Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar vs Krishan Avtaar Sehgal on 11 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
SHAHDARA
RC ARC E99/2014 698/2016
Case Registration no.DLSH03-000897-2014
1. Sh. Anil Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Bholanath,
R/o H.No. 325, Opposite Geeta Bhawan,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.
2. Sh. Kailash Chand,
S/o Late Sh. Bholanath,
R/o H.No. 334-335, Chhota Thakur Dwara,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
3. (a) Sh. Manish Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Chamanlal,
R/o H.No. 334-335, Chhota Thakur Dwara,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
3.(b) Sh. Anish Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Chamanlal,
R/o H.No. 334-335, Chhota Thakur Dwara,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
...Petitioners
Vs.
1.Sh. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal,
S/o Late Sh. Villayti Ram Sehgal,
R/o 382/2, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
2. Sh. Shailender Dutt,
S/o Sh. K.K. Sharma,
Shop no. 328,
Opposite Geeta Bhawan Mandir,
Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ...Respondents
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.1/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.11 16:34:51 +0530 Application under Section 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short, "DRC, Act") Date of Institution : 02.12.2014 Date of Reserving Judgment : 27.02.2025 Date of Decision : 11.06.2025 Decision : Allowed Judgment:-
1) Relief sought:- Eviction order for ejectment of the respondents from the tenanted premises i.e. shop bearing no.328, Ward no. 4, opposite Geeta Bhawan, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 be passed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents and possession of the same be ordered to be delivered from the respondent no.2 or any other person found in possession of the same to the petitioners.
2) Facts of the case: - The facts, as given in the present application, are briefly stated as follows:-
i. The petitioners are the absolute owner of the shop bearing no.328, Ward no. 4, opposite Geeta Bhawan, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 (hereinafter also referred as, "tenanted premises ") as shown in red colour in the annexed site plan. The tenanted premises was owned by the father of the petitioners (Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath). It is submitted that father of respondent no.1 (Lt. Sh. Villayti Ram) was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises prior to 1966 by the petitioner's father at the rent of Rs.6.50/- per month. It is submitted that after the death of Sh. Bhola Nath (father of the petitioners), the tenanted premises devolved upon the petitioners and inherited by them and petitioners became the owner of the tenanted premises. It RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.2/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors.
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11
16:34:59 +0530
is submitted that after the death of respondent no.1's father (Lt. Sh. Villayti Ram), the tenancy was inherited by respondent no.1 only as one of the legal heir (son) of Lt. Sh. Villayti Ram. It is alleged that the respondent no.1 has sublet, assigned or otherwise parted with possession of the tenanted premises to respondent no.2 without obtaining the consent of the petitioners. It is alleged that the tenanted premises is illegally occupied by respondent no.2 and in complete possession of respondent no.2 in which he is running a shop of mineral water bottles/jars and cold drinks in the tenanted premises and is paying rent to respondent no.1 in respect of the tenanted premises.
2) Defence of respondents as per written statement :- (a) That the petitioners are neither the landlords nor the owners of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that the property was initially owned and possessed by father of respondent no.1 (Lt. Sh. Vilayti Ram) and his brother (Lt. Sh. Gulshan Kumar) as MCD occupant. (b) That the tenanted shop was transferred as evacuee properties by Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi to the erstwhile MCD by virtue of Deed executed on 04.01.1978 and registered on 25.03.1998 alongwith other 226 properties situated in colonies.
(c) That the father of respondent no.1 obtained the electricity connection in the tenanted premises on 14.08.1969 and used to run the shop of Kiryana Merchant and also obtained a license in the name of respondent no.1's brother (Lt. Sh. Gulshan Kumar Sehgal). It is submitted that respondent no.1's brother (Lt. Sh. Gulshan Kumar Sehgal) and respondent no.1 changed his business from the sale and store of wheat to "Titu Sehgal Cold Drinks"
for selling mineral water bottles/jars and cold drinks. It is further submitted that after the death of respondent no.1's brother (Lt. Sh. Gulshan Kumar Sehgal), the tenanted premises was in possession of respondent no.1. (d) That respondent no.2 is a friend of respondent no.1 and has no concern with the RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.3/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors.
Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 16:35:07 +0530
tenanted premises. (e) That on 27.03.2002, the erstwhile MCD issued a letter in name of M/s. Fateh Chand Vilayati Ram Sehgal with regard to the tenanted premises through its proprietor, respondent no.1, asking the respondent no.1 to fill up requisite proforma for the purpose of maintaining the record of the tenanted premises for the near future for deciding the rights and liabilities of the respondent no.1. In the said letter it is clearly stated that by virtue of deed executed on 04.01.1978 and registered on 25.03.1998, the MCD is the owner of 226 properties including the tenanted shop and the petitioners have no legal rights, title and interest over the suit property. (f) That the petitioners have filed false and fabricated photocopies of rent receipts as the father of respondent no.1 (Lt. Sh. Vilayti Ram Sehgal) and the brother of respondent no.1 (Lt. Sh. Gulshan Kumar Sehgal) were never the tenant of the petitioners nor he signed any rent note or receipts with regard to tenanted premises. (g) That the petitioners have not filed on record any registered sale deed or title deed with regard to the tenanted premises.
3) Replication:- Replication was filed on behalf of the petitioners, denying the allegations/averments made by the respondent in their written statement.
4) Evidence led on behalf of the petitioner : -In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner has examined ten witnesses as PW-1 Sh. Kailash Chand, PW-4A Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Attendant, Govt. of NCT, Department of Delhi Archives, PW-5A Sh. Kapil Sharma, AZI, EDMC, Geeta Colony, 13 block Delhi, PW-5 Sh. Naresh Kumar, LDC, EDMC, PW-6 Sh. Anoop Singh, Record Keeper, Office of Sub Registrar II, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, PW-6 Sh.
A.A. Naiyar , PW-7 Sh. Asif Mohd Ali, IPS, PW-7 Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Senior Judicial Assistant, Record Room, Civil, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (mentioned as PW-7 in the evidence affidavit), PW-8 Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Ahlmad.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16
Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.4/25
Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.11
16:35:14 +0530
5) PW-1 Sh. Kailash Chand has 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/Mark
1. Site plan Exhibit PW-1/1,
2. Rent receipts Exhibit PW-1/3 to Exhibit PW1/72
(objected to on the mode of proof)
(OSR from Exhibit PW-1/3 to
Exhibit PW1/72)
3. Certified copy of sale Exhibit PW1/R1 (Colly) deed dated 14.10.1935 with english translation
4. Certified copy of the Exhibit PW1/R2 site plan with sale deed dated 14.10.1935
5. Certified copy of sale Exhibit PW1/R3 (Colly) deed dated 23.10.1944 with english translation
6. Copy of house tax bills Exhibit PW1/R4 (Colly) and house tax receipt
7. Original Will of Lt. Exhibit PW1/2 Amarnath (Taqseem nama) PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.5/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors.
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11
16:35:21 +0530
6) Next, the petitioner has examined PW4A Sh. Rajender Singh, as summoned witness, who had brought on record the followings documents:-
S.no. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Site plan of the property bearing no.319- Exhibit PW4A/1 337, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, (OSR). Delhi-32
2. Sale deed dated 14.10.1935 in respect of Exhibit PW4A/2 document no. 3052, book no.1, Volume no. (objected to mode 1826, page no.283-286 of proof)
3. Sale deed dated 23.10.1944 in respect of Exhibit PW-1/R3 document no. 3406, book no.1, Volume (Colly) (objected no. 2348, page no. 30-37 to mode of proof) PW4A was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
7) Next, the petitioner has examined PW5A Sh. Kapil Sharma, as summoned witness, as summoned witness, who had brought on record the followings documents:-
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. House tax assessment of the Exhibit PW5A/1 and property bearing no. 319-337, Exhibit PW5A/2 Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, respectively (OSR) Delhi-32 for the year (objected to mode of 01.04.1959 and 01.04.1970, in proof) the name of Sh. Amar Nath and Sh. Bhola Nath PW5A was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16
Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.6/25
Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.11
16:35:27 +0530
8) Next, the petitioner has examined PW5 Sh. Naresh Kumar, as summoned witness, who had brought on record the followings documents:-
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Reply to the RTI application Exhibit PW5/A (OSR) dated 16.06.2015 alongwith and Exhibit PW5/B site plan (OSR) respectively PW5 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
9) Next, the petitioner has examined PW6 Sh. Anoop Singh, as summoned witness, as summoned witness, who had brought on record the followings documents:-
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Original Taqseem Nama Already exhibited as with respect to suit property Exhibit PW1/2 (OSR) vide registration no. 14345 (objected to mode of in additional book no.1, proof) volume no. 636, on pages 168-182 dated 26.10.1966 PW6 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
10) Next, the petitioner has examined PW6 Sh. A.A. Naiyar, as summoned witness, who had relied upon the english translation of document (sale deed (in Urdu) registered on 23.10.1944) already exhibited as Exhibit PW1/R3 and english translation of document (sale deed registered on 14.10.1935, (Ex.PW4A/2 )) already exhibited as Exhibit PW1/R1. PW6 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
11) Next, the petitioner has examined PW7 Sh. Asif Mohd Ali, as summoned witness, who had relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Reply to application Exhibit PW7/A
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16
Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.7/25
Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors.
Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 16:35:35 +0530 under RTI Act, 2005 vide letter no. ID/491.2013/1773 dated 20.03.2013 2. Document with reply Exhibit PW7/B (Colly) (running into 199 pages)
PW7 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
12) Next, the petitioner has examined PW7 Sh. Sudhir Kumar, as summoned witness, who had relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark 1. Certified copy of order and Exhibit PW-7/1
judgment dated 11.09.2012, titled (Colly) (OSR) as Kailash Chand & Ors. v. Vivek Bhandari, eviction petition bearing no. 329/06
2. Certified copy of order and Exhibit PW-7/2 judgment dated 21.01.2011, titled (Colly) (OSR) as Kailash Chand & Ors. v.
Shakuntala & Ors., eviction
petition bearing no. 327/06
3. Certified copy of order and Exhibit PW-7/3
judgment dated 08.01.2010, titled (Colly) (OSR) as Kailash Chand & Ors. v.
Shakuntala & Ors., eviction
petition bearing no. 38/09
4. Certified copy of order and Exhibit PW-7/4
judgment dated 24.02.2010, titled (Colly) (OSR) as Kailash Chand & Ors. v.
Ashwani Kumar, eviction petition bearing no. 328/06 PW7 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
13) Next, the petitioner has examined PW8 Sh. Jagdish Prasad, as summoned witness, who had relied upon the following documents:-
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.8/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.11 16:35:41 +0530 S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Certified copy of site plan and final Exhibit PW-8/1 (Colly) judgment in eviction petition bearing no.138/2017, titled as Anil Kumar and Ors. v. Amarjeet Kaur PW8 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent and no other witness was examined by the petitioner.
14) On completion of petitioner's evidence, the respondent to substantiate his case, has only examined himself as RW-1. RW-1 tendered his examination- in-chief, by way of an affidavit, as Exhibit RW-1/A and has relied upon and placed on record following documents:-
S.no. Documents Exhibit/
Mark
1. Original electricity bill dated 04.12.2014 Exhibit vide CA no.100707699 in the name of Sh. RW-1/1 Walaiti Ram having energisation date 14.08.1969
2. Receipt from the office of the Commissioner Exhibit Food and Supply, Delhi Administration, RW-1/2, Delhi, dated 09.09.1974 in the name of Sh. Gulshan Kumar Sehgal
3. Copy of the licence dated 09.09.1974 for Exhibit purchase, sale and storage for sale of wheat RW-1/3 vide licence no.C1/206/74 issued by the (OSR), Delhi Wheat (licencing and control) order 1974 in the name of Sh. Gulshan Kumar
4. Copy of letter issued by Municipal Mark Corporation of Delhi, Land and Estate RW-1/4 RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.9/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.11 16:35:49 +0530 Department vide reference and Mark no.DA/SHAH/L&E/2002/632 dated RW-1/5 27.03.2002 in the name of the occupier Sh.
Fatah Chand & Sh. Vilayti Ram Sehgal, Prop. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal (titu), shop no.328, Bhola Nath Nagar, DS Block, Shahdara, Delhi under the signature of Sh.
Aakash Taneja, Additional Deputy Commissioner, Land and Estate Department with declaration form on the back side of premises no.328 Ward no.4, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32, filled by Krishan Avtaar Sehgal
5. Original receipt dated 30.10.2004 vide Exhibit receipt no.707031 pertaining to property tax RW-1/6 in favour of Sh. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal for property no.328 Bhola Nath Nagar, DS Block
6. Original receipt dated 31.10.2009 vide Exhibit receipt no.3484 pertaining to property tax in RW-1/7 favour of Sh. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal for property no.328 Bhola Nath Nagar, DS Block
7. Original receipt dated 22.04.2013 vide Exhibit receipt no.096724 pertaining to property tax RW-1/8 in favour of Sh. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal for RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.10/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors.
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11
16:35:57 +0530
property no.328 Bhola Nath Nagar, DS
Block
8. Original receipt dated 12.11.2013 vide Exhibit receipt no.032649 pertaining to property tax RW-1/9 in favour of Sh. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal for property no.328 Bhola Nath Nagar, DS Block
9. Original receipt dated 29.01.2015 vide Exhibit receipt no.65998 pertaining to property tax in RW-1/10 favour of Sh. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal for property no.328 Bhola Nath Nagar, DS Block RW-1 was cross-examined by the Learned counsel for the petitioner. No other witness was examined by respondent. On completion of respondent's evidence, opportunity was granted to both the parties to advance final arguments.
15) Final Arguments: - Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Despite opportunity, no arguments were addressed on behalf of the respondent.
16) Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner 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) (b) of the DRC Act.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.11/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors.
Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 16:36:04 +0530
17) Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act as read as follows:- The 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 any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-(b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord.
18) Hence, following essentials will be examined in the present case-
i. Petitioner is the landlord/owner of the tenant premises. ii. Relationship of landlord and tenant exist between the parties. iii. Respondent no.1 has sublet, assigned, parted with the possession of whole or any part of the tenanted premises. iv. No written consent of the petitioner is obtained prior to subletting.
Analysis/reasoning
19) Ownership:-
i. As per the application, petitioners i.e., Anil Kumar, Kailash Chand and Chaman Lal are the owners and landlord of the tenanted premises by virtue of inheritance and being Lrs of the previous owners i.e. Lt. Sh. Bhola chand S/o Chandu Lal. As per the written statement, the MCD is the owner of the tenanted premises.
ii. As far as deciding as to who is the owner of the tenanted premises, the law is settled that cases under DRC do not require proving of absolute ownership by the landlord. Landlord is only required to RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.12/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.11 16:36:11 +0530 show that his legal position on the suit property is more than that of a tenant. The suit will not get defeated for the imperfectness of the title. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in PlastiChemicals Company v. Ashit Chadha and Anr 114 (2004) DLT 408, 2004 (76) DRJ 654 . It says that if a landlord is able to show by producing a document of his ownership on record, landlord is deemed to have discharged his burden of ownership vis-a-vis the Rent Control Act and such a document can at best be challenged by the heirs of the owner and not by the tenant. Similarly, in the case of Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi cited as 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 450 it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in para no. 7 that "It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the court is that the landlord had been receiving the rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under section 14(1)
(e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord." It is also well settled preposition of law that "for the purpose of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property of Act. He is required to show only that he is more than a tenant".Hence, the issue of ownership of the petitioner on the suit property will be decided in the light of above stated position of law.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.13/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors.
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11
16:36:18 +0530
iii. Petitioner has relied upon following documents to prove their ownership: (a) certified copy Sale deed dated 14.10.1935 with english translation (Ex.PW1/R1) (b) certified copy of Sale Deed dated 23.10.1944 with english translation (Ex.PW1/R3) (c) Partition Deed (Ex. PW1/2).
iv. The address of the suit property is shop bearing no.328, ward no.4, opposite Geeta Bhawan, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32, which is built upon plot no.10. Ex.PW1/R1 i.e. certified copy Sale deed dated 14.10.1935 with english translation is certified copy of sale deed in urdu language. English translation is annexed and the same is exhibit. This sale deed is a registered documents. Petitioner has proved Ex.PW1/R1 by verifying the same from the summoned record from the concerned office of Government of NCT, Department of Delhi Archives. PW4 is an official witness who brought the register containing the sale deed 14.10.1935 with respect to document no. 3052, book no .1, volume no.1826, page no.283 to 286. The stamp on the certified copy of PW1/R1 bears kram sankhya 3052, khand no .1826, page no. 283-286. The petitioner has proved the ownership by virtue of the original record from the public office. Nothing is brought out from the cross examination of the said witness that the document is not genuine and the contents are incorrect. Hence, petitioner has proved the sale deed dated 14.10.1935 as per evidence act.
v. The petitioner has also filed translated copy of this document. PW6 AA.Naiyar, translator was examined to prove the translated copy of this document. No suggestions qua the correctness of the translation were given by the respondent to the said witness. A suggestion was RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.14/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.11 16:36:24 +0530 put to the witness regarding the authenticity and truthfulness of the contents of the sale deed PW1/R3. PW6 is a witness on the limited aspect of the translated version of the translation of Urdu document to english language. It is not the case that this witness was also the witness at the time preparation of the sale deed. Therefore, questions regarding the authenticity and truthfulness cannot be answered by this witness. Nothing is brought up in the cross examination to prove that translation of PW1/R1 and PW1/R3 is not as per the contents of the documents. No independent english translation is filed by the respondent. Therefore, the translation filed by PW4 qua the documents PW1/R1 and PW1/R3 stands proved.
vi. As per the english translation of PW1/R1 and PW1/R3, the address of the property which is subject matter of sale deed is plot no.10, block BS, khasra no.1068/511, khewat no.1, Village Chandrawali, Kasba Shahdara. Suit property is one of the shops on plot no.10.
vii. Respondent on the other hand has objected the ownership of the petitioner on the ground that the tenanted premises is owned by MCD. In order to prove this the respondent has relied mainly upon Mark RW1/4 and RW1/5. This document is a copy of letter issued by MCD of Delhi, Land and Estate Department vide reference no. DA/shah/L&E/2002/632 dated 27.03.2002 in the name of occupier Sh. Fateh Chand and Sh. Vilayti Ram Sehgal. As per the written statement, in this letter MCD mentioned that MCD is the owner of various properties including the tenanted premises, the occupants were brought to the record in order to maintain the proper record. The respondent no.1 had filled the requisite performa and submitted with the office of MCD. As per the respondent, this document decides the rights and liability of the occupant qua the property. It is RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.15/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.11 16:36:32 +0530 important to note that original of this document is not proved by the respondent by calling the record from the concerned department. Hence, respondent is unable to prove this document. It is further important to note that no updated record from the MCD is called showing that the ownership is not in the name of Bhola Nath. Petitioner has proved the ownership of Bhola Nath qua the tenanted premises by way of registered sale deed Ex.PW1/R1 and PW1/R3.
viii. Further, petitioners have also proved their respective ownership by virtue of registered partition deed Ex.PW1/2. Therefore, the petitioners have discharged their burden of prove for proving their ownership. The burden is shifted upon the respondent. Respondent did not bring any updated documents to show that the land is still owned by MCD. Petitioner on the other hand examined PW5 Sh. Naresh Kumar show that the tenanted premises has nothing to do with any government body but is a private property. PW5 brought the summoned record i.e. reply to the RTI application dated 16.06.2015. However, nothing is brought out from examination and cross examination that the property where the tenanted premises is located is owned by MCD. In fact, record of MCD would have been the best evidence in this regard, however, no record is called from the concerned office.
ix. As already discussed above, the ownership in the DRC is decided on the basis of better title. On the basis of discussion above, the petitioners are able to prove that they have better right qua the tenanted premises as compared to the respondent and MCD.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.16/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors.
Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 16:36:37 +0530 20)Landlord tenant relationship:-
i. As per the application, the tenanted premises was rented out to Sh. Vilayti Ram prior to 1966 by Sh. Bhola Nath. It was for commercial purpose and Sh. Vilayti Ram i.e. deceased father of respondent no.1 has paid the rent lastly at the rate of 6.50/-. Per contra, as per the written statement, there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Lt. Sh. Vilayti Ram was never the tenant of Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath. Sh. Vilayti Ram was an occupant of MCD and respondent is also occupying the tenanted premises in the same capacity.
ii. In order to prove that the petitioner is the landlord qua the tenanted premises, the petitioner has relied upon the rent receipts Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/72. These documents were produced in original. The respondent has raised an objected that these rent receipts are forged and fabricated. The respondent stated that signatures on Ex.PW1/2 to Ex.PW1/12 is not that of Lt. Sh. Vilayti Ram. Separate signature of Lt. Sh. Vilayti Ram is not brought on record by the respondent. It is admitted by respondent during the lifetime of Lt. Sh. Vilayti Ram, he used to reside with him and continued to reside with him even after his marriage. He admitted that he had good relations with his father. Respondent stated that he do not have any document which bear the signature of his father, however, he admitted that his father used to sign. Witness stated that he cannot identify the signatures of his father on Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/21 and from Ex.PW1/23 to Ex.PW1/72. It is important to note that on one hand the respondent is alleging that the rent receipts Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/72 are forged and fabricated documents, however, the respondent never denied the signature of his father nor has brought RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.17/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 16:36:43 +0530 on record any correct signatures of his father. Respondent has merely stated that he do not remember how his father used to sign which is not sufficient to prove that rent receipts Ex.PW-1/3 to Ex.PW-1/72 are forged and fabricated documents.
iii. It is an admitted fact of the respondent that he is deriving all the rights on the tenanted premises through his father Lt. Sh. Vilayti Ram. As per the respondent, Ld. Sh. Vilayti Ram was an MCD occupant and after his death, respondent continues on the tenanted premises as an MCD occupant. The term occupant is a vague term. It does not clarify the status of Lt. Sh. Vilayti Ram on the tenanted premises. If Lt. Sh. Vilayti Ram was an occupant, nothing is brought on record to prove any document regarding the allotment of the tenanted premises in favour of Lt. Sh. Vilayti Ram. No witness from the concerned MCD office is called to prove that MCD permits occupants in the said area. During cross examination witness was asked under which capacity is he occupying the shop in question, to which the witness replied that initially his father had been occupying the shop and after his death, he has occupied the shop. Witness specifically stated that 'I am not aware in what capacity/right my father had been occupying the shop in question'. This clearly states that the respondent is not able to prove in what capacity he is on the tenanted premises/shop in question. Witness was question regarding deposit of any charges with the MCD other than house tax. Witness denied that neither him nor his father deposited any other charges with the MCD. He pointed out to the document Ex.RW1/2 to show that his brother Gulshan had deposited the fees with Ministry of Rehabilitation. However, this document do not confers the right in the nature of title on the suit property.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.18/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.11 16:36:50 +0530 iv. Respondent has cross examined on the aspect of landlord tenant relationship between the parties. During cross examination on 25.07.2024 (page no.2), specific question was put to the respondent to name the landlord of the other shops located in the said property where the tenanted premises is located. The respondent stated that there is no landlord and all the shops are owned by shopkeeper themselves. However, on further questioning he could not state the name and numbers of the shop. The respondent made a contradictory statement (page no.3) that he is not aware about the owner of the shop in question and there is no owner of the shop in question. During cross examination on 20.08.2024, respondent stated that he cannot produce any document to show that other shops near the tenanted shop i.e., property bearing no 319 to 337 is owned by respective shopkeepers. Witness stated that he has not seen any documents which shows that shop in property no. 319 to 227 belongs to the respective shopkeepers.
v. During cross examination conducted on 20.09.2024, witness stated that he is not filing the house tax in capacity of the tenant. Specific question was put to the witness as in what capacity he is filing the house tax receipt, however, witness stated that his father had given the shop to him and in that capacity he was filing the house tax. Clearly, witness has given a very vague answer to a very specific question and an adverse inference is drawn against the defendant that he has deliberately not clarified his legal possession on the tenanted premises. Respondent stated that his father did not execute any document with respect to the shop in question. Witness admitted that he do not have any title document in the name of his father qua the shop in question.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16
Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.19/25
Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11
16:36:56 +0530
vi. Further, during cross examination respondent admitted his signatures the document Ex.PW7/B (Colly), page no. 101, 126, 153 and 191. These documents are issued by MCD for retain shops/other activities. It bears the address of the tenanted premises at point no.6 it is specifically required to answer whether the applicant is the owner or tenant. As per this documents, Krishan Avtar Sehgal (applicant) is the tenant on property no. 328, BN Nagar, Ground floor, Maniram Mandir Road, Shahdara, Delhi. Hence, as far as the argument that defendant is an occupant of MCD also falls flat in view of aforesaid documents whereby respondent himself is applying for registration of traders before MCD as a tenant. At point 6 on all these documents, a specific answer is given that respondent is in occupation of the premises in capacity of a tenant.
vii. The respondent has taken various versions with respect to his capacity on the tenanted premises. In Ex.PW7/B (Colly), page no. 101, 126, 153 and 191, the respondent no.1 before MCD stated himself to the tenant on the tenanted premises. Whereas in Ex.PW7/B, page no.14,34,101,126,153 and 191, the respondent no.1 is stated to be the owner of the tenanted premises and respondent no.2 is the tenant on the tenanted premises. In the present case, respondent no.1 is claiming that MCD is the owner of the suit property and respondent no.1 is the occupant of the MCD. All the three capacities in which the respondent is claiming himself to be in possession of tenanted premises are different from each other and none is proved by the respondent no.1 in the present case. There is a clear admission on the part of respondent no.1 that he is the tenant on the tenanted premises.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.20/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.11 16:37:02 +0530 viii. Hence, on the basis of above discussion, the petitioner is able to establish the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties.
21) Subletting:
i. As per the petition, the petitioner has subletted the tenanted premises to respondent no.2 Sh. Shailender Dutt. The respondent no.1 has complete divested from the tenanted premises. In order to prove the same, the petitioner has relied upon Ex.PW7/B. This is a collective of 199 pages. These documents are brought by PW7. The documents are in the nature of reply to an application under RTI Act, 2005. The witness is admitted supplying of the document bearing Ex.PW7/B (running into pages no.199). During cross examination, witness stated that he cannot say regarding the authenticity of the content.
ii. The documents are perused. Ex.PW7/B (page 1) is a application dated 05.09.2008 for grant license to possess and sell explosives. This application is filed by respondent no.2 before the office of DCP concerned. The application is filed qua premises bearing no.328, maniram Mandir Road, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara-32 (tenanted premises). Ex.PW7/B (page 7) is a site plan annexed with the application. Ex.PW7/B (page 13) is a copy of affidavit of Krishan Avtar Sehgal (respondent no.1) whereby in paragraph no.1, it is stated that respondent no.1 is the owner of the tenanted premises and given it on rent to respondent no.2. Further, in paragraph no .2, respondent no.1 have given no objection if respondent no.2 keep and sell explosive items in shop no.328, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, which is also the tenanted RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.21/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 16:37:09 +0530 premises. Ex.PW7/B (page 16) is fresh application dated 04.08.2009 for temporary fireworks license and at point no.3 the proposed premises from where the business is carried out is the tenanted premises bearing no.328, maniram Mandir Road, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara-32. Ex.PW7/B (page 29) is affidavit of respondent no.1 and same contents as furnished in earlier affidavit are stated. Here also respondent no.1 is stated to be owner of the tenanted premises and have given it on rent to respondent no.2 with no objection of using it for selling fireworks. All other documents in Ex.PW1/B bear the address of the tenanted premises as the place of business. Ex.PW7/B (page 67) is also an affidavit of respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.2 admitting that respondent no.2 is a tenant on the tenanted premises.
iii. During cross examination conducted on 26.11.2024 (page no.3), respondent no.1 was shown Ex.PW7/B, page no.13, 29, 67, 100, 146, 184 -affidavit of respondent no.1 dated 05.09.2008, 04.08.2009, 22.07.2010, 27.07.2011, 16.08.2012 respectively. Respondent no,.1 admitted his signatures on these documents.
iv. During cross examination conducted on 26.11.2024 at 02:00 pm (page no.4), respondent no.2 admitted his signatures on Ex.PW7/B, page no.14,34,101,126,153 and 191. These documents were filed alongwith the other documents while applying for the NOC by respondent no.2.
v. Respondent no.1 admitted that he knows respondent no.2 however, he stated that he cannot admit or deny his signatures on Ex.PW7/B. Witness also stated that all the documents in Ex.PW7/B which bears his signature were signed by him after going through the contents.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16
Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.22/25
Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.11
16:37:17 +0530
vi. Reliance is placed upon the case of M/s. Bharat Sales Ltd. Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in AIR 1988 SC 1240, which is a celebrated judgment on the issue of sub-letting and which reads as under:- "4. Sub-tenancy or subletting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement of understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overacts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession over the demised property. It is the actual, physical and exclusive possession of that person, instead of the tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person into possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and the sub-tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sublet had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sub-lease. It may be paid in cash or in kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have been paid in lump-sum in advance covering the period for which the premises is let out or sublet or it may have been paid or promised to be paid periodically. Since payment of RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.23/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.06.11 16:37:25 +0530 rent or monetary consideration may have been made secretly, the law does not require such payment to be proved by affirmative evidence and the court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the facts of the case proved at the trial, including the delivery of exclusive possession to infer that the premises were sublet."
vii. There is no direct evidence of tendering of rent by respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 or any rent of agreement which is executed between them. However, the petitioner has placed on record sufficient documents including the affidavit of respondent no.1 whereby the existence of tenancy qua the tenanted premises between them is proved. Ex. PW7/B clearly states that respondent no.2 is a tenant on the tenanted premises and respondent no.1 is his landlord. These documents clearly show that existence of landlord tenant relationship between respondent no.1 and 2 with respect to the tenanted premises. Hence, on the basis of document discussed above, it is clear that the respondent no.1 has rented out the tenanted premises to the respondent no.2 qua which the respondent no.2 has sought the license to sell the fireworks. Petitioner is able to discharge the burden of proof that the respondent no.1 has complete divested himself from the tenanted premises. Burden of proof is upon the respondent no.1 and 2 to show that there is no subletting qua the tenanted premises. During cross examination, a question was put regarding the authenticity of all the document ie., Ex.PW7/B, however, no separate witness is examined by respondent no.1 and 2 qua the contents of Ex.PW7/B. Further, respondent no.1 himself admitted his signatures on six affidavits whereby he clearly states that he has rented out the tenanted premises to respondent no.2.
RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16
Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.24/25
Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors. Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.11
16:37:33 +0530
22) Final order:- On the basis of discussion able, this court has come to a finding that the Bona fide need of the landlord is justified, the averments of the respondent regarding alternative accommodation are vague, the title of the Petitioner cannot be questioned and landlord tenant relationship exists between the parties. Thus, having found that the defence set up by the respondent is only a moonshine, the application filed seeking leave to defend was accordingly rejected.
23) Eviction order is passed in favour of petitioners and against the respondent no.1 and 2 thereby directing the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. one shop bearing no.328, Ward no. 4, opposite Geeta Bhawan, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 as shown in red colour and red lines in the site plan filed by the petitioner in terms of section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
NIHARIKA Digitally signed by NIHARIKA Pronounced in Open Court KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA on June 11, 2025 SHARMA Date: 2025.06.11 16:37:40 +0530 (NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA) Senior Civil Judge-cum RC KKD/SHD/DELHI/11.06.2025 RC ARC E99/2014 & 698/16 Dated 11.06.2025 Pg no.25/25 Anil Kumar and Ors v. Krishan Avtaar Sehgal and Ors.