Delhi High Court - Orders
Lajwanti vs Anjana on 20 May, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~49
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 392/2025
LAJWANTI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raushan Kumar, Adv. (through
VC).
versus
ANJANA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Bhawna Chopra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
ORDER
% 20.05.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL. 34669/2026 (exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application is disposed of. CM APPL. 34657/2026 (stay)
3. The present application under Section 151 of the CPC filed on behalf of the petitioner/applicant seeks the following prayers:-
"a) Pass an ex-parte ad-interim order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 04.05.2026 passed by the Court of Ms. Charu Asiwal, Ld. ACJ/CCI/ARC/Shahdara, KKD Courts, Delhi in Execution Petition No. EX 81/2026;
b) Pass an order staying the execution of the Warrants of Pos execution proceedings in the aforementioned Execution Petition n scheduled for 28.05.2026, and stay all further during the pendency of the present Revision Petition; and
c) Pass any other or further order(s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, In the interest of justice."
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43
4. With the consent of the parties, the captioned petition is taken up for hearing.
5. By virtue of the captioned petition filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short, 'DRCA'), the petitioner/tenant seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in RC ARC 116/2020 filed by the respondent/landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA whereby, application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the present petitioner was dismissed and an eviction order was passed against the petitioner in respect of demised premises, i.e., one room at ground floor forming part of property bearing No.189, Gajju Katra, Sarai Mohalla, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
6. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, the learned Predecessor Bench of this Court, after noting the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner, had observed as under: -
"12. In support of the impugned order, learned counsel for the landlady submits that the tenant herein is trying to blow hot and cold, as on the one hand, the tenant is relying upon the alleged Agreement to Sell executed inter se herself and late father of the landlady, whereas, on the other hand she is also disputing the ownership rights of the landlady herein.
13. Prima facie, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that since the Agreement to Sell is not sufficient for the tenant to claim ownership qua the subject premises, as also since it is an admitted position that the tenant was paying the rent to the late father of the landlady till the year 2000, and again till the year 2009, as recorded in the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2019 in the above suit filed by the tenant, there can be no dispute about the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties. As such, what was given to This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43 the tenant was only a permissive possession with certain conditions.
14. In any event, the issue qua the very same subject premises inter se the tenant and the landlady has already been decided in the aforeasaid judgment and decree dated 25.09.2019, wherein the issue of "Whether the plaintiff is a tenant in the suit property? (OPD)"
was decided against her, and it was held that she was occupying the subject premises as a tenant, since she was unable to prove her title.
15. In light thereof, this Court is agreeable with the findings rendered by the learned ARC, especially in paragraph nos.17, 19.2 to 19.4 of the impugned order, which has categorically answered all the submissions made by learned counsel for the tenant before this Court.
16. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the tenant seeks, and is granted, some time to seek instructions qua the feasible time period within which the tenant would vacate the subject premises and handover possession thereof to the landlady, along with the terms of payment qua user and occupation charges for the concerned period."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he wishes to re-argue the present petition on merits.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant has submitted that the latter disputes the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, as the petitioner has been residing in the demised premises for the last fifty years, and that there was an alleged transaction inter se the petitioner and Uday Ram, late father of the respondent-landlady way back in year 1968, under 'pugari' system, for which a receipt of Rs.15,000/- was allegedly issued, though an agreement to sell dated 19.02.1978 in pursuance thereof was executed subsequently, only in the year 1978. On the basis of the said agreement to sell, it is contended that the petitioner-tenant is the owner of the subject premises. It is further submitted that, even otherwise, the petitioner has become owner of the demised premises by adverse possession.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43
9. It is further submitted that thereafter, the petitioner herein instituted a civil suit bearing no.7424/2016 entitled as, "Lajwanti v. Usha Devi" for permanent and mandatory injunction which was subsequently decided on 25.09.2019 in favour of the petitioner.
10. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn attention of this Court towards the following portion of the judgment dated 25.09.2019 passed in civil suit No.7424/2016 instituted by the petitioner against the respondent in respect of the same demised premises: -
"23. The plaintiff has also sought decree of permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from demolishing the suit property and from dispossessing her forcibly from it. In the above-noted discussion, it has already been held that admittedly plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as tenant, therefore, the defendants cannot demolish the property or take forcible possession thereof without following due process of law.
24. Therefore, issue no. 1 is partly decided in favour of plaintiff and issue no. 3 is decided in favour of defendants.
RELIEF
25. In view of the findings given on aforementioned issues no. 1 & 3, suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed to the extent that decree of permanent injunction is passed against the defendants and they are restrained from forcibly demolishing the suit property or from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit property i.e. one room in property no. 189, Gajju Katra, Sarai Mohalla, Shahdara, Delhi, without following due process of law. The prayer qua permanent injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property is dismissed."
11. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that the eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord was not maintainable.
12. Learned ARC in the impugned order dated 20.08.2025, while dealing This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43 with the grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner in application seeking leave to defend, has observed as under: -
"17. The nub of the issue in the enure leave to defend application is the allegation that respondent has become the owner of the tenanted premises by virtue of payment of pugri of Rs.15,000/- to the original landlord Sh. Uday Ram @Kaluta and on payment of pugri, the original landlord executed compromise documents in favour of the respondent. Further, in addition to the aforesaid grounds, respondent also claims ownership on the basis of adverse possession. Further, respondent also claims that in a parallel civil proceedings in CS No. 7424/2016 titled as Lajwanti Vs. Smt. Usha Devi & Ors. Petitioner herein has admitted during her cross examination that respondent herein is the owner of the property.
**** **** **** 19.1 First and foremost the assertion of the respondent that she somehow acquired ownership title over the tenanted premises by way of payment of pugri is found to be legally unacceptable. The practice of pugri or payment thereof has been termed as illegal by law itself. A tenancy under the DRC Act enjoys protection under the Act, however, it is also strictly bound by the statute. Therefore, it is undisputed that induction of respondent was in the tenanted premises was in the capacity of a tenant even if it was initiated on a pugri. Therefore, respondent was required to prove that she acquired a better and stronger title against the legal heir of Sh. Uday Ram @ Kaluta, however, except for filing copy of an agreement to sell nothing further has been done.
19.2 Additionally, it is also settled position of law that an agreement to sell in itself is incapable of transferring any title in favour of a buyer as title can only be transferred by way of registered instruments. Nowhere in the leave to defend has the respondent pleaded that any suit between her and the father of the petitioner for perfecting her title in the tenanted premises was ever preferred. Furthermore, though the plea of part performance U/s 53 A of Transfer of Property Act has not been taken by the respondent, however, to cover all basis the court deems it fit to address the same. In the present case since respondent has relied on an agreement to sell executed between the original owner it also This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43 needs to be assessed if said agreement to sell is capable of protecting the possessory rights of the respondent. It is seen that the said agreement to sell postulates the condition of execution of the sale deed qua the tenanted premises, however, nowhere in the leave to defend or anywhere else has the respondent pleaded that despite being in the continuous possession of the property she has done some act in furtherance of the contract, therefore, it does not even appear that the possession of the respondent is protected under Transfer of Property Act. Reliance is placed on judgment title Nathu Lal Vs. Phool Chand 1970 AIR546 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 16.10.1969 Therefore, merely filing an agreement to sell will not stand at a better footing as against the case established by the petitioner.
19.3 Furthermore, it is also to be noted that in addition to agreement to sell dated 19.02.1978, the respondent also relies on a receipt of a same date of Rs.15000/- towards full and final consideration for the sale of tenanted premises, however, as per the version presented in leave to defend the amount of Rs.15,000/- was paid in the year 1968 as pugari. Therefore, these two versions as to payment of consideration do not coincide. Even otherwise, if it is assumed that the pugari was paid in the year 1968 as asserted in the leave to defend the legal position of the respondent in the suit premises would only remain as a tenant and will not in any manner transcend to the position of an owner. 19.4 Further, by form of corroboration petitioner has filed a judgment titled Lajwanti Vs. Usha Devi & Ors bearing case No. 7424/2016 decided on 25.09.2019. The said suit was preferred by the respondent herein against all the legal heirs of Sh Uday Ram seeking relief of injunction pertaining to the tenanted premises. It is to be noted that petitioner herein was defendant No 9 in the said proceedings. In the said suit while deciding Issue No. 1 i.e., "whether the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the suit property? (OPP)" and 3"Whether the plaintiff is a tenant in the suit property?(OPD)", Ld. Court had given a finding to the effect that respondent herein occupied the tenanted premises as a tenant and she was unable to prove her title to the property. Further, the Ld. Court also held that petitioner herein is the true owner of the property by way of Sale Deed of Sh. Uday Ram and a subsequent relinquishment deed by her siblings in her favour. In the said judgment as well Ld. Court refused to accept the version of the respondent herein as the owner of the tenanted premises and held that she is merely a tenant as against the true owner i.e. This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43 petitioner herein. In addition, respondent has also relied on the same civil suit specifically cross examination of petitioner where it is alleged that she admitted the ownership of the respondent, however, copy of said examination has not been made available to believe the assertion of respondent. Be that as it may, as observed above mere filing of an Agreement to Sell is not a concrete proof of ownership without the legally required registered instruments.
19.5 The next defence taken by the respondent is creation of independent right on the grounds of adverse possession. This ground also does inspire any confidence with the court as on one hand respondent asserts that she has become owner by execution of title documents in her favour on payment of pugri and on the other hand she asserts that she has attained the status of a trespassers by emphasing that she has the defence of adverse possession in her favour. Further, if this plea is taken to be true its necessary consequence is admission of ownership of the petitioner as adverse possession is not claimed against the entire world but only against a specific person i.e. the known owner of the property. In addition, tenant cannot claim adverse possession against the landlord since their possession is permissive in nature. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled Brij Narayan Shukla (D) through LRs Vs. Sudesh Kumar Suresh Kumar (D) through LRS & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 17that;
"The defendant respondent were tenants and therefore their possession was permissive as against then landlord. There was no question of them claiming any adverse possession from 1944"
20.In view of the same therefore, this Court finds favor with the assertions of the petitioner, that her title over the tenanted premises is better than the respondent by virtue of a Sale deed and relinquishment deed, therefore, it stands established that petitioner is the land lady/owner of the tenanted premises by exhibiting better title against the respondent. It also stands establish that respondent is occupying the tenanted premises in the capacity of a tenant since her first induction in the property by Sh. Uday Ram @Kaluta."
(emphasis supplied)
13. It is pertinent to note that the suit bearing No.7424/2016 was preferred This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43 by the petitioner-plaintiff in her capacity as an owner of the suit property (demised premises). In the aforesaid suit, it has been held that the petitioner herein (plaintiff) had failed to prove to the preponderance of probability that she is the owner of the suit property (demised premises), and on the other hand defendant No.9 (respondent-landlady) has proved her title. Learned ASCJ had further noted that admittedly the petitioner was in possession of the suit property as tenant, and therefore, the defendants therein including respondent herein (defendant No.9) cannot demolish the suit property or take forcible possession thereof without following due process of law. The subject eviction petition was filed by the respondent on 25.08.2020, i.e., after passing of the aforesaid judgment in the civil suit instituted by the petitioner. Thus, the respondent had initiated eviction proceedings in accordance with law. The relevant findings of learned ASCJ in the judgment dated 25.09.2019 passed in the aforesaid civil suit are as under: -
"17. The initial burden to prove her case rested on the plaintiff. The averment of ownership of the suit property is necessary to be adjudicated upon for deciding the prayer for injunction for restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property. The case of plaintiff is that the original owner / landlord late Sh. Uday Ram had taken Rs. 15,000/as 'pagdi' and subsequently executed title documents in favour of plaintiff. However, the plaintiff has not filed any document to show that she is the owner of one room i.e. suit property.
18. The plaintiff has only tendered a photocopy of agreement to sell purportedly to have been executed in her favour. However, she has not proved the same. The said document i.e. Mark PW1/ D1 was put to the defendant no. 9 in her cross-examination and she did not admit that the said document was bearing signatures of her father. Therefore, the said agreement to sell was not proved as per law.
19. It is settled proposition of law that title of a property can be transfer This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43 either by purchase, gift, exchange or adverse possession as provided in provisions of Transfer of Property Act. The said transaction has to be executed by way of registered deed as per section 17 of The Registration Act. Further, in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 656, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "Immovable property can be transferred only by deed of conveyance duly stamped and registered as required by law." Therefore, even otherwise, the plaintiff could not have become owner by virtue of the afore-mentioned document Mark PW-1/D1.
20. Admittedly, the possession of plaintiff was that of tenant, therefore, in absence of proof of ownership in her favour, her possession is deemed to be that of a tenant.
*** *** ***
22. Since the plaintiff has failed to prove to the preponderance of probability that she is the owner of suit property and on the other hand defendant no. 9 has proved her title, therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek injunction against the true owner for restraining her from alienating the suit property in any manner."
14. In view of above, there is no infirmity with the findings of the learned ARC that requires interference under proviso to Section 25B of the DRCA. The powers of this Court under Section 25-B(8) of the Act are not as wide as those of Appellate Court, and in case, it is found that the impugned orders are according to law and do not suffer from any jurisdictional error, this Court must refrain from interfering with the same. The power under this provision is limited and supervisory in nature. Only when, it is evident that the Rent Controller has committed grave illegality or came to a conclusion which was not possible, based on the material produced, should this Court interfere in the order passed by the Rent Controller. In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119: AIR 1999 SC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed and held as under: -
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43 "8. ...... The satisfaction of the High Court when perusing the records of the case must be confined to the limited sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is "according to the law." In other works, the High Court shall scrutinize the records to ascertain whether any illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in passing the order under Section 25B. It is not permissible for the High Court in that exercise to come to a different fact finding unless the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller on the facts is so unreasonable that no Rent Controller should have reached such a finding on the materials available."
15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30 : (2022) 3 SCC (Civ) 287 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 419, with respect to scope of revision under DRCA, had observed and held as under: -
"Scope of revision
22. We are, in fact, more concerned with the scope and ambit of the proviso to Section 25-B(8). The proviso creates a distinct and unequivocal embargo by not providing an appeal against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller over an application filed under sub-section (5). The intendment of the legislature is very clear, which is to remove the appellate remedy and thereafter, a further second appeal. It is a clear omission that is done by the legislature consciously through a covenant removing the right of two stages of appeals.
23. The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance. Thus, the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted. The scope of interference by the High Court is very restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which would only mean that in the absence of any adjudication per se, the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43 High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision. There is no need for holding a roving inquiry in such matters which would otherwise amount to converting the power of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, an act, totally forbidden by the legislature."
16. The jurisdiction of the present petition is confined to examining whether the impugned order suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Revisional Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view, unless the impugned order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or vitiated by material impropriety. In the absence of such infirmities, there remains narrow scope for interference with the impugned order. The findings of the learned ARC on the basis of the documents on record is a possible interpretation and is reasonable. This Court, therefore, does not find it appropriate to substitute the reasoned findings of the learned ARC with any other possible opinion.
17. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference with the impugned order dated 20.08.2025 passed by learned ACJ-cum-ARC, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in RC ARC 116/2020 is called for, and the same is accordingly upheld.
18. The captioned petition is dismissed and disposed of.
19. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
20. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J MAY 20, 2026/sn/ns This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/05/2026 at 21:46:43