Delhi District Court
Mustajbuddin vs Viqar Ahmed on 13 August, 2025
RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-2 (CENTRAL), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No: 80554/16
Mustajbuddin
S/o Late Sh. Ferozuddin
R/o Portion 1st Floor
In Property No. 3209,
Gali Haji Abdul Shakoor,
Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan,
Delhi-110006 ........Petitioner
VERSUS
Viqar Ahmed
S/o Late Mohd. Nasir
R/o 3241, 1st Floor And
Second Floor Portion
Gali Farhatullah,
Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan,
Delhi-110006 ........Respondent
***********
Date of Filing of petition : 01.03.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 05.08.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 13.08.2025
Decision of petition : Eviction
Petition
Allowed
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
13.08.2025
Page no. 1 of 35
RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 14 (1)
(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of premises i.e one hall, latrine-cum-bathroom, common veranda on the first floor and one room and open space on the second floor of portion of Property No. 3241, Gali Farhat-Ullah, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi which has been shown in 'red colour' in the site plan attached (hereinafter referred to as 'subject premises').
EVICTION PETITION:-
2. As per the eviction petition, the case of petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the entire property No. 3240-3241, Gali Farhat-Ullah, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi after the death of his mother namely Smt. Amtul Waheed and she alongwith her sisters became the joint owner of the said property by virtue of the order and decree passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 30.07.1976 and the said fact was intimated to the tenant and the tenant attorned the petitioner and his brother as the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises. That the respondent is an old tenant initially in respect of one hall, latrine- cum-bath and veranda on first floor and one room, open space on (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 2 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed the second floor at a monthly rate of rent Rs. 100/- excluding water, electricity and other charges, premises under the possession of the respondent is shown in red colour in the site plan. That the tenanted premises under the occupation of the respondent is required bonafide by the petitioner and his family members dependent upon him for residential purposes. That the family of the petitioner consist of himself, his wife and two children namely Ms. Adiba (unmarried daughter) and one son namely Mohd. Afas and both of them are major and their marriage are not solemnized due to paucity of accommodation as such the need of the petitioner is most bonafide, genuine and urgent. That the presently the respondent is residing alongwith his family members in two small rooms in property bearing No. 3209, Gali Haji Abdul Shakur, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006. The said property No. 3209 consist of only ground floor and first floor and the other rooms and portions are occupied by the brother of the petitioner namely Sh. Nayabuddin and his family members and the said accommodation is highly insufficient for the petitioner and his entire family and the petitioner is also facing a lot of difficulty whenever the relatives and other guest of the petitioner visit and stay alongwith the petitioner at the time of festive and other occasions and even in such scenario some family members are forced to sleep on the floor. That there is no separate bedroom for each family (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 3 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed members, no study room, worship room, dinning room and guest room available with the petitioner and the petitioner is passing the days with great difficulty and hardship and the subject premises is most suitable to the petitioner as the petitioner wants to settle his son namely Mohd. Afas in the suit property if it is vacated. The said son of the petitioner is aged about 24 years and is of marriageable age and his marriage is unable to be solemnized due to shortage of accommodation. That there is no other reasonable suitable alternative residential accommodation available to the petitioner or any of his family members, except the two rooms as mentioned above. Hence, the present eviction petition has been filed seeking eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT: -
3. The application for leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent was allowed by the court vide order dated 18.02.2019 and thereafter, WS was filed on behalf of the respondent.
Replication was filed on behalf of petitioner and subsequently matter was fixed for evidence.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
4. In the WS filed by the respondent, preliminary objections (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 4 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed have been taken stating that there exists no relationship of landlord and tenant between the Petitioner and Respondent. The Respondent or his predecessor in interest have never paid any rent to the Petitioner. The Respondent has also never acknowledged the Petitioner as his landlord. The Petitioner has not placed on record any document/rent agreement or counter foil or any rent receipt signed by the Respondent or his predecessors in interest to establish that he is the landlord of the Respondent qua the suit property. That there does not exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is even apparent from the perusal of compromise which was allegedly arrived at among the heirs of late Sh. Abdul Shakoor in suit No. 456 of 1968 on 06.04.1976 in the Hon'ble High Court of at New Delhi titled as Smt. Amtul Habib & Ors. Vs. Smt. Hamid-ul-nissa and Anr. on which the Petitioner is relying upon. It is submitted that paras 9 and 10 of the above said agreement may be perused in this regard, where in para-9, the name of Nisar i.e. father of the respondent appears while para 10 establishes that said Sh. Nisar, the father of respondent was not a tenant of the petitioner in the suit property.
That the portion of the suit property comprising one room, Verandah, latrine bath on the first floor of property No. 3241, Gali Farhat-ulla-Khan, Kucha Pandit, Delhi was let out by one Sh. Abdul Rauf s/o Asdul Shakoor R/o 3015, Gali Nal Bandhan, Shah Ganj, Delhi to Sh. Mohd. Yusaf, the grand father of the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 5 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed Respondent in or around the year 1970 at the rate of Rs.10/- p.m. The said Sh. Abdul Rauf later on in or about of the year 1973 on receipt of Rs.250/- gave permission in writing to aforesaid Sh. Mohd. Yusuf to raise the construction comprised of one room and verandah on the roof of the first floor tenanted premises at his own expenses. That in view of the said written permission, said Sh. Mohd. Yusaf, the grandfather of the respondent raised permanent structure of one room and verandah on the roof of the first floor just above the tenanted premises existing on the first floor of the said property. That the premises on the second floor in occupation of the respondent is not a part of the tenanted premises and in fact it belongs to the respondent being a successor in interest of late Sh. Mohd. Yusaf.
5. That the eviction petition qua the structure existing on the second floor just above the premises on first floor of the suit property is thus misconceived and untenable. That the license/permission granted by the above said Sh. Abdul Rauf to Sh. Mohd. Yusaf is not revocable because it is coupled with a transfer of possession of property i.e. roof of the first floor which transfer is still in force and secondly because above said Sh. Mohd. Yusaf acting upon the above said license/permission having been granted by Abdul Rauf had executed a work of permanent character and incurred expenses i.e. Mohd. Yusaf, the predecessor interest in had raised of the deponent construction of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 6 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed permanent character on the second floor of the suit property which is intentionally, malafidely and wrongly being alleged by the petitioner as a part of the tenanted premises. The respondent in the above stated facts is entitled to protection as provided u/s 60 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882. That the eviction petition is thus misconceived besides being malafide and untenable. That the requirement of the petitioner is malafide as the petitioner along with other co-owners want to demolish the entire building i.e. Property No.3240-3241, Gali Farhatullha, Kucha Pandit, Delhi and want to construct a multistory building with view to sell portions (flats) thereof for their financial gains. That the petitioner along with other co-owners have recently entered into collaboration agreement with a builder who provided a copy of thereof to the respondent as he wanted the respondent to vacate the a property in his possession on receipt of premium which request of the said builder has been declined by the respondent.
6. That the respondent has also placed on record the certified copy of this agreement filed in the Hon'ble High Court by another tenant in the suit property which is signed by all co-owners of the suit property includes the Petitioner. That this contention of the eespondent is fortified by the facts that the Nayabuddin Petitioner have filed and his brother various eviction petitions against all the occupants/tenants of the suit property bearing No.3240-41, Gali Farhat-ullah, Kucha Pandit, Delhi on one or the other false (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 7 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed pretexts. The particulars of some of these eviction petitions are as under:-
i) Eviction case No.E-520/13 of the court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal ARC, Ex. Delhi titled as Nayabuddin (brother of the Petitioner) Vs. Sh. Javed Akhtar for recovery of possession of 4 rooms, two stores, kitchen latrine and bath in property No.3240-
41, Gali Farhatullah Kucha Pandit, Delhi on the ground that there is a paucity of accommodation in the ancestral property No.3209, Gali Haji Abdul Shakoor, Kucha Pandit, Delhi where he is residing presently. It is submitted that this eviction petition has been allowed by the court vide order dated 05.6.2015.
7. That the premises on being vacated by Sh. Javed Akhtar, the portion in occupation of Nayabuddin in the ancestral property is to come to the Petitioner Mustajbuddin who is living in rest of the portion of the ancestral property NO.3209.
ii) Eviction petition No. RC/ARC/36/2016 titled as Nayabuddin Vs. Mohd. Imran & Ors. is pending in this Hon'ble Court.
iii) Eviction petition No. RC/ARC/37/2016 titled as Nayabuddin Vs. Islamuddin & Ors. is pending in this Hon'ble Court.
iv) One eviction petition has also been filed by Nayabuddin against Mirajuddin, an alleged tenant in the suit property, in this Hon'ble Court.
v) Eviction case titled as Mustajbuddin Vs. Mohd. Yasin was earlier pending in the court of Sh. Tarun Ygesh, R.C. Delhi and (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 8 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed the Petitioner has got the premises vacated from Mohd. Yasin.
vi) One eviction petition titled as Nayabuddin Vs. Waliddun & Aslam is pending in regard to the property in question which is pending in the court of Sh. Shirish Aggarwal, ARC, Delhi.
8. It is further stated that the requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide. It is further stated that the petitioner is in possession of entire first floor of property No.3209, Kucha Pandit, Delhi besides kitchen, bath and latrine on ground floor of this property. The site plan filed by the Petitioner is not correct as per site. The rooms in this property have been wrongly described as dalans. That this property is constructed on a plot measuring about 100 sq. yds. That Sh. Nayabuddin, the brother of the petitioner has obtained an eviction order against Sh. Javed Akhtar vide order dated 05.06.2015 from the court of Ms. Namrata Aggarwal, ARC, Delhi who was in possession of four rooms, two stores, kitchen, latrine and bath, in the property No. Farhatullah, Kucha Pandit, 3240-41, Gali Delhi on the ground that because of paucity of accommodation in property No.3209, he wants to live in house No.3240-41. It is submitted that on execution of the said eviction order, the petitioner will be acquiring additional accommodation in ancestral property No. 3209, which is more than sufficient for this requirement. That the petitioner has not disclosed in the instant eviction that he is also co- owner in (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 9 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed possession of various other properties as per judgment of Hon'ble High Court dated 30.06.1976 in suit No.456/1968. The details of other properties i.e. alternative accommodation available to the petitioner are stated as under:-
i) Property No.3240-41, Gali Farhatullah Khan, Kucha Pandit, Delhi, ii) H. No.3207, Kucha Pandit, Delhi, iii) H. No.3015, situated at Mohalla Shah Ganj, Delhi, iv) Building No.3574-75, 3584, Ward No.VII, Lal Kuan, Delhi, v) Property No.3209, Kucha Pandit, Delhi.
9. It is further stated that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts in regard to alterative accommodation available to him and the petition on this ground alone is liable to be dismissed. That as per petitioner, he is a co- owner of properties as stated in preliminary objection No.6 alongwith others, but he has not disclosed as to why he or his brother Nayabuddin only are filing eviction petitions in regard to property in question, and he has also not disclosed whether the properties referred in the preliminary objections No.6 have been partitioned by metes and bounds and further, he has not filed any 'No Objection' certificate from other co-owners. The presence of all other co-owners is necessary for adjudication of the matter in dispute. The eviction petition is thus bad for misjoinder of necessary parties i.e. other co-owners. That the alleged (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 10 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed requirement of the Petitioner is malafide and not genuine. It is a mere desire which is an outcome of whim. It is rather a crude ploy to get the premises vacated by hook or crook. That the Petitioner is instigated by extraneous considerations and is trying to recover the possession from the respondent and all other tenants/occupants with a view to earn money by reconstruction and sale of the property in question. The petitioner is in occupation of reasonable suitable and sufficient alternative accommodation. In reply on merits, all the other averments of eviction petition are denied with the prayer to dismiss the eviction petition.
REPLICATION :-
10. In pursuance of WS of the respondent, the petitioners filed the replication in which the averments of WS are denied and averments of the eviction petition are reiterated.
EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER:-
11. To prove his case, the petitioner has examined Sh.
Amanuddhin as PW1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and he relied upon the documents including, copy of the power of attorney is exhibited as Ex.PW1/X(OSR), original site plan of the suit property Ex. PW1/1, original site plan of property no. 3209 as Ex. PW1/2, copy of the aadhar card of the petitioner as (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 11 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed Ex.PW1/3 (OSR), copy of the ration card of the petitioner is marked as Mark A, copy of the aadhar card of son of the petitioner is marked as Mark-B, copy of Aadhar card of daughter of the petitioner is marked as Mark C, Death certificate of Amtul Waheeb, mother of the petitioner is exhibited as Ex.PW1/7, copy of ration card of brother of the petitioner is marked Mark D. Certified copy of the judgment dated 30.07.1976, application and proceedings were collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/11(Colly)(13 pages). The witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of the respondent. Thereafter, PE was closed vide separate statement of counsel for petitioner dated 31.01.2025.
THE RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:-
12. On the other hand, respondent Viqar Ahmed examined himself as RW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A and relied upon several documents including permission in writing to Sh.
Abdul Rauf in the year 1970 in original exhibited as RW1/1, rent receipts issued by Abdul Rauf as Ex. RW1/2 and Ex.RW1/3, Translation from Urdu to English of the permission in writing is exhibited as Ex. RW1/4 and translation of the rent receipt no.19 and 20 from Urdu to English as Ex. RW1/5 (Colly), the copy of the family settlement given to the respondent by the builder exhibited as Ex. RW1/6, copy to copy of agreement filed in the Hon'ble High Court by another tenant mentioned in the affidavit (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 12 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed as Ex. RW1/7. The witness was duly cross examined on behalf of the petitioner. Thereafter, respondent evidence was closed by statement of respondent dated 09.06.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
13. Final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for both the parties have been heard at length. File has been carefully and minutely perused and the findings with reasons thereof are given in the succeeding paragraphs.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS:-
14. At the outset, it is expedient to reproduce Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under-
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding 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 court or any 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 recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: "That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 13 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
15. As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii)That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv)Landlord/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
16. Let us now discuss the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act one by one as applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
I. (a) OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES :-
16.1 In regard to ownership of the petitioner in the subject premises, it has been argued by Ld counsel for petitioner that the property in question was owned by predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely late Haji Abdul Shaqoor and by way of final decree passed in partition suit by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the mother of the petitioner Mst Amtul Habib, daughter of late (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 14 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed Haji Abdul Shaqoor alongwith her sisters namely Mst Jannat Ul Firdos and Mst Khurshid Begum became co-owner of all the immovable properties owned by late Haji Abdul Shaqoor including the property in question bearing no. 3240-3241, Gali Farhatullah, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the document Ex. PW1/11, which is the certified copy of the court record including the application filed by both the parties seeking final decree of partition by needs and bounds and the certified copy of order dated 30.07.1976 and attention is drawn specifically to para 6 of the said certified copy of the application. It is argued that the said judgment is not in question on behalf of the respondent in any manner and again the said document is proved as being certified copy of the court record. It is further submitted that after death of the mother of the petitioner namely Mst Amtul Waheed, the petitioner became the joint owner of property in question by way of succession. That death of the mother of the petitioner is not disputed in any manner and moreover same is proved by the document Ex.
PW1/7 which is the copy of death certificate of Mst Amtul Waheed.
16.2 On the other hand, the counsel for respondent has not raised any contention with respect to the ownership of the mother of the petitioner in the property in question, however has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 15 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed parties.
16.3 Heard. It is observed that in the eviction petition by the landlord against the tenant, the landlord is not required to prove the absolute title in the tenanted premises. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162 a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the prespent case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
16.4 Again, in the case titled as Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti Teckchandani 153(2008)DLT 247 the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia observed as under:-
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 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 16 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed 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 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.
16.5 Again in the case titled as "Plastic Chemicals Company Vs Ashit Chadha & Ors. 114 (2004) DLT 408, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi inter-alia observed as under:-
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 17 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed "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, as also in Sheela and others vs. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, . 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."
16.6 In view of this legal position, let me advert to the question of ownership to the petitioner in the present case. As reflected from the document Ex. PW1/11, which has been duly proved as being the certified copy of the court record, in terms of Section 76 & 77 of Indian Evidence Act (75 & 76 BSA), it is clearly reflected that mother of the petitioner Mst Amtul alongwith her sisters became the joint owner of property in question alongwith some other properties. Again from the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 18 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed document Ex. PW1/7, genuineness of which is not disputed on behalf of respondent, it is further established that mother of the petitioner Mst Amtul W/o late Firozuddin had already expired on 13.01.2012 and again from the document Ex. PW1/3 ( OSR), which the copy of Aadhar card of the petitioner, it is further reflected that he is son of Firozuddin. Accordingly, I am duly satisfied that petitioner has proved to the standard of preponderance of probabilities that his mother was the joint owner of property in question and after her death he has become the joint owner of the property in question. 16.7 Now law is further very well settled that any co-owner can file an eviction petition against the tenant and all the co-owners are not required to be impleaded as petitioners. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of M/s Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRs Smt. Savitri Agarwalla & Ors., AIR 2004 1321. Accordingly, the locus of the petitioner to file the present eviction petition being the joint owner of property in question also cannot be challenged by the respondent. 16.8 It is further observed that in WS filed by the respondent, it has been categorically admitted by the respondent that portion of property in question at the first floor was let out by Abdul Rauf S/o Abdul Shaqoor to the grandfather of respondent in the year 1970. Now as reflected from the document Ex.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 19 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed PW1/11 itself Abdul Rauf is also son of late Haji Abdul Shakoor and the brother of mother of the petitioner Mst Amtul Habib and the property was partitioned among all the legal heirs of late Haji Abdul Shakoor by way of partition decree. Accordingly, in any eventuality, Mr Abdul Rauf was the predecessor in interest of the petitioner herein with respect to joint ownership in the property in question. Now again it is no longer res Integra that a respondent who has admitted the tenancy of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, cannot challenged the ownership of the petitioner in the property in question. In this regard refrance can be made to the provision of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act (122 BSA) and again position has been further established by Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in catena of judgments including the case titled as Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 and again Bharat Bhushan (Supra) .
16.9 Accordingly, it is concluded that petitioner has successfully proved his ownership in the property in question as required for the purpose of present eviction petition.
I (B) RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT:-
17. On the question of relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties, counsel for petitioner has (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 20 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed submitted that in the WS filed by the respondent, the tenancy of predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely Abdul Rauf has been duly admitted by the respondent. That once the succession of ownership of the petitioner has been established, the petitioner automatically became the landlord of the property in question. 17.1 On the other hand, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that in the WS, the respondent has specifically denied any relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties in the present petition and rather the occupation of the predecessor in interest of the respondent was of unauthorized occupant. It is submitted that in the document Ex. PW1/11 itself, no reference is made to the tenancy of the present respondent and rather it has been mentioned in the said document itself in para no. 9 that some persons were unlawfully inducted by Sh. Abdul Rauf. Again reference is also made to para no. 3 and 4 of the replication, wherein also it has been again mentioned that Abdul Rauf had illegally let out the premises in question to the father of the respondent. It is further argued that as mentioned in the WS, the grandfather of the respondent was let out only the first floor of property in question by Abdul Rauf and construction of the second floor consisting of one room and verandah was raised after having written permission from Mr Abdul Rauf and therefore said occupation of the respondent was not part of the tenanted premises and therefore, present eviction petition is not (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 21 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed maintainable in any manner qua the second floor of the property in question. In this regard, reference is made to the document Ex. RW1/1 read with Ex.RW1/4.
17.2 Heard. It is observed that as discussed above, the respondent himself has duly admitted in para no. 3 of the preliminary objections of the WS that first floor of property in question comprising one room, verandah and latrine -bathroom was let out by Abdul Rauf to the grandfather of the respondent namely Mohd Yusuf. Respondent has further stated that same was let out in the year 1970 @ of Rs. 10/- per month. Accordingly, the respondent cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time by taking the plea that the occupation of the respondent or his predecessor in interest was of unauthorized occupant. Even otherwise the plea of unauthorized occupancy has nowhere made in the entire WS and it was only for the first time during the arguments that counsel for respondent had taken the said plea. Regarding the averments of the document Ex. PW1/11 that "following persons were unlawfully inducted by Abdul Rauf", it is observed that on the reading of the said statement, it is clearly reflected that the intention behind the said averment was only to the effect that Mr Abul Rauf had no right to induct any person as a tenant in the properties in question, as mentioned in para no. 9 of the document Ex PW1/11. Same has been further clarified by the petitioner in the replication itself and said (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 22 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed conclusion is further fortified by the fact that respondent himself has admitted that his grandfather was inducted as a tenant by Mr Abul Rauf. Accordingly, said plea taken on behalf of the respondent is again not tenable and does not support the case of respondent in any manner. Consequently there is no other reason to not to conclude that as the predecessor in interest of the respondent was the tenant of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, the respondent also became the tenant of the petitioner. It is settled preposition of law that once a tenant is always a tenant.
17.3 Going one step further, it is observed that once it has been held that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was the co- owner of property in question, no further question remains regarding the question of tenancy of the respondent. It is observed that in the judgment of Mr. Zulfiquar Ali Khan (Supra), it has been observed in this regard as follows :-
" There is hardly a distinction between suit for eviction and suit for recovery of possession. To say that an owner who seeks recovery of possession by filing a suit against a tenant has to prove his title first even if he has let out the premises by way of lease deed is highly far fetched proposition. A landlord has also a right to seek eviction of a tenant under the provision of Rent Act but it does not mean that an owner is precludes from seeking eviction if he has not let out the premises.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 23 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed Owner always include landlord while the converse may not be true. Ownership is required to be proved only in those cases where there is a dispute as to the title of land and not in a case between the landlord and the tenant as the eviction proceedings cannot be allowed to be converted into suit for title nor for that purpose suit for recovery of possession can be allowed to be converted into a title suit.........".
17.4 Accordingly, it can safely concluded that once the ownership of petitioner is duly established in the property in question, petitioner himself was the only person to be the landlord of the property in question.
17.5 Again regarding the plea of tenancy taken on behalf of respondent only with respect to the first floor of the property in question, it is to observe that the respondent has completely failed to prove the execution of document Ex. RW1/1. As per the case of the respondent, this is the document vide which permission was granted by Sh. Abdul Rauf to the grandfather of the respondent to raise construction of the second floor, however said document has been completely denied on behalf of the petitioner and on the other hand, the respondent has failed to lead any evidence to prove the execution of the said document, which has been completely denied by the petitioner. Accordingly, the said plea raised on behalf of the respondent again remains (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 24 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed unsupported by any piece of document.
17.6 It is further observed that going one step further, even if it is presumed for sake of arguments that the respondent or his predecessor in interest had raised illegal construction of the second floor in the property in question without the permission of the landlord, the respondent is still liable to vacate the same alongwith the tenanted premises on the first floor of property in question. In this regard, law is very well settled that the tenant have no tenancy right in unauthorized construction. In this regard, reliance can be duly placed upon the judgment of Hiro Devi (Supra) and Suman Sodhi (Supra). Accordingly, it is further concluded that the respondent is certainly liable to be evicted from the second floor of the property in question alongwith the tenanted premises at the first floor of the said property, as alleged by the respondent.
17.7 In view of aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties has been duly proved by the petitioner.
II. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT OF THE PETITIONER
18. Regarding the bonafide requirement of the demised premises by the petitioner, it has been argued by Ld. counsel for petitioner that petitioner has stated his bonafide requirement for tenanted premises in the para no. 18 (d) to (f) of the eviction (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 25 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed petition. That the family of the petitioner consisted of himself, his wife and two children and that unfortunately during the pendency of the eviction petition, the daughter of petitioner had passed away and therefore , now the petitioner required the tenanted premises for comfortable living of himself, his wife and his son who is about 30-35 years old and unmarried, as the current residence of the petitioner is not sufficient for comfortable living. That as reflected from the site plan Ex. PW1/2, the petitioner is residing at another property bearing no. 3209, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi, and is in possession of only two room including one dalan (verandah) and one room and said space is not sufficient for comfortable living for the petitioner and accordingly the tenanted premises will satisfy the said bonafide requirement of the petitioner. That there is not separate bedroom for each family member and again no worship room or dining room or guest room is available with the petitioner. That petitioner wants to settle his son namely Mohd Afas in the tenanted premised, if vacated so as to get higher chances of his marriage which has been not solemnized due to shortage of accommodation. It is further submitted that respondent has failed to deny the said requirement of the petitioner in specific terms in his WS and again nothing has been extracted in the cross examination of PW1 in this regard to impeach the case of the petitioner. 18.1 On the other hand, ld counsel for respondent has (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 26 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed advanced several fold arguments in this regard. Firstly it is submitted that the bonafide requirement of the petitioner has not been proved as petitioner never stepped into the witness box and rather his attorney was examined as PW1, who could not have deposed the facts in the knowledge of the petitioner. Secondly it is argued that the petitioner and other co-owners of the property in question are intended to demolish the property in question as well as the other properties owned by them and to raise new construction in collaboration with builder so as to sell the flats and in this regard, reference is made to the document Ex.RW1/6 and Ex. RW1/7, which are the agreements executed among the petitioners and other co-owners and in this regard reference is also made to the cross examination of PW1, who has admitted the photograph of his father on the said document. 18.2 In rebuttal, it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that PW1 namely Amanuddin,who is the nephew of the petitioner, himself was the co-owner of property in question and accordingly, he has deposed the facts in his knowledge and in any eventuality his testimony can be appreciated for his own knowledge itself. In this regard, reference is also made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind Bank Ltd AIR 2005 SC 439. Again it is submitted that document Ex. RW1/6 is an unsigned document and therefore, has no sanctity and again the document Ex. RW1/7 has been categorically denied by the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 27 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed petitioner in the replication as well as in the cross examination of PW1. Again the respondent has failed to prove the execution of said document in any manner and therefore, same cannot be read in evidence.
18.3 Heard. It is observed that as discussed above, the property in question is jointly owned by the petitioner alongwith other legal heirs of her late mother. Now as reflected from the evidence affidavit of PW1, witness namely Amanudeen is the real nephew of the petitioner and therefore, he is also the joint owner of the property in question and consequently, his testimony is also in the capacity of being the joint owner of property in question. It is observed that as pressed by counsel for respondent, it is not the legal position that in every case, the petitioner is under mandate to step into the witness box. The purpose of the testimony of the witness examined on behalf of petitioner is only to depose the facts on oath, as previously stated in the eviction petition itself. Now, the witness PW1 has deposed the facts in his affidavit as being the attorney of the petitioner. Said document of attorney i.e. GPA has been placed on record as Ex.PW1/X and genuineness of the said document has not been disputed on behalf of respondent in any manner and even no question has been asked on behalf of respondent with respect to the execution of said document from PW1. Again as reflected from the affidavit of PW1, there is no such fact deposed by him in his affidavit, which could be said to (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 28 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed be in the personal knowledge of the petitioner only. Again being the real nephew and also being the resident of the same property, where the petitioner is residing, it can be genuinely presumed that he is also aware of the requirements of residence by the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to be convinced by the contention of Ld. Counsel for respondent in this regard.
18.4 Regarding the document Ex.RW1/6 and Ex.RW1/7, as referred by Ld Counsel for respondent, it is to observe that as rightly pointed out by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, the document Ex.RW1/6 cannot be taken into consideration as being unsigned by any person. Again, the document Ex.RW1/7 has not been proved on behalf of respondent in any manner. Firstly, the said document has been proved as being copy to copy from the Court record and therefore not being a certified copy, it is not admissible in law. Even otherwise, the certified copy of "public document" is proved as per Sections 76 & 77 of the Indian Evidence Act (75 & 76 BSA) and the document in question is not a public document. Again, execution of said document has been specifically denied on behalf of the petitioner. Even in the cross - examination of PW1, nothing has been extracted to support the case of respondent in this regard. Mere admission of the photograph on the said document does not prove the document itself. Accordingly, it is concluded that the document Ex.RW1/7 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 29 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed has remained not proved and consequently, same cannot be read in evidence in any manner.
18.5 In view of aforesaid discussion, the arguments raised by Ld. Counsel for respondent with respect to the bonafide requirement of the petitioner of the tenanted premises stand negated. Now, coming to the case of petitioner, it is to observe that the law is very well settled that the requirement of the landlord has to be presumed by the court as being bonafide. In this regard, reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Abid-Ur-Islam (Supra), wherein it was observed as follows :-
".........when a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that requirement of the landlord is bonafide......".
18.6 Again in case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 30 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff- landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
18.7 In view of this legal position, the requirement of the petitioner has to be presumed as being bonafide by the present Court. It can be further observed that as per the case of the petitioner, he alongwith his family including his wife and unmarried son are residing in the portion of two small rooms. Same can be further seen from the site plan Ex.PW1/2. Said fact has not been disputed on behalf of respondent and nothing has been extracted in the cross-examination of PW1 to controvert the same. Again as rightly mentioned in the eviction petition, the guests of the petitioners who would be visiting them during the festive occasion or as and when they feel like to meet, they would need separate rooms for purpose of their stay. Again having drawing room, dining room and worship room cannot be called a mere desire of the petitioner and with the growing family it is certainly the matter of need or requirement. As mentioned in the eviction petition, the son of the petitioner was 24 years old at the time of filing of eviction petition in the year 2016 and accordingly he should be approx 33 years old as on date and certainly after marriage, the son of the petitioner would need separate space for comfortable living. Again, there is no reason to disbelieve the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 31 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed version of the petitioner that the marriage of the son of the petitioner would have been delayed for not having sufficient accommodation. It is further observed that the respondent has failed to file any site plan to show that the site plan filed by the petitioner i.e. Ex. PW1/1 is not correct and therefore, site plan Ex. PW1/1 is to be certainly relied upon. Now as seen from the said site plan, the respondent is in possession of one hall, latrine, bathroom and common verandha on the first floor and one room and open space on the second floor of the property in question and therefore in the given circumstances, I am duly satisfied that the requirement of the petitioner for residence of his son can be duly fulfilled if the tenanted premises in possession of the respondent are vacated.
18.8 Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that petitioner has successfully establish the bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises.
ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER
19. In this regard, it has been argued by counsel for respondent that as admitted in the cross-examination of PW1, the petitioner is the co-owner of several other properties and again brother of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 32 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed the petitioner has filed several eviction petition against the other tenants and therefore, the petitioner has alternate accommodation available to meet his requirement. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld Counsel for petitioner that admittedly the petitioner is the co-owner of certain other properties, however, none of those are in occupation of the petitioner and rather they are occupied by other tenants. Again, the eviction petition filed by the brother of the petitioner if any have no concerned with the present petitioner.
19.1 Heard. In this regard, it is observed that in the WS or in the entire evidence affidavit of the respondent, nothing has been specified that which alternate accommodation was "available" with the petitioner which could be used by the petitioner to meet the requirement of residence of his son. Even otherwise, it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord which premises should he get vacated and which premises should be used in what manner. In this regard reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT 652 it was observed that:-
"24. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 33 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement".
19.2 Accordingly, it is further established that the petitioner has no other suitable alternate accommodation to fulfill the bonafide requirement for residence of his son.
CONCLUSION
20. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, it is concluded that petitioner has been able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises i.e. one hall, latrine-cum-bathroom, common veranda on the first floor and one room and open space on the second floor of portion of Property No. 3241, Gali Farhat- Ullah, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan, Ex. PW1/1. However, the petitioner would not be (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 34 of 35 RC ARC No. 80554/16 Mustajbuddin Vs. Viqar Ahmed entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is also burdened with a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner withiin six months from today. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court VIVEK Digitally signed on 13.08.2025.
by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.08.13 12:43:27 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) ARC-02 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 13.08.2025 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.08.2025 Page no. 35 of 35