Delhi District Court
Fida Hussain vs Zaffaryab Hussain on 27 November, 2025
RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC-CUM-ASCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE-02, (WEST)
PREVIOUSLY POSTED AS ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No. 77622/16
In the matter of:-
Fida Hussain
S/o Sh. Anwar Hussain
R/o 1738. Bazar Lal Kuan,
Delhi-06. .................Petitioner
VERSUS
Zaffaryab Hussain
S/o Sh. Ashraf Hussain
Shop in property bearing no.
1738, Main Bazar
Lal Kuan, Delhi-06. ................Respondent
***********
Date of Filing of petition : 05.03.2011
Date of reserving judgment : 09.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment : 27.11.2025
Decision of petition : Eviction Petition Digitally
signed by
Allowed. VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
AGARWAL
KUMAR
*********** AGARWAL
Date:
2025.11.27
14:35:11
+0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC),
Page no. 1 of 25 27.11.2025
RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed the present petition Under Section 14 (1) (a) & (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent i.e. one shop measuring 6ft x 18ft on the ground floor in premises no. 1738, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
THE PETITION:-
2. As per the petition, it is averred by the petitioner that the tenanted shop was let out by the previous land-lord / owner. That the tenant/respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2004 to 01.06.2010 @ Rs. 121-p/m total Rs.9398/- (Rupees nine thousand three hundred ninety eight only) up to the period of notice and has not further paid the rent despite of notice sent u/S 106 of TP Act and sent a vague and false reply. The petitioner becomes owner and landlord of property bearing No. 1738, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi-6 having purchased through their lawful attorney vide sale deed dated 11.04.1990 which was registered as a document No. 2042 in the Additional Book No. 1 Volume No. 5261 pages 54 to 59 dated 12.04.1990 duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. That the defendant is a tenant in respect of one shop shown in (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 2 of 25 27.11.2025 VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date: 2025.11.27 AGARWAL 14:35:18 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN red colour in the site plan and the defendant was paying the rent to the previous owner/landlord vide valid receipt. That the premises in question is commercial and the shop exists on the ground only which have no concern with the roof of the shop nor the said roots are having any concern with the tenant. It is submitted that there are five shops in numbers in the said property of tenanted premises and except one shops the tenant have no concern with the roof nor the roof from the tenancy right at all. That the petitioner sent the intimation regarding the purchase of the property and the tenants are now legally bound to pay the rent to the petitioner and the petitioner is legally entitled to receive the rent from them. That as the roofs are not forming the part of the tenancy of any of the tenant and hence the tenant does not have any right to use the roof or to put any goods on the shop which is the property of the plaintiff. That the defendant in order to grab the shop illegally encroached the staircase towards the roof and without any justified cause or reason he is putting the Kabar on the roof and is illegally occupying the same. That there are litigations going between the parties and on many occasion the petitioner made a request to the defendant to vacate the portion of roof by removing his Kabar items which are lying on the roof but the defendant with the sole intention of grabbing the same is not removing the goods. That the defendant who is a tenant on the ground floor in respect of one shop measuring 6 x18' and apart from the aforesaid portion the defendant has no tight on the other portion as the same are not farming the part (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 3 of 25 Digitally signed by 27.11.2025 VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.27 14:35:22 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN of the tenancy. That the defendant is in the habit of encroaching the portion and carrying out the illegal and unauthorized construction for which numbers of litigation are sub-judice in the various courts of law.
2.1. That the area falls in slum and the permission have been obtained in Petition ne CA(S)/9733/2000 by the Competent Authority Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Competent Authority (Slum), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi vide order dated 15.04.2010. That a notice dt 11.05.2010 was sent but the tenant did not comply the terms of the notice and sent a vague reply. Thus, the eviction of respondent from the subject premises has been prayed for u/S 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act for non-payment of rent and again eviction order has been prayed u/S 14 (1) (j) of DRC Act. Again the petitioner has also sought the relief of direction to the respondent to restore the premises by removing the encroachment i.e. the stair-case, room in tin shed and one toilet-cum-latrine on the roof of the subject premises and has further sought the damages of Rs. 1.5 Lacs .
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
3. Written Statement was filed by the respondent in response to petition filed by the petitioner. It is stated in the preliminary objections that the Petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as the Petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the Respondent qua the premises in his occupation (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 4 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 AGARWAL 14:35:27 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN which is comprised of one shop and entire first floor over and above the shops marked A, B & C in the plan. It is stated that the suit property was owned by one Sh. Mohd. Hakim Khan who was unmarried and when he died he had no heirs to succeed his estate.
That Smt. Asifa Begum and Aisha Begum are not related to the deceased Mohd. Hakim Khan in any respect whatsoever. That the Petitioner being aware that Sh. Mohd. Hakim Khan has left behind him none to succeed his estate and as such he conspired with abovesaid Smt. Aisha Begum and Asifa Begum and got executed the sale deed of the property in question in his favour. That the sale deed of the property in question in favour of the Petitioner is a fabricated document of sale created with a view to usurp the property in suit which infact stands vested in Union of India. It is stated that the Respondent is a tenant in the property in his possession long before the date of the alleged purchase of suit property by the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Respondent was inducted as a tenant in the premises by Sh. Mohd. Hakim Khan and he never issued any rent receipt to him.
3.1. It is further stated that the Petitioner on or about 29.08.1990 filed a suit for permanent injunction against the Respondent alleging that the Respondent is a tenant under him and intends to make unauthorized constructions therein. This suit of the petitioner was dismissed. The petitioner against the said dismissal order filed an Appeal bearing no. 50/03 wherein statement of parties were recorded and the plea of respondent qua ownership was left (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 5 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:35:32 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN open and the appeal was accordingly disposed off vide order dt. 21.01.2011. That the present petition is not maintainable under the law and facts as the petition is filed for partial eviction. It is emphatically denied that the Respondent is a tenant in respect of one shop shown red in the site plan filed by the Petitioner. That there are pucca staircase constructed inside the shop marked A in the plan from which only the Respondent can go to the first floor. It is stated that it is only the Respondent who can go to first floor as the stairs are inside his shop.
3.2. That the matter pertaining to extent of the premises under the tenancy of the Respondent is already sub-judice because the Petitioner before the filing of the present petition has on or about 02.06.2008 filed a suit for possession and mesne profits against the Respondent qua the first floor above the shops marked A, B & C in the site plan of the Respondent. This suit of the Petitioner bearing NO. 374/08 New No. 482/09 titled as Fida Hussain Vs. Zaffaryab Hussain is presently pending and fixed for 28.04.2011 in the court of Ms. Manu Vedwan, Civil Judge, Delhi. It is stated that in the aforesaid suit the Respondent has taken the plea that the first floor shown in green colour is in his possession as a part of the tenanted premises. That the present petition is even otherwise not maintainable as the Petitioner has deliberately filed wrong site plan of the suit property and have not shown the true accommodation existing in the suit property. Even the tenanted premises of the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 6 of 25 Digitally signed 27.11.2025 by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.27 14:35:37 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN Respondent has been wrongly described and shown by the Petitioner in the petition and the alleged site plan. 3.3. That the Petitioner who is the real brother in law of the Respondent is on inimical terms with the Respondent. That he is in litigation with the Respondent since the year 1990 till date. That he is interested to get the premises vacated by hook or crook and the instant petition is malafide. That the Petitioner has not sought the requisite permission u/s 19 of the Slum Areas (Improvement & Clearance) Act qua the ground of eviction u/s 14(1)(j) of the DRC Act. Hence the present petition u/s 14(i)(j) of the DRC Act is not maintainable.
3.4. In reply on merits, para no. 1 to 3, 5, 8, 11 to 15, 17 18(a,b,c,d,e,f, h, i, j, o) are stated to be wrong and are denied. Para no. 6, 10, 16 and 18 (g) of the petition are not denied and para no. 7 is not admitted. The averments of preliminary objections are reiterated with respect to the other paras of eviction petition. It is specifically and emphatically denied that the answering Respondent has made any construction whatsoever in the premises which he had taken on rent from his landlord namely Mohd. Hakim Khan. It is denied that the staircase existing in side the shop for going to the roof or the alleged superstructure were raised constructed by the answering Respondent. It is specifically denied that the Respondent is in arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.01.2004 to 01.06.2010 at Rs. 121/p.m. amounting to Rs. 9,398/- upto the period of notice or that he has not paid the rent despite the alleged notice or that the reply given by the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 7 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:35:43 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN Respondent is wrong and denied. It is denied that the Petitioner is owner/landlord of the Respondent. It is stated that the Petitioner has not been intentionally receiving rent from the Respondent when the tendered in person and thus was compelled to deposit rent for the period 01.01.2004 to 30.04.2007 at Rs. 110/p.m. amounting to Rs.
4400/-u/s 27 of DRC Act. vdie DR No. 483/02 and the Petitioner vide order dated 27.08.2007 of Ms. Savita Rao, ARC, has been permitted to withdraw the rent without his rights. It is emphatically denied that the rate of rent payable by the Respondent for the aforesaid period was Rs. 121/- p.m. It was only Rs. 110/- p.m. as no notice regarding enhancement of rent was given by the Petitioner to the Respondent. The Respondent again without prejudice to his rights remitted a sum of Rs. 4,598/- (say Rs. 4600/-) by M.O. at the rate of Rs. 121/-pm but it was refused by the Petitioner. That the Respondent in these circumstances deposited the said arrears of rent u/s 27 of the DRC Act vide petition bearing DR No. 212/10 in the court of Sh. Pritam Singh ARC Delhi on 28.07.2010 for the legally recoverable period 01.05.2007 to 30.06.2010 and the Petitioner has been allowed to withdraw the same without prejudice to his right vide order dated 11.02.2011 The ground of eviction of Respondent u/s 14 (a) of the DRC Act is thus not available to the Petitioner because the notice of demand dated 11.05.2010 dispatched on 08.06.2010 has been complied by the Respondent. The petition on this ground is therefore, liable to the rejected on this short ground alone.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 8 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:35:49 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN 3.5. It is further submitted that no damage, much less a substantial damage has been caused to the premises by the Respondent. More over no permission u/s 19 of the Slum Areas Act has been obtained for eviction of the Respondent u/s 14(i) (j) of the DRC Act and as such the petition on this ground is also not maintainable.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER:-
4. To prove its case, petitioner has examined himself as PW1 and tendered his affidavit Ex. PW1/A and tendered his documents i.e. the registered sale deed dt. 12.04.1990 as Ex PW- 1/1, the copy of notice dt. 23.11.2011 as Ex. PW1/5, the compromise deed dt.10.12.2011 as Ex. PW1/6, statement recorded before the court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor CJ Delhi as Ex.PW1/7, the copy of slum order dt. 15.04.2010 as Ex. PW1/8. the site plan as Ex. PW1/9, certified copy of order of suit for recovery from court of Sh. L.K. Gaur, Ld. CJ, Delhi is Ex. PW1/10, certified copy of order dt. 19.04.1999 of the court of Sh. S.N.Dhingra, Ld.ADJ, Delhi as Ex. PW1/11, order dt. 25.07.2002 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court as Ex.PW1/12, copy of order of conviction of respondent u/S 448 IPC as Ex.PW1/13, legal notice dt. 11.05.2010 as Ex.PW1/14 and reply of respondent to legal notice as Ex.PW1/15. Then PW1 was cross- examined. After that PW-2 Sh. Devender Singh, Link Mauza Clerk Record Room Criminal, THC, who produced the certified copy of the judgment already Ex. PW1/13. Thereafter Sh. Vijender (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 9 of 25 Digitally 27.11.2025 signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2025.11.27 14:35:54 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN Mahalwal JAA RKD Branch, Delhi High Court was also examined as PW2 on 01.11.2017 (in fact should have been PW3) and he produced the record, which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/12. Then PW3 Sh. Sevajit Record Attendant at Dept of Delhi Archives was examined and he produced the record which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/1. Again PW4 from the office of Slum Authority produced the record which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/8. Again PW-5 from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court produced the record of case no. RSA 70/1999, which was taken on record as Ex. PW5/1. All witnesses were duly cross-examined and after that vide separate statement of petitioner PE was closed on 02.08.2025.
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT:-
5. To prove its case, respondent has examined himself as RW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A and relied upon documents i.e. the list of enemy properties in Delhi generated from computer as Ex.RW1/, Ex. RW1/2 and Ex.RW1/3 as the reply dated 13.07.2010 of the respondent to the notice dated 11.05.2010 (original) which as already Ex.PW1/15 dated 12.09.2015, Ex.RW1/4 i.e. UPC receipt under which the notice Ex.PW1/15 was sent by the petitioner, Ex.RW1/5 i.e. the postal receipt under which the notice Ex.PW1/15 was given by the petitioner, Ex.RW1/6 i.e. the receipt of deposit of arrear of rent amounting to Rs. 4600/- by the respondent u/S 27 DRC Act in the court of Sh. Balwant Rai Bansal, ARC. Thereafter he was cross-
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 10 of 25 Digitally signed 27.11.2025 by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.27 14:35:58 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN examined and then RE was closed vide separate statement dated 11.09.2025.
ARGUMENTS:-
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties. I have also carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents and material on record.
LAW ON SEC. 14(1) (a) D.R.C. ACT:-
7. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant provision of Delhi Rent Control Act so that position may be crystal clear:-
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the day on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served of him by the landlord in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)."
As such, the following are the ingredients of section 14(1) proviso (a) :-
(i) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 11 of 25 Digitally 27.11.2025 signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2025.11.27 14:36:03 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN
(ii) There should be non-payment or tendering of whole arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of service of legal notice upon the tenant given by the landlord.
8. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(a) D.R.C. Act one by one.
Relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties :-
8.1. It is observed that in his WS respondent has denied the ownership and land-lordship of the petitioner, however, at the same time has duly admitted that he was the tenant in the subject premises under Sh. Mohd Hakim Khan. Accordingly, the respondent stated himself to be a tenant in the subject premises, however, denied the relationship of land-lord and tenant between both the parties. 8.2. Now, it is further observed that petitioner duly proved his ownership of the subject premises on the basis of the sale deed dt. 12.04.1990 i.e. Ex.PW1/1. From perusal of the said sale deed, which is a duly registered document and duly proved by the witness / PW 3 summoned from the concerned office, it is apparently clear that said sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner by one Abdul Hasan S/o Late Hakim Abdul Ghani as a GPA on behalf of two ladies, both daughters of Late Hakim Mohd Kamil Khan. In the said sale deed it has been specifically mentioned that previously the entire property bearing no. 1738, Ward No. 6, (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 12 of 25 Digitally signed 27.11.2025 by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2025.11.27 14:36:07 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN Lal Kuan, Delhi-06 was owned by one Hakim Khan, who had expired on 18.12.1977 leaving behind the vendors of the said sale deed including his nieces, who were the daughters of his brother Late Hakim Mohd Kamil Khan. The genuineness of the said sale deed has not been challenged on behalf of the respondent and on the contrary the respondent / RW1 has duly admitted in his cross- examination that petitioner was the owner of the subject premises. Though the respondent took the plea that said sale deed was obtained by fraud, however, no evidence was led in this regard and accordingly, it is clearly proved that the petitioner was the owner / land-lord of the subject premises as being the successor-in-interest of the the previous owner / land-lord namely Mohd Hakim Khan, whom the respondent admitted to be his land-lord. 8.3. It is further observed that law is very settled that once a tenant is always a tenant and there is no requirement in law of any attornment by the tenant of the purchaser of the property from the land-lord and said attornment takes place at its own by operation of law. Accordingly, once it is established that the petitioner was the successor-in-interest of the previous land-lord, the relationship of land-lord and tenant devolved between both the parties to the present petition.
8.4. It is also pertinent to mention that relationship of land-
lord and tenant between both the parties was also established from the document Ex.PW1/8, which is the certified copy of the order dt. 15.04.2010 passed by the Competent Authority (Slum) u/S 19(1) of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 13 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.27 14:36:12 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN the Slum Areas (improvement and clearance) Act 1956. Said order was further proved by the concerned official examined as PW4 and from perusal of said order it is very clear that the relationship of land-lord and tenant was held to be there between both the parties to the present case. Said finding is further corroborated from the record of the previous civil suit i.e. Ex.PW1/10. Said suit was filed by the present petitioner seeking recovery of money being the arrears of rent and said suit was decreed in favour of present petitioner against the present respondent. The first appeal filed against the said judgment was dismissed by Ld. Appellate Court vide judgment dt. 19.04.1999 as reflected from the document Ex.PW1/11 and the second appeal against the said judgment was also dismissal by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as reflected from the document Ex.PW1/12. Said judgment of Hon'ble High Court has been further proved by the witness examined as PW2, who produced the record of Hon'ble High Court. The respondent / RW1 has duly admitted the said record in his cross-examination and he further admitted that since then he was paying rent to the petitioner u/S 27 of DRC Act and rather he himself has placed on record document in this regard as Ex.RW1/6 i.e. the copy of challan of deposition of rent in the court.
8.5. It is also pertinent to mention that respondent had also taken the plea that the subject premises were enemies property and placed the document Ex. RW1/1 and Ex.RW1/2 in this regard, however, said plea is certainly not tenable for two reason, firstly, the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 14 of 25 Digitally signed 27.11.2025 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:36:17 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN respondent / RW1 himself admitted that he had not received any notice from the office of Custodian of Enemy properties and second and foremost that the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the land-lord in view of S 116 of IEA (122 BSA). 8.6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is to be concluded that petitioner has successfully proved the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties to the present petition.
SERVICE OF LEGAL NOTICE AND NON-PAYMENT OF RENT:-
8.7. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioner that plaintiff had got served the demand notice dt 11.05.2010 i.e. Ex.PW1/14 and same was also replied by the respondent i.e. Ex.PW1/15. The receipt of said notice has been duly admitted by the respondent / RW1 in his cross-examination. Accordingly, the service of the demand notice in terms of S 106 of TPA and as required u/S 14(1)(a) of DRC Act is not in dispute in any manner. 8.8. Now, on perusal of said document Ex.PW1/14, it is observed that the petitioner has raised the demand of arrears of rent from the respondent from the period of 01.01.2004 to 01.06.2010 at the rate of Rs. 121/- per month to be paid within the period of 60 days of the receipt of the said notice. Undoubtedly, the petitioner had the legal right to seek recovery of arrears of rent only for period of three preceding years from the date on which notice was served on the respondent, however, at the same time the facts remained that (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 15 of 25 Digitally signed by 27.11.2025 VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.27 14:36:21 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN admittedly respondent did not make payment of any rent to the petitioner and rather had deposited the same in the Court. 8.9. In this regard, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent that the said notice Ex.PW1/14 was sent by the petitioner on 08.06.2010, as reflected from the document Ex.RW1/5 and that even if it is taken that the notice was served on the respondent on the very next day i.e. 09.06.2010, the respondent had deposited the rent in the court on 23.07.2010, as reflected from the document Ex.RW1/6 and therefore, the rent was deposited within the period of 60 days from the date of receipt of said notice. It is further submitted that rate of rent was previously Rs. 110/- per month and the petitioner has demanded the rate of rent at Rs. 121/-
per month after increasing the same and consequently the respondent had deposited the total amount of rent of Rs. 4600/- for the period of 38 months commencing from 01.05.2007 to 30.06.2010 which was only legally recoverable. Accordingly, it is submitted that the respondent had complied with the demand of arrears of rent and the petitioner cannot seek the eviction of the respondent u/S 14 (1)(a) of DRC Act.
8.10. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the respondent had deposited the rent without the mandatory compliance of S 26 of DRC Act, as he had not tendered the rent to the petitioner / land-lord before deposing the same in the court and accordingly the deposition of said rent was not valid.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 16 of 25 Digitally signed 27.11.2025 by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.27 14:36:26 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN 8.11. Heard. It is observed as reflected from the document Ex.RW1/6, the respondent has deposited the amount of Rs. 4600/- as arrears of rent on 23.07.2010 for the period of 01.05.2007 to 30.06.2010. It is not the matter of dispute that the respondent was liable to deposit the rent to pay or tender or deposit the rent only for the period of which he had deposited the rent in the court, considering the period of previous three years from the date of legal notice itself i.e. 11.05.2010. However, it is certainly to be appreciated whether the respondent could deposit the rent in the court without paying or tendering the same to the petitioner after receipt of legal notice Ex.PW1/14. In this regard, reference is made the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as Jalveen Rosha vs B. D. Khanna Publicity on 4 July, 2022, wherein it was observed as follows:
" 77. In the event of any one of the aforesaid three circumstances envisaged by Section 27(1) applying, the provision states that ―the tenant may deposit such rent with the Controller in the prescribed manner‖. The words ―such rent‖, as used in Section 27(1), and as read in juxtaposition with the words ―any rent‖ used in the same provision read with Section 26(1) which envisages payment of rent on a month to month basis, indicates that Section 27(1) would also apply on a month to month basis. This is clear from a reading of sub-section (1) of Sections 26 and 27 in conjunction. Section 26(1) requires the tenant to pay rent, to the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 17 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:36:31 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN landlord, for any particular month, by the 15th day of the succeeding month (where no other contractually fixed date of payment is forthcoming). Section 27(1) would apply where the landlord does not accept the rent so tendered by the tenant, or refuses to give a receipt for the said rent, or where a bona fide doubt in terms of Section 27(1) exists. In any of these circumstances, Section 27(1) permits the tenant to deposit such rent with the Rent Controller in the prescribed manner.
78. Clearly, therefore, the rent which the tenant is permitted to deposit with the Rent Controller, under Section 27(1), is the rent which tenant tendered within the time stipulated in Section 26(1) and which the landlord refused to accept.
80. Each application under Section 27(1) would, therefore, have necessarily to aver and establish that (i) the tenant had sought to pay, to the landlord, the rent forming subject matter of that application and (ii) the landlord had refused to accept that rent. There could, therefore, be no question of any request for permission to deposit he rent in Court, under Section 27(1) if in the first instance, the tenant had not sought to pay the said rent to the landlord and the landlord had not refused to accept the said rent."
8.12. Accordingly, in view of the observation made by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the said judgment, it is very clear that the tenant has no right to directly approach the court for deposition of rent and before that he is under mandate to pay or at least tender the rent to the land-lord and only in case of refusal or in case of non-issuance of receipt, the tenant can approach the court u/S 27 of DRC Act for deposition of rent. Now, coming to facts of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 18 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:36:36 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN present case it is observed that the respondent / RW1 in his evidence affidavit has stated that he had tendered the legally recoverable rent to the petitioner in person and then by money order (MO), and same was not accepted, however, the fact remains that neither of the said event has been proved by the respondent. No document has been placed on record, if the respondent had tried to send the said money towards arrears of rent by way of Money Order. Accordingly, it is to be concluded that deposition of rent by the respondent in the court u/S 27 of DRC Act was not legally valid and consequently it is to be further concluded that the respondent failed to pay or tender the rent to the petitioner in terms of S 14 (1)(a) of DRC Act despite receipt of notice Ex.PW1/14.
LAW ON SEC. 14(1) (j) D.R.C. ACT:-
9. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant provision of Delhi Rent Control Act so that position may be crystal clear:-
"Section-14 (j) - that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises;
9.1. At the outset, it is observed that petitioner has failed to lead any evidence or even to plead anything specifically what damage was caused by the respondents to the property in question. Even at the stage of final arguments, counsel for petitioner has not pressed the said ground of eviction. Accordingly, petitioner has failed to (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 19 of 25 27.11.2025 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN prove the said ground for eviction.
BENEFIT U/S 14(2) OF DRC ACT :-
10. It is observed that in the present matter, the order dt. 01.03.2012 was passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court with the direction to the respondent to deposit the arrears of rent at the admitted rate of Rs. 121/- per month from 01.07.2010 till date of order, within one month. The respondent was further directed to deposit future rent @ Rs. 121/- per month by the 15th of each succeeding month. The said order was certainly passed by the court by exercising the power u/S 15(1) of DRC Act / 15(4) DRC Act only. It is further observed that during pendency of the petition, the petitioner had moved an application u/s 15(7) of DRC Act, which was dismissed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dt. 31.01.2013.
10.1. It is further observed that at the stage of final argument, submissions were also heard with respect to the compliance of the order u/S 15(1) DRC Act / 15(4) DRC Act, as mentioned in the order dt. 09.10.2025 and the report was also sought from the Nazir of the Court in this regard. It was reported by the Nazir that the respondent had last deposited the rent for the period of July 2024 to June 2024 on 29.05.2024 and had deposited the rent for the period of July 2025 ( inadvertently mentioned as July 2024) on 19.05.2024.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 20 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:36:41 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN It was further report by the Nazir that there was one delay on the part of the respondent that the rent for the period of July 2020 to June 2021 was deposited on 28.09.2020. accordingly, the respondent certainly failed to deposit the rent for the period of July 2020 and August 2020 in the period of 15 days of the succeeding month, in terms of order dt. 01.03.2012. In this regard, it was submitted by the ld. Counsel for the respondent that said delay was caused during the period of Covid-19 and there was extention of limitation by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of In Re:Cognizance for Extention of Limitation and accordingly the said delay should not be considered against the respondent.
10.2. Heard. It is observed that the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in suo motu orders in Writ Petition (C) No. 3/2020, the limitation was extended with respect to the statutary period provided for some statute, however, in the present matter the act of deposit of rent by the respondent was not governed by any such statute but was only a direction by way of order dated 01.03.2012. Thus, the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not available to the respondent. It is further observed that the present court does not have any power to condone the said delay at its own and the respondent was certainly required to move the application for condonation of delay by mentioning the sufficient reasons for not being able to deposit the rent in terms of court order for the period of July and August 2020. Accordingly, there is no situation that said delay can be condoned by the court at this stage. In this regard, reliance is also placed upon the judgments of Manohar Lal (deceased) (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 21 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:36:47 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN through legal heir's vs Prem Nath Gera (deceased) through legal heirs (CM(M) No. 638/2011) dated 24.05.11 and on the judgment of B.R. Gupta v. Pawan Kumar Gupta (CM(M) No. 415/2012), wherein it was reiterated that without an application for condonation, the tenant cannot claim protection under Section 14(2).
Other Relief Sought By the Petitioner
11. It is further pertinent to observe that apart from the eviction order u/S 14 (1) (a) and 14 (1) (j) of DRC Act, the petitioner has also sought the relief of direction tot he respondent to restore the premises by removing the encroachment i.e. the stair- case, room in tin shed and one toilet-cum-latrine on the roof of the subject premises and further sought the damages of Rs. 1.5 Lacs.
11.1. In this regard, it is observed that at the very first the relief sought with respect to damages cannot be granted by the present court as not being the civil court. Again with respect to the relief of restoration of subject premises, it is observed that after the possession is received the petitioner he can restore the same at his own and can seek the damages in this regard from the respondent as per law. However, at the same time, the fact remains that the petitioner is entitled to possession of the stair-case, room with tin- shed and open area with terrace, as being part of subject premises only and as clearly reflected from the site plan ExPW1/9. The (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 22 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:36:52 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN genuineness of the site plan has not been disputed by the respondent , as no question was asked on behalf of the respondent in the cross- examination of the petitioner / PW1 in this regard. The finding that the premises at the roof are the part of the tenanted premises is concluded from the very fact that as per the case of respondent only and also as reflected from the site plan Ex.PW1/9, the stair-case are inside the tenanted shop only and there could not be any eventuality that a person could go to the roof / terrace without using the stair- case or he could have access to the said stair-case after entering into the premises of someone else. Accordingly, there can not be any other situation except the fact that said premises are the part of tenanted premises only. Even otherwise, the law is very well settled that if a tenant has raised any illegal construction or has occupied some portion with the tenanted premises belonging to the land-lord, he is certainly liable to vacate the same at the time of vacation of tenanted premises.
CONCLUSION:-
12. In view of aforesaid discussion, the present petition for eviction u/s 14(1) (j) is hereby dismissed, however petition is allowed u/s 14(1) (a) of DRC Act. Again as respondent is not entitled for benefit u/s 14(2) of DRC Act, the eviction order is passed in favor of petitioner and against the respondents. The Petitioner is held entitled to recover the possession of tenanted (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 23 of 25 27.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.27 14:36:56 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN premises i.e. premises i.e. one shop measuring 6ft x 18ft on the ground floor alongwith staircase in the said shop the room covered with tin-shed on the terrace and one toilet-cum-latrine on the roof in premises no. 1738, Bazar Lal Kuan, Delhi-110006 as shown in the site plan i.e. ExPW1/9.
13. It is further observed that the present eviction petition was filed in March 2011 and the case was pending before the court for more than 14 years. As reflected from the ordersheets the delay was caused for the reasons to be assigned to both the parties, the petition was filed, however the fact remains that petitioners were deprived of the enjoyment of their own property for more than 14 years. The property in question is situated in the area which is the a commercial hub and therefore, if vacated earlier, the property in question would have generated a lot of revenue to the petitioner.
14. Accordingly, I am of the view that it is a fit case where realistic amount of cost should be imposed upon the respondent. Even otherwise, the imposition of cost goes a longway in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings by the litigants. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Ram Rameshwari Devi & Ors Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors dated 04.07.2011 and also on the celebrated case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3353. As discussed above, even in the present case, the respondent had raised false plea while denying the ownership of the petitioners and the relationship of landlord and (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 24 of 25 Digitally signed 27.11.2025 by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.27 14:37:00 +0530 RC ARC 77622/2016 FIDA HUSSAIN VS. ZAFFARYAB HUSSAIN tenant in the property in question. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is imposed the cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only). File be consigned to record room.
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.11.2025 Digitally signed (Announced in open court VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL On 27.11.2025 ). AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.27 14:37:06 +0530 Note: This judgment contains 25 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL 2025.11.27
14:37:19 +0530
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 25 of 25 27.11.2025