Delhi District Court
Malka Saeed vs Jeevan Lata Sharma Anr on 24 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA, SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, SHAHDARA
RC ARC 188/21
Case Registration no. DLSH03-001825-2021
MRS. MALKA SAEED
W/O SH. MOHD. SAEED KHAN
R/O 444, ANAJ MANDI,
BARA BAZAAR, SHAHDARA,
DELHI.
THROUGH HER ATTORNEY
SH. SAMEER KHAN.
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. MRS. JEEVAN LATA
W/O LATE SH. DEVKI NANDAN
2. MR. AMIT SHARMA
S/O LATE SH. DEVKI NANDAN
3. MR. MICKY SHARMA
S/O LATE SH. DEVKI NANDAN
R/O 439, ANAJ MANDI, BARA BAZAR
SHAHDRA, DELHI-32
ALSO AT
SHOP NO. 9, AMARPALI APARTMENT,
SECTOR-3, VAISHALI, GHAZIABAD (UP).
ALSO AT
119, GYAN KHAND-4, INDIRAPURAM,
GHAZIABAD (U.P)
RC ARC 188/21
Dated 24.11.2025
Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.1/28
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24
17:31:21 +0530
4. SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA
R/O 439, ANAJ MANDI, BARA BAZAR,
SHAHDRA, DELHI-32. ..Respondents
Application under Section 14 (1) (a) & (b) read with Section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, "DRC, Act") Date of Institution : 26.10.2021 Date of Reserving Judgment : 24.11.2025 Date of Decision : 24.11.2025 Decision : Allowed Judgment:-
1) Relief sought:- Eviction order in respect of one premises bearing no.
433, Anaj mandi, Bara Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi.
2) Facts of the case: - The facts, as given in the present application, are briefly stated as follows:-
a) The property in question (433, Anaaj mandi, Bara Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi herein referred as "Tenanted premises") shown in Red Colour in site plan. The petitioner had acquired the ownership rights in respect of the premises in dispute vide sale deed dated 09.06.1983. Sh. Sameer Khan is the attorney of the petitioner. The petitioner is the absolute owner/landlady of the premises in question. The rent was being collected by husband of the petitioner namely Mr. Mohd. Saeed khan, who was authorized by the petitioner, to collect the rent from the tenants. The premises in question was let out for commercial RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.2/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:31:27 +0530 purpose to Mr. Devki Nandan Sharma (Since deceased). After the death of the tenant the premises in question was occupied/used by the respondents/legal heirs of the tenant. The premises in question was occupied by the single tenant i.e., Mr. Devki Nandan Sharma (since deceased). The petitioner came to know that after the death of the said tenant, his legal heirs i.e., Mrs. Devki Nandan/Respondent no. 1 being the wife of the deceased & Respondent no. 2 and 3 namely Mr. Amit Sharma and Mr. Micky Sharma are sons of the said tenant. The said premises was being used/occupied by the respondents no. 1 to 3 later on the respondents have sub- let the premises in question, by parting with possession of the same without the consent/permission/knowledge of the petitioner. Presently, the premises in question are in possession of one Mr. Mahesh Chand Sharma/respondent no.
4. Electricity and water fittings were provided by the landlord to the tenant subject to payment of charges as per consumption to the concerned authorities on his own, excluding the agreed rent which was Rs. 1,400/- p.m. exclusive of electricity and other charges. However, the rent was to be enhanced by the tenant after every three years @10%. Last paid rent was Rs. 1,400/- p.m.
b) The tenancy was created for commercial purposes. The tenancy was created for 11 months. Thereafter, the tenant has failed to vacate the premises in question and also failed to enhance the rent. Moreover, the respondents have also caused substantial damage to the premises in question and the RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.3/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.11.24 17:31:33 +0530 respondent no. 1 to 3 have also neglected and failed to make the payment of arrears of rent. Thus, the respondents have violated the terms of tenancy as agreed upon. Mr. Devki Nandan stopped making the payment of rent w.e.f. January, 2015 onwards. The petitioner claims the arrears of rent for the last three years w.e.. Oct. 2018 which is legally recoverable rent @ Rs.1400/- per month. Lastly, the rent was paid by the said tenant, vide receipt dated 31.12.2014 for the period commencing from 01.01.2014 to 31.12.2014 @ Rs. 1400/- p.m.
c) The petitioner requested the respondents to vacate/handover the property in question but respondents failed to do the same.
Accordingly, the petitioner terminated the tenancy vide notice dated 16.03.2021 and said notice received back unserved and respondents failed to vacate the premises in question and also failed to tender/pay the arrears of rent. Thereafter, the petitioner sent the notice dated 30.03.2021 to the respondent no. 1 and 3 at the premises in question and the same were not received by the respondent no. 1 and 3.
2) Status of Defendant no.1 Devki nandan and Lrs of Devki Nandan :
Respondent Devki Nandan stated to be expired. The petitioner was not aware of the name of the wife of Sh. Devki Nandan, therefore, the petition was filed against the wife stating her name as Mrs. Devki Nandan. Ld. Counsel for petitioner moved an application for correcting the name of respondent no. 1 from (Mrs. Devki Nandan) to (Mrs. Jeevan Lata Sharma) who was wife of Sh. Devki Nandan and the same RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.4/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.11.24 17:31:39 +0530 was allowed on 21.09.2023. Despite service of summons, none has appeared on behalf of respondent no.1,2 and 3 and they were proceeded ex-pare vide order dated 04.08.2025 and 18.03.2024 respectively. Respondent no. 4 (Sh. Mahesh Chand Sharma) served with the summons and filed Written Statement on 28.01.2022.
3) Defence of respondent as per written statement filed by the respondent no. 4 :-
● That the petitioner is not the landlord of the premises in question. The landlord of the premises in question is Mohd. Saeed Khan. Petitioner is the wife of the landlord. The present eviction petition is liable to be dismissed because the same is not filed by the authorized person. The alleged attorney Mr. Sameer Khan is not the authorized person of the landlord Mohd. Saeed Khan. The alleged attorney has no knowledge whatsoever.
● The tenant of the premises in question was Sh. Hari Chand. Sh. Hari Chand left for his heavenly abode on 21st May, 1998 leaving behind following heirs:
(a) Sh. Sunil Sharma (Since deceased)
(b) Sh. Joginder Kumar Sharma (Since deceased)
(c) Sh. Devki Nandan Sharma (Since deceased)
(d) Sh. Naresh Babu Sharma
(e) Sh. Mahesh Chand Sharma
(f) Sh. Anil Sharma
(g) Sh. Narender Kumar Sharma
(h) Smt. Beena Devi (Since deceased) RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.5/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.11.24 17:31:44 +0530
(i) Smt. Nita Sharma
(j) Smt. Mithlesh Sharma Out of all the legal heirs, it is only the respondent no. 4 who has been occupying and running business from the premises in question. The rents are being paid to Sh. Mohd. Saeed Khan by the respondent no. 4 and Sh. Mohd. Saeed Khan in his old practice, issues receipts of the rent received in a gap of 5 to 10 years.
● Respondent no. 4/tenant who is in possession and in occupation of the premises in question making the payment of rentals to Sh. Mohd. Saeed Khan and has not been served with mandatory Legal Notice and such, the eviction is liable to be dismissed and the alleged Legal Notice dated 30.03.2021 has never been served to the respondent no. 4/tenant. Even though the same had not been addressed to the respondent no. 4/tenant.
● The alleged Eviction petition is also liable to be dismissed as respondent no. 1 and 3 were never in occupation of the premises in question nor have remained in any concern with the same. The impleading of the said respondent no. 1 and 3 is malafide.
● Respondent no. 4 has never been served with notice of demand in terms of Section 106 Transfer of Property Act or in terms of provisions of Delhi Rent Control who has been occupying the premises in question after the death of his father Sh. Hari Chand (i.e., deceased tenant to the premises in question) and further paying rentals to the Landlord Mohd. Saeed Khan. Though Mohd.
RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.6/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date: SHARMA 2025.11.24 17:31:50 +0530
Saeed Khan received the rentals from the respondent no. 4 in advance till 31st December, 2021 without issuing any receipt, the respondent no. 4, as a matter of precaution and reserving his rights to recover the same has deposited into the account of the Mohd. Saeed Khan, the rentals of last three years along with interest as prescribed under Delhi Rent Control Act. The alleged act of subletting the suit premises is false because respondent no. 4, after the demise of tenant Lt. Sh. Hari Chand continued the business left over by Late Sh. Hari Chand on the premises in question.
● It is submitted that the alleged attorney through son of the landlord has either no knowledge or malafidely concealing the fact from the Hon'ble Court by colluding with the other Legal Heirs of Lt. Sh. Devki Nandan Sharma one of the son of the tenant Lt. Sh. Hari Chand who have never remained in any concern with the premises in question. It is further submitted that respondents no. 1 to 3 have been malafidely impleaded in order to unsettle the respondent no. 4/tenant, who is peacefully occupying the premises in question and making payment of rentals to the landlord Mohd. Saeed Khan ever since the death of his father Sh. Hari Chand.
● It is submitted that Sh. Devki Nandan Sharma was also son of Lt. Sh. Hari Chand. At no point of time the legal heirs of Lt. Sh. Hari Chand consented the landlord Sh. Mohd. Saeed Khan to transfer/create the tenancy in favour of only one legal heir of Sh. Hari Chand leaving all other legal heirs. No tenancy was exclusively created in favour of Sh. Devki Nandan. Sh. Devki Nandan during his lifetime rarely used to come to the premises in RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.7/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:31:56 +0530 question that too to help the respondent no. 4. It is the respondent no. 4 who has been exclusively using, occupying the premises in question without any objection from any other legal heirs of Lt. Sh. Hari Chand. Devki Nandan Sharma was never a tenant in respect to the premises in question. There arose no occasion for the legal heirs of Sh. Devki Nandan to claim their tenancy on account of death of Sh. Devki Nandan Sharma.
● The alleged rent receipt is manipulated forged and fabricated document. The same neither bears the signatures of Sh. Devki Nandan Sharma nor the alleged respondent no. 1 and 3.
4) Evidence led on behalf of the petitioner : -In order to substantiate her case, the petitioner has examined one witness only i.e., PW1 Sh.
Sameer Khan (AR of the petitioner) PW1 tendered his examination-in- chief by way of affidavit Exhibit PW-1/A and has relied upon and placed on record the following documents:-
S.no. Documents Exhibit
1. Original Power of Attorney dated 09.09.2021 Ex. PW1/1 2. Site plan Ex. PW1/2
3. Copy of rent receipt no. 106 dated Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) 31.12.2014, whereby the rent was lastly paid by the defendant.
4. Copy of legal notice dated 16.03.2021 Ex. PW1/4
5. Three Original postal receipts dated Ex. PW1/5 to 16.03.2021. PW1/7
6. Returned Envelopes. Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/10 RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.8/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:32:01 +0530
7. Copy of legal notice dated 30.03.2021 Ex.PW1/11
8. Three original postal receipts dated Ex.PW1/12 to 31.03.2021 of the legal notice dated Ex.PW1/14 30.03.2021 PW-1 was cross-examined by Learned Counsel for the respondent. No other witness was examined by petitioner. Petitioner's evidence closed by way of separate statement.
5) On completion of petitioner's evidence, the respondent did not lead RE and RE was closed by way of separate statement of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent no. 4.
6) Final Arguments: - Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the respondent and written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner. Same is perused.
7) Issue: - Having heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and having thoroughly perused the entire record of the case, it is to be considered by this Court whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises/shop on the grounds under Section 14 (1) (a) & (b) of the DRC Act.
8) To succeed under Section 14(1)(a), the landlord must prove all the following four ingredients :
a) Existence of a landlord-tenant relationship: The petitioner must establish that the respondent is or was a tenant in respect RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.9/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:32:08 +0530 of the premises in question, and that the petitioner is the landlord entitled to receive rent.
b) Legally recoverable rent due from the tenant: It must be shown that the rent became due and remained unpaid for the period claimed. The rent must be legally recoverable -- i.e., not barred by limitation and not in dispute due to lack of fixation or agreed rate.
c) Service of notice of demand under Section 14(1)(a) proviso
(b): The landlord must have served a written notice of demand upon the tenant, calling upon him to pay the arrears of rent legally recoverable within two months of the receipt of such notice.
d) Failure of the tenant to pay or tender the arrears within two months of the notice: The tenant must have failed to comply with the notice by not paying or tendering the arrears within the statutory period of two months. If the tenant pays within that time, no eviction order can be passed on this ground.
9) To establish a valid ground for eviction under Section 14(1)(b), the landlord must prove the following ingredients:
a) Existence of a landlord-tenant relationship: The petitioner must prove that the respondent is a tenant in respect of the premises and that the petitioner is the landlord entitled to receive rent.RC ARC 188/21
Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.10/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:32:15 +0530
b) That the tenant has either: Sub-let the premises, or Assigned his tenancy rights, or Otherwise parted with possession of the whole or part of the premises. These are three distinct but overlapping concepts: Sub-letting: creation of a derivative tenancy where the tenant gives possession to another in lieu of monetary consideration (rent or benefit).Assignment: transfer of the tenant's entire interest in favour of another person.
Parting with possession: handing over possession, even temporarily, without the landlord's consent, where the tenant completely divests control of the premises.
c) Such act was done without the consent in writing of the landlord : Written consent of the landlord is mandatory. Oral consent or mere knowledge/acquiescence is not enough. The onus to prove written consent lies on the tenant once the landlord establishes possession of a third party.
d) The sub-tenant/third person is in exclusive possession of the premises or part thereof : The most crucial test of sub-letting or parting with possession is exclusive possession by another person. Exclusive possession means the tenant has given up control and the right to re-enter, even if rent is not paid directly to him.
Analysis and reasoning
10) Landlord tenant relationship:-
a) The respondent has disputed that the authorized person is not the landlord and not an authorized person of actual landlord Mrs. RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.11/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:32:21 +0530 Malka Saeed. No witness is examined to prove that the AR is not authorized by the actual landlord Malka Saeed. It is not disputed that the AR is the son of Malka Saeed. SPA Ex. PW1/1 bears the signatures of Malka Saeed and it is duly notarized. As per the SPA due to old age ailments, Malka Saeed is unable to move and persue the present case. Nothing is brought out on record to show that the SPA is executed without the consent of Malka Saeed. Signature of Malka Saeed is not disputed on Ex.PW1/1. Hence, respondent is not able to prove that AR, Sh. Sameer Khan, S/o Malka Saeed is not the authorized representative of the petitioner.
b) The petitioner is claiming Devki Nandan as the tenant qua the tenanted premises. Respondent no. 4 has objected the same on the ground that the father of the respondent no.4 Lt. Sh. Hari Chand was the original landlord in the tenanted premises.
After his death, all his Lrs became the tenant and Devki Nandan was never the only tenant on the tenanted premises. Further respondent no.4 is in possession of the tenanted premises and make the payment of the rent.
c) Hence, who is the tenant qua the tenanted premises is a consideration in the present case. As per respondent no.4 Lt Sh. Hari Chand was the original tenant. Petition is silent regarding the date of creation of tenancy and the fact that it was created in the name of Lt. Sh. Hari Chand. As per the petition, there is no written document for creation of the tenancy. During cross examination of PW1, he admitted that tenancy was created in the year 1980 in the name of Hari RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.12/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:32:26 +0530 Chand. Hence, it is proved that tenancy was created in the year 1980 in the name of Lt. Sh. Hari Chand.
d) It is not disputed that Devki Nandan and respondent no.4 are the sons of Lt. Sh. Hari Chand. Hence, as per Section 2 Clause L Clause 3 of DRC Act, 1958 tenant includes the Lrs of the tenant Hari Chand.
e) Tenancy can be proved through rent receipts, rent agreements, admissions, conduct, or any document showing payment/acceptance of rent.
f) It is the case of the petitioner that Devki Nandan is the sole tenant of the tenanted premises. PW1 denied execution of any written agreement between Malka Sayeed and Devki Nandan for creation of tenancy of eleven months. PW1 submitted that a written agreement was created between Devki nandan and Mohd. Sayeed Khan (husband of Malka Sayeed), however, it is not available now. PW1 also admitted that there is no previous litigation between the parties. Hence, there is no written tenancy agreement between Devki Nandan and Malka Sayeed to ascertain the sole tenancy of Devki Nandan qua the tenanted premises.
g) PW1 was questioned regarding production of any document to show that Devki Nandan was sole tenant of the tenanted premises. PW1 has produced a counter foil of rent receipt RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.13/28 Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.24 17:32:32 +0530 dated 01.07.2012 Ex.PW1/R1 to show that Devki Nandan was the sole tenant. Specific question was put to PW1 regarding production of any document to the effect that all the legal heirs of Lt. S h. Hari C hand by requested Malka Sayeed to admit Sh. Devki Nandan as a sole tenant of the tenanted premises. A suggestion was also put to the witness in this regard. PW1 denied the suggestion and stated that before the death of Mr. Hari Chand, he had requested Mr. Sayeed Khan to generate separate rent receipt for separate premises of his different sons.
h) To prove that Devki Nandan is the sole tenant on the tenanted premises the PW1 has produced two rent receipts i.e. Ex.
PW/R1 and PW1/3.
i) Ex.PW1/R1 is perused. This document is a counterfoil of the rent receipt dated 01.07.2012. It is not disputed that the rent receipts pertains to the tenanted premises. The tenant in the said rent receipt is mentioned as Devki Nandan. The amount of Rs. 1,000/- is received from Devki Nandan, S/o Lt. Sh. Hari Chand. This document bears the signatures of R4. PW1 during his cross-examination dated 23.12.2024 stated that respondent n o.4 takes the rent receipt on behalf of Devki Nandan whenever he comes to collect the rent receipt for the different premises. Another rent receipt bearing Ex.PW1/3 is also filed. As per this rent receipt, the rent is received from Devki Nandan. These rent receipts are not disputed to be forged and fabricated by the respondent no.4. During cross RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.14/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:32:37 +0530 examination of PW1 it is suggested that since the rent receipt is signed by the Respondent no.4 , he is the tenant on the tenanted premises.
j) If at all Respondent no.4 is a tenant of this property why he did not raise an objection if rent receipt was issued in the name if Devki Nandan. The rent receipt placed on record (Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) and Ex.PW1/D1 clearly mentions the name of Devki Nandan as the tenant of the premises. It is true that the signature appearing in the column meant for the tenant has been made by Mahesh Chand Sharma (R-4). However, the mere fact that respondent no.4 has signed the receipt in the place of the tenant does not confer upon him the status of a tenant or create a tenancy in his favour. The receipt itself unmistakably records Devki Nandan as the tenant and the rent as having been paid on his behalf. The testimony of PW-1, who stated that respondent no.4 used to receive rent receipts on behalf of his brother, further supports the inference that Mahesh Chand Sharma was acting only as an agent or representative of the recorded tenant.
k) Moreover, if respondent no.4 was, in fact, the tenant in his own right, there is no explanation as to why he did not object to the issuance of rent receipts in the name of Devki Nandan or insist upon the correction of the same during the subsistence of tenancy. It is not the defence of respondent no.4 that a notice was sent for issuance a fresh rent receipt with the name of respondent no.4 as the respondent no.4 is the tenant RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.15/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:32:43 +0530 of premises bearing no.446/B1. His silence in this regard indicates acquiescence to the position that Devki Nandan was the tenant of record. It is a settled principle that the person in whose name the tenancy stands continues to be the tenant unless the landlord has expressly recognized another person in that capacity or there is credible evidence of novation of tenancy. In the present case, no such evidence is forthcoming. Hence, the mere signing or receiving of rent receipts by respondent no.4 on behalf of Devki Nandan does not alter the legal relationship between the parties, and Devki Nandan remains the tenant of record.
l) It is well settled that rent receipts are the best documentary proof of the existence and recognition of tenancy, and unless successfully rebutted by documentary evidence of equal or higher probative value, they conclusively indicate who the landlord regarded as the tenant. In the present case, respondent no.4 has failed to produce any document to show that the tenancy was ever transferred to or recognized in his name. Consequently, the rent receipt on record sufficiently establishes Devki Nandan as the tenant of the premises.
Burden of proof is shifted upon the respondent no.4 to show that Devki Nandan is not the sole tenant on the tenanted premises.
m) Considering the defence of the Respondent no 4, it is observed that status of Respondent no.4 on tenanted premises is not clear. On one hand he states that all the Lrs of Lt. Sh.
RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.16/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.24 17:32:48 +0530
Hari Chand are joint tenants in the tenanted premises and on the other hand he states that he is solely in possession of the tenanted premises however in what capacity he is in sole possession of the tenanted premises is not clarified.
n) No evidence is brought by respondent no.4 to show that any rent receipt, rent agreement is issued qua the tenanted premises in his name individually to show that the is the sole tenant on the tenanted premises. Hence, cross examination will be analyzed to see if Respondent no.4 is able to prove that Devki Nandan is not the sole tenant on the tenanted premises.
o) During cross examination of PW1 various questions are put to PW1 to prove that R4 is a tenant on the tenanted premises. PW1 was questioned regarding existence of any document whereby other Lrs of Late Sh. Hari chand have relinquished their rights in favour of Devki Nandan , Production of bank account statement showing payment of rent qua the tenanted premises establishing that Respondent no.4 is the tenant on the tenanted premises.
p) Bank account statement showing payment of rent qua the tenanted premises establishing that Respondent no.4 is the tenant on the tenanted premisis-PW1 was confronted with a whatsapp conversation Ex.PW1/R2. As per this conversation, respondent no.4 has transferred a sum of Rs.2,11,715/-in the bank account of PW1 as arrears of rent pertaining to shops RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.17/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:32:54 +0530 no.433 and 439. Perusal of Ex.PW1/R2 shows that respondent no.4 has deposited this amount as a rent with interest for shops no.433 and 439. PW1 has objected to receive the same as rent of shops no.433 and 439 and adjusted this rent qua another shop bearing no.446/B1, Anaj Mandi Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi as it is under the tenancy of respondent no.4. Considering the questions put to the PW1 by respondent no.4, respondent no.4 is in possession of his shop bearing no.446/B1. However, in the same chats PW1 has clearly stated that the rent paid is not accepted qua the tenanted premises. In the cross examination as well PW1 denied that rent received is qua the tenanted premises. Hence, this document is not sufficient to establish that Respondent no.4 is the sole tenant in the tenanted premises.
q) Existence of any document whereby other Lrs of Late Sh. Hari chand have relinquished their rights in favour of Devki Nandan-As per the written statement, Lt. Sh. Hari Chand left behind seven sons and three daughters and only respondent no.4 is occupying and running the business from the tenanted premises. From the cross-examination of PW1 it is culled out that different shops/property of the petitioner is further given to the Lrs of the petitioner. Respondent no.4 questioned PW-1 regarding the presence of any document executed by the legal heirs of Hari Chand whereby they agreed that Devki Nandan would be the sole tenant of the tenanted premises. This line of questioning, however, does not advance the case of respondent no.4. It is significant that respondent no.4 himself RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.18/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:33:00 +0530 admitted during cross-examination that he is a tenant of the petitioner in respect of another property I.e shop bearing no.446. If, as per his own case, there existed any understanding or arrangement amongst the heirs of Hari Chand regarding distribution or allotment of tenancy rights, such a document, if it existed, would necessarily have covered all the tenanted properties held by the family, including the one in which respondent no.4 claims tenancy. The absence of such a document therefore militates against the stand of respondent no.4 and instead supports the petitioner's case that tenancy in respect of the suit property was recognised in the name of Devki Nandan alone.
r) Finding: Petitioner is able to establish that Devki Nandan is the tenant on the tenanted premises. Respondent no.4 is not able to prove that Devki Nandan was not the sole tenant on the tenanted premises.
s) Legally recoverable rent due from the tenant: As per the Petitioner rent is due from the period of 26.10.2018-
26.10.2021. Rate of rent is not disputed. None has appeared on Behalf of Devki Nandan to prove that the rent is already paid. Ex. PW1/R2 produced by the Respondent no.4 is a document by way of which Defendant no.4 claims that arrears of rent qua the tenanted premises are already paid. It is an admitted fact that this amount is paid while the matter was at the stage of cross examination. This clearly proves at least one fact that on the date of filing of the present case, no rent was RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.19/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:33:07 +0530 paid from 26.10.2018-26.10.2021. It is an admitted position that respondent no. 4 confronted PW-1 with Whatsapp chats indicating transfer of ₹2,00,000/- to the account of the petitioner. PW-1 has not denied receipt of this payment but has categorically stated that the said amount was adjusted towards arrears of rent in respect of shop no. 439, which is also tenanted to respondent no. 4, and not towards the tenanted premises in question. The plea of respondent no. 4 that this payment was made towards arrears of the present tenanted premises, without any contemporaneous record or endorsement specifying such adjustment, cannot be accepted. Further, it is not clarified in what capacity respondent no. 4 has made this payment. The Whatsapp message relied upon does not indicate that the amount was paid on behalf of Devki Nandan, who is shown as the tenant in the rent receipts. In the absence of such clarification, it cannot be presumed that respondent no. 4 was authorized to tender rent for and on behalf of Devki Nandan. Mere transfer of funds, without reference to the particular tenancy or the capacity of payment, cannot amount to valid payment of rent qua the tenanted premises. This aspect becomes even more significant in the background of earlier transactions, where respondent no. 4 had also paid rent which was accepted by PW-1, but expressly on behalf of Devki Nandan, and the corresponding rent receipts were issued in the name of Devki Nandan. Despite that, respondent no. 4 had signed those receipts and now seeks to claim tenancy rights in his own name. The present payment again reflects the same pattern i.e. rent being tendered by RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.20/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:33:12 +0530 respondent no. 4 without disclosing or clarifying the capacity in which it is made. Such conduct, instead of supporting his plea of independent tenancy, reinforces the petitioner's case that Devki Nandan continued to be the tenant of the premises and respondent no. 4's possession, if any, was derivative and not as a direct tenant.
t) Finding: Petitioner is able to prove that no rent since 26.10.2018 is received by the Petitioner qua the tenanted premises.
11) Service of notice of demand under Section 14(1)(a) proviso : The petitioner has filed Ex.PW1/5 i.e. legal notice dated 16.03.2021, Ex.PW1/6 i.e. postal receipts. The genuineness of these documents is not disputed. The legal notice received back with report insufficient address, however, the correct address of the LRs is not furnished by the respondent no.4. The petitioner has fulfilled the statutory obligation of sending a legal notice of demand.
12) Subletting : To establish a valid ground for eviction under Section 14(1)(b), the landlord must prove the following ingredients:
a) Existence of a landlord-tenant relationship: The petitioner in the present case is able to prove that Lt. Sh. Devki Nandan was the actual tenant and respondent no.1 to 3 being the Lrs of Devki Nandan were the tenants. As already discussed above, respondent no.4 is not able to prove that he is the tenant of the petitioner.RC ARC 188/21
Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.21/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:33:18 +0530
b) That the tenant has either: Sub-let the premises, or Assigned his tenancy rights, or Otherwise parted with possession of the whole or part of the premises. These are three distinct but overlapping concepts: Sub-letting: creation of a derivative tenancy where the tenant gives possession to another in lieu of monetary consideration (rent or benefit).Assignment: transfer of the tenant's entire interest in favour of another person.
Parting with possession: handing over possession, even temporarily, without the landlord's consent, where the tenant completely divests control of the premises. In the present case, respondent no.1 to 3 have not turned up despite service of summons. Respondent no.4 admits that he is in possession of the tenanted premises. Respondent no.4 is silent with respect to possession of tenanted premises by respondent no.1 to 3. The record shows that summons were duly served upon the legal representatives of Devki Nandan, who is recorded in the rent receipts Ex.PW1/3 and PW1/D1 as the tenant of the suit premises. Despite service, none of them appeared before the Court to contest the claim of the petitioner or to assert any right, title or interest in the tenanted property. Consequently, they were proceeded ex-parte. Their deliberate abstention from the proceedings carries important evidentiary implications.
c) In a case where the landlord asserts that the tenancy stood in the name of a particular person and that such tenant has unlawfully parted with possession in favour of another, the participation of the recorded tenant or his heirs is material to RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.22/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:33:24 +0530 test the truth of the landlord's claim. When the recorded tenant or his heirs do not enter appearance, the petitioner's version stands unrebutted. The Court is then entitled to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act that, had they appeared, their evidence would not have supported the case of the respondents.
d) The non-appearance of the legal heirs of Devki Nandan also weakens the stand of respondent no.4, Mahesh Chand Sharma, who has claimed independent tenancy rights. If indeed the tenancy was created in favour of the family or in favour of Hari Chand as alleged by respondent no.4, the natural course would have been for all heirs to appear jointly and contest such a vital issue. Their complete silence shows that even within the family there was no dispute that Devki Nandan alone was the tenant recognised by the landlord.
e) It is pertinent to note that the legal representatives of Devki Nandan, who was the recorded tenant of the premises, were duly served but chose not to appear and contest the present proceedings. They were accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Their absence from the witness box and failure to file any written statement or rebut the petitioner's case has a significant bearing on the issue. In the absence of any defence from the recorded tenant or his legal heirs, the pleadings and evidence led by the petitioner regarding the existence of tenancy in the name of Devki Nandan and the subsequent parting with RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.23/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:33:30 +0530 possession in favour of respondent no.4 remain uncontroverted.
f) The silence and non-participation of the legal heirs of Devki Nandan further corroborate the petitioner's version that the premises were not being occupied by the original tenant or his heirs but had in fact been handed over to respondent no.4.
Once the recorded tenant or his representatives abstain from the proceedings, and another person (respondent no.4) claims independent tenancy rights without any document of recognition from the landlord, the inference that possession has been parted with without the landlord's consent becomes stronger. Thus, the non-appearance of the LRs of Devki Nandan fortifies the case of the petitioner under Section 14(1)
(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
g) Such act was done without the consent in writing of the landlord : Written consent of the landlord is mandatory. In the present case, nothing is brought on record by respondent no.4 or from the cross examination of PW1 that landlord Mohd. Saeed Khan consented of giving away of the tenanted premises to respondent no.4 solely.
h) The sub-tenant/third person is in exclusive possession of the premises or part thereof : The most crucial test of sub-letting or parting with possession is exclusive possession by another person. Exclusive possession means the tenant has given up RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.24/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:33:35 +0530 control and the right to re-enter, even if rent is not paid directly to him. Respondent no.4 has admitted that he is in exclusive possession of the tenanted premises. It is admitted in para 3 and 5 of the written statement.
i) Devki Nandan is established as the tenant, R4's possession legally amounts to sub-letting or parting with possession:-
Having held that Devki Nandan was the recorded tenant of the suit premises, the presence and possession of respondent no.4, Mahesh Chand Sharma, can only be understood as that of a person claiming through the tenant. It is not the case of respondent no.4 that he was residing jointly with Devki Nandan as a member of a common household or that Devki Nandan retained control over the premises. The evidence on record rather shows that respondent no.4 was in exclusive possession of the premises and was dealing with the landlord directly, while Devki Nandan himself was no longer in occupation. In law, once a tenant parts with possession of the tenanted premises in favour of another person without the consent of the landlord, whether in whole or in part, such act constitutes sub-letting or parting with possession within the meaning of Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
j) In the absence of any material to show that the landlord had consented to respondent no.4's occupation, or that Devki Nandan continued to exercise any control or supervision over the premises, the inference that the tenant had parted with RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.25/28 Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.11.24 17:33:40 +0530 possession in favour of respondent no.4 is irresistible.
Consequently, the essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(b) stand satisfied, and the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction on this ground how R4's own cross-examination weakens his stand.- During cross-examination, respondent no.4 questioned PW-1 regarding the absence of any document executed by the legal heirs of Hari Chand whereby they agreed that Devki Nandan would be the sole tenant of the tenanted premises. This line of questioning, however, does not advance the case of respondent no.4. It is significant that respondent no.4 himself admitted during cross-examination that he is a tenant of the petitioner in respect of another property. If, as per his own case, there existed any understanding or arrangement amongst the heirs of Hari Chand regarding distribution or allotment of tenancy rights, such a document, if it existed, would necessarily have covered all the tenanted properties held by the family, including the one in which respondent no.4 claims tenancy. The absence of such a document therefore militates against the stand of respondent no.4 and instead supports the petitioner's case that tenancy in respect of the suit property was recognized in the name of Devki Nandan alone.
13)Findings and Final Order:
a) On Ground under Section 14(1)(a): It stands proved that the respondent was in arrears of rent and despite service of demand notice failed to pay within the statutory period.RC ARC 188/21
Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.26/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:33:45 +0530 Accordingly, the petitioner has made out a ground under Section 14(1)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
b) As per the record order under Section 15(1) DRC is not passed. In view of the findings recorded above, it is directed under Section 15(2) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, that the respondent/tenant shall pay or deposit the arrears of rent @ Rs. 1400/- per month for the period from 26.10.2018 to 26.10.2021 within one month from the date of this order.The respondent shall further continue to pay or deposit future rent month by month at the same rate by the 15th day of each succeeding month, in accordance with law, till further orders.
The arrears and future rent shall be paid directly to the petitioner/landlord or deposited before the Court under Section 27 of the Act, in case the landlord refuses to accept the same . Compliance report be filed within the stipulated period.
c) On Ground under Section 14(1)(b): The petitioner has successfully proved that the respondent has sublet/assigned/parted with possession of the tenanted premises without the consent in writing of the landlord. The said act falls squarely within the mischief of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, which entitles the landlord to recover possession.
d) In view of the above findings, although the respondent is entitled to protection from eviction under Section 14(2) in respect of ground under Section 14(1)(a), the petitioner has RC ARC 188/21 Dated 24.11.2025 Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.27/28 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.11.24 17:33:50 +0530 successfully established an independent ground under Section 14(1)(b) for which no such protection is available.
e) Eviction order: Accordingly, Eviction order is passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondent thereby directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. bearing no.
433, Anaaj mandi, Bara Bazar, Shahdara, Delhi as shown in red colour in the site plan in terms of Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.The petition is thus allowed and eviction order is passed under Section 14(1)(b). File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
NIHARIKA Digitally
NIHARIKA
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Pronounced in Open Court SHARMA Date: 2025.11.24
17:33:55 +0530
on November 24, 2025
(NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA)
Senior Civil Judge-cum RC
KKD/SHD/DELHI/24.11.2025
RC ARC 188/21
Dated 24.11.2025
Malka Saeed v. Jeevan Lata Sharma anr. Pg no.28/28