for carrying on his business therefrom, the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction and the Courts cannot intervene in the same."RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 32 of 33
65.The respondent during his entire evidence has failed to disapprove the presumption of the genuineness of the needs and requirements of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises.
66.In the present case the petitioner has proved all three essential of sec 14(1)(e) DRC, hence in view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that petitioner has proved his case.
67.Consequently, petitioner has proved all the ingredients of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, hence petitioner is entitled for an eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e., one shop bearing no. 2, Plot No. 24, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi, as indicated in red color in the site plan annexed to the petition filed with the eviction petition, in terms of Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order as mandated by sec 14(7) of DRC Act.
68.No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH
SINGH PARIHAR
Date: 2026.05.23
PARIHAR 16:50:48 +0530
Announced in Open Court (Ajay Singh Parihar)
on 21.05.2026. ACJ-cum-ARC-North
Rohini Court/ Delhi
RC ARC No. 35/2016. Ram Pratap Sharma Vs Indira Jain Page 33 of 33