Delhi District Court
Kiran Walia vs Raj Malhotra on 14 January, 2026
In the Court of SCJ-cum-RC, (West District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
RC ARC No. 58/2021
CNR No. DLWT03-002105-2021
Kiran Walia,
W/o Rakesh Walia,
R/o AD-13, Tagore Garden,
New Delhi-110027 ...... Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Raj Malhotra,
W/o Late Surender Malhotra,
Shop/Godown Attached with
Gomteshwar Mandir, Gali no. 18,
WZ-9, Krishna Park Extn., Mahavir Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
Also At:
R/o WZ-12 & 13, Gali No. 16,
Krishna Puri, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018 ....Respondent
Date of Filing : 31.08.2021
Date of Judgment : 14.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. Brief synopsis of the present case are, that on 31.08.2021, the petitioner filed instant petition Under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying for an order for eviction in his favour and against the Respondent/Tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') in respect of the tenanted shop bearing Store Room No. WZ-9-A/1, in gali no. 18, adjoining with stairs of flat of Gomteshwar Mandir in Krishna Park Extn., Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi-110018 as shown in red colour in the site Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14 15:56:25 +0530 RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 1 / 21 plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
AVERMENTS BY PETITIONER IN PETITION
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioner, that the respondent is a tenant under the landlordship of the petitioner, who is the owner of the Store Room No. WZ-9-A/1, in gali no. 18, adjoining with stairs of flat of Gomteshwar Mandir in Krishna Park Extn., Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi-110018. That at the time of letting out the above said shop, a letter of attornment was placed on record of the court and as per the said letter, the respondent was to pay the rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month. Accordingly, the respondent is liable to pay the arrears of rent of Rs. 18,000/- @ of Rs. 3,000/- per month for the period from 1 st February 2021 to 31 July 2021 alongwith 18 % interest pendentelite and future rent. It is contended, that a legal Notice dated 11.06.2021 was sent to the respondent for payment of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month from 1 st January 2021 to 31 May, 2021 and the same was duly served upon the respondent but the respondent failed to comply with the said notice.
3. Thereafter, Written Statement was filed by the respondent in which she contended, that the present eviction petition is liable to be dismissed as there is neither any relation of landlord-tenant between the parties nor the petitioner has got any right in the property. That the petitioner claims herself to be owner of the property by virtue of some title documents executed by one person Ranveer Nath, that was never got any ownership rights in the property. It is further stated, that the alleged GPA which is claimed by Ranveer Nath has never been accepted by any court of law. It is further contended, that since there is no relation of landlord-tenant between the petitioner and the respondent, the present case is liable to be dismissed.
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14
15:56:31
+0530
RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 2 / 21
4. The petitioner has filed the replication to the written statement filed by the respondent and has reiterated the facts as mentioned in the petition and has stated that the contents of the written statement are wrong and same have been denied.
5. Perusal of the record reveals, that on 05.04.2022 an order U/Sec. 15 (4) D.R.C. Act was passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, whereby the respondent was directed to pay/deposit the rent @ Rs. 3000/- per month with the controller w.e.f. 01.02.2021 till date within one month of the date of this order in the form of FDR in the name of the court alongwith 15 % interest as per Section 26 of DRC Act and further respondent is directed to continue to regularly deposite the rent month by month by the 15th of each succedding month at the same rate before the controller as per Section 15(4) of DRC Act in form of FDR.
6. Perusal of record further reveals, that since the abovesaid order U/Sec. 15(1) D.R.C. Act was not complied with, the defence of the respondent was struck off U/Sec. 15(7) D.R.C. Act on 09.07.2025, and the matter was fixed for leading Petitioner's Evidence. Accordingly, evidence was led by the petitioner wherein she examined herself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. She relied upon various documents as under:-
1. Ex. PW-1/1 is the site plan
2. Ex. PW-1/2 (colly) is the legal notice of letter of attornment with postal recept of advocate Rakesh Walia dated 12.06.2022 and tracking report.
3. Ex. PW-1/3 (colly) is the legal notice with postal receipt of advocate Aman Arora dated 12.06.2021 and tracking report
4. Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR)(colly) is the sale deed dated 30.12.2020 RICHA SHARMA
5. Ex. PW-1/5 (colly) is the copy of registered will dated 12.12.2003 is de-exhibited and now the same the same is Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2026.01.14 15:56:36 +0530 RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 3 / 21 marked as Mark A (colly).
6. Ex. PW-1/6 (colly) is the copy of registered GPA dated 27.08.2018 is de-exhibited and now the same is marked as Mark B (colly).
7. Ex. PW-1/6 (colly) is the copy of the judgments/orders of Ms. Charu Aggarwal the then Ld. ARC, Shri Ajay Nagar the then Ld. ARC, Shri Rajender Singh, the then Ld. ADJ and Shri Dharmesh Sharma, the then Ld. DJ west is de-exhibited and now the same is marked as Mark C (colly).
7. Thereafter, plaintiff evidence was closed vide order dated 08.10.2024 and matter was slated for RE. Despite giving multiple opportunities to the respondent, RE was not led and seeing the conduct of the respondent, the right of the respondent to lead RE stands closed vide order dated 02.12.2025 and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record very carefully and meticulously.
9. My findings are as under :-
10. Law on the subject under Section 14 (1) (a) DRC Act:-
It is expedient to recapitulate the relevant provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act, inorder to understand the position of law with respect to section 14:-
"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 Digitally signed by RICHA recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a 2026.01.14 15:56:41 +0530 RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 4 / 21 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 beenserved of him by the landlord in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)."
The following are the ingredients of section 14 (1) proviso (a):-
(i). There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
(ii). There should be a non payment or non tendering of arrears of rent by the tenant
(iii). A legal notice of demand should be served upon the tenant requiring the tenant to pay or tender a legally recoverable rent.
(iv) The tenant should not have paid the arrears of rent within two month of service of such notice
11. Now, this court proceeds with the elaborate discussion of the ingrediants necessarily required to be prove for claiming a relief under section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act.
(i). RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT BETWEEN THE PARTIES:-
12. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 RC ARC No. 58/2021 Digitally signed Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 5 / 21 by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.14
15:56:49
+0530
(153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation as governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished from the one in title suit. In the case of M. R. Sawhney Vs. Dories Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was held that once a tenant always a tenant, unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law which is not so in the present petition.
13. It is settled law, that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The petitioners have to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioners have to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
14. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 6 / 21 Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14 15:56:54 +0530 pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
15. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
16. In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court has specifically held 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 Digitally receiving rent for his own benefit and not RICHA signed by RICHA SHARMA for and on behalf of someone else. If the SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14 landlord was receiving rent for himself 15:57:01 +0530 RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 7 / 21 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 D.R.C. 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. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppel against such tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this respect".
17. It is settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord , neither is the landlord required to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppel also bars the respondent herein from challenging the landlordship of the petitioners. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant. So, what has to be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14
15:57:07
+0530
RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 8 / 21
18. Now, in the light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts of the case in hand. The petitioner has contended, that she is the lawful landlord/owner of the tenanted shop bearing Store Room No. WZ-9-A/1, in gali no. 18, adjoining with stairs of flat of Gomteshwar Mandir in Krishna Park Extn., Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi-110018 and that she had purchased the same, vide registered sale deed exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4. The said document i.e. the sale deed was produced in original before this court and as per the said document, the petitioner purchased the suit property from vendor Mahant Yogi Ranveer Nath Chela of Peer Rattan Nath. Further, in the sale deed it has been stated, that the vendor is the GPA holder of Peer Rattan Nath through registered GPA and that Peer Rattan Nath is the owner of the suit property on the basis of registered will as document no. 959, receipt of application dated 30.04.2005, executed on 12.12.2003 by Mahant Peer Shiv Nath.
19. It is pellucid to note, that despite ample opportunities being given to the respondent, the respondent did not chose to step into the witness box for advancing any evidence in support of the averments made by him in his reply to the present petition. It is further aposite to note, that apart from making an evasive denial in para 5 of preliminary objection with regard to non existence of landlord-tenant relationship betwen the petitioner and the respondent, no evidence has been led by the respondent to assert and prove the said averment. It is further apropose to note, that with respect to the averments made in para no. 3(b), i.e. regarding the name and address of the tenant, the respondent in his reply has stated, that the same is a matter of record, thereby not denying to the address of the respondent as that of the suit premises. It is further not out of place to mention, that vide order of the Ld. Predecessor of this court dated 05.04.2022, it stands categorically observed as under:-
Digitally signed by "In the WS the responent has admitted to be a RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14 tennat in the tenanted premisees and has also 15:57:13 +0530 RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 9 / 21 admitted the rate of rent at Rs. 3000/- per month. However, the respondent has statted, that the respondnet has making payment of rent to some Bhraspati Nath, but no documentary proff regarding payment of rent for the period mention in the petition has been placed on reocrd by the respondent. In view of the submissions made, it is clear that the respondent is liable to make payment of rent. As evidence is yet to be recorded for proving the document as there is dispute as to the person the rent is payable, the respondnet is directed to depsoite the rent at the reat of Rs. 3000/- with the controller with effect from 01.02.20221 till date (05.04.2022) within one month fro the date of order in form of FDR in the name of court along with 15 % as per section 26 of DRC Act. Further the respondent is directed to continue to regularly deposite the rent month by month by the 15 of each succeding month at the sa e arate before the controller as per section 15 (4) of DRC Act in form of FDR."
20. It is material to note, that vide the above directions of the Ld. Predecessor of this court, it is categorically observed that the respondent not only admitted to his status as that of a tenant but also admitted that the rate of rent was Rs. 3000/-
per month and the only contention raised was with respect to the rent being paid to one Braspati Nath. Therefore, the onus was upon the respondent to prove the payment of rent as well as the payment of the same to one Braspati Nath in capacity of he being the owner but as no evidece was advanced by the RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 10 / 21 Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.14 15:57:20 +0530 respondent to this effect, the said assertion so made by the respondent in his WS does not stand proved.
21. During the course of arguments, it stood surfaced, that in various other litigations between the parties the court have considered the will and the GPA relied upon by the petitioner as correct and have discarded the claims of Mr. Braspati Nath. The petitioner has filed the certified copyof the judgment of the then rent controller passed in the petition titled as Mahant Peer Rattan nayth Vs Rakesh Dua, which was a petition under section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act. In that case Mr. Braspati Nath was examined as PW-1 and in his cross examination he deposed that he is not the owner of the suit property and the said suit property in the petition under section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act forms the part of the same Khasra number and the property as the one in dispute in the present petition i.e. WZ-9 part of khasra no. 1 situated in village Nagli Jalib Colony, Known as Krishna Park Extension, Delhi-110018. In para 16 of the judgment of the then rent controller, it categorically stands observed as, " record reveals that Sh.
Braspati Nath, PW-1 himself has admitted during the cross examination that he was not authorized to sell the said property to Sh. Chibar and could not transferred the property"
22. It is further interesting to note, that though the respondent in his reply to the petition has denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the respondent but has nowhere denied his status as that of tenant and has further not stated as to who is the owner of the suit premises, if not the petitioner. It further does not stand substantitated by the respondent, as to in what capacity is he residing or is in occupation of the suti premises. It is further not out of place to mention, that the fact regarding the payment of rent by the respondent duly stands admitted before the Ld. Predecessor of this court by way of oral submissions and the said fact duly stands surfaced and noted in the order RC ARC No. 58/2021 Digitally signed Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 11 / 21 by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.14
15:57:26
+0530
sheet dated 05.04.2022 of the Ld. Predecessor of this court. It is a matter of record, that no defence has been put forth by the respondent to deny the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent, moreso in the scenario where there is no explicit denial to the status of respondent as that of tenant in the suit premises.
23. Coming to the fact of the case, the petitioner in order to prove its case has firstly placed on record the site plan i.e. Ex. PW-1/1. Thereafter, the petitioner has placed on record the letter of attornment i.e. Ex. PW-1/2 sent by the counsel of one Mahant Ranveer Nath Chela i.e. the earlier owner of the suit premises to the respondent. Perusal of the said document clearly reflects, that vide the said letter, the earlier owner had categorically informed the respondent that Mahant Ranveer Nath Chela had sold the suit property to Smt. Kiran Walia, vide registered sale deed in the month of December 2020 and had further informed that the said store/property was given to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 3000/- per month and that from 01.01.2021, it is the petitioner i.e. Smt. Kiran Walia who is entitled to get rent from the respondent. The respondent was further informed, that he had to pay the rent to the petitioner for the suit premises. It is pellucid to note, that the said letter of attornement i.e. Ex PW-1/2 is duly signed by the earlier owner of the suit property i.e. Mahant Ranveer Nath Chela and the delivery of the letter further stands proved as it is appended with the postal receipt i.e. Ex. PW-1/3(colly). In addition to the above letter of attornement, the petitioner has also placed reliance on the registered sale deed executed between the previous owner i.e. Mahant Ranveer Nath Chela and the petitioner, made and executed on 30.12.2021, vide which the suit property was sold to the petitioner.
24. Apart from the above document, petitioner has also placed reliance on copy of registered will 12.12.2003, by Mahant Peer Shiv Nath. The will categorically RC ARC No.Digitally 58/2021signed Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 12 / 21 by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.14
15:57:31
+0530
specifies at clause 3 under the heading of commercial property, that the commercial property constructed at WZ-9-A/1, Gali No. 18, Krishna Park, Mahavir Nagar shall be the exclusive property of Rattan Nath. Thereafter, plaintiff has further placed reliance on Mark B i.e. copy of GPA executed by Rattan Nath in favour of Mahant Yogi Ranveer Nath Chela. Apart from the above document, petitioner has also placed reliance upon the document exhibited as PW-4/1 i.e. the Judgment dated 21.08.2013 of the then Rent Controller, whereby the then respondent i.e. Rakesh Chibbar in the suit property, was directed to pay montly arrears of rent to the then petitioner i.e. Peer Rattan Nath or his attorney i.e. Peer Braspati Nath.
25. Now, at this stage, it is interesting to note, that vide the order of the Ld. Predecessor of this court dated 05.04.2022, it stands categorically observed that the respondent had submitted before the Ld. Predecessor of this court, that he had been paying the rent to one Braspati Nath, who is the attorney of Mahant Peer Rattan Nath as clarified vide document Ex. PW-4/1 i.e. as per the Judgment of the then Rent Controller dated 21.08.2013. Therefore, as detailed above and as proved vide virtue of sale deed i.e. Ex. PW-1/4 and the attornment letter Ex. PW-1/2, the suit property stood purchased by the petitioner and the tenancy stood attorned in the name of the petitioner.
Therefore, from the epilogue of the above discussion and upon the appreciation of material on record, it clearly stands established, that the petitioner has been able to prove his landlordship in the present case. On the contrary, the respondent has taken several pleas such as; there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent and petitioner has no right in the suit property but he has proved nothing in his favour and resultantely, upon the appreciation of testimony of PW-1 and the subsequent sale deed as executed between the petitioner and the previous owner being duly proved by way of summoned record being brought forth from the RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 13 / 21 Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.14 15:57:36 +0530 Sub registrar office by PW-2, the petitioner had duly discharged the onus placed upon her to prove the existence of landlord tenant relationship between her and the respondent.
26. It is settled law that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The petitioner has to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it was held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioner has to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
27. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 14 / 21 Digitally signed by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14
15:57:43 +0530
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
28. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant. It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant."
29. Coming back to the facts of the present case, on one hand, the petitioner has registered sale deed in her favour which is supported by duly registered chain of documents. On the other hand, it is no where the case of the respondent that he is not the tenant. The only defence which he takes is that the petitioner is not the owner of the suit property. Once the respondent has admitted that he is the tenant in the suit property and he has also executed rent agreement, it does not RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 15 / 21 Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.14 15:57:48 +0530 lie in his mouth to deny the title of the petitioner in view of the bar contained in Section 116 of the Evidence Act.
30. The respondent in his evidence did not lead even a single evidence to prove that he is the owner. In light of the detailed discussion and after going through the entire material on record and testimonies of the witnesses, it is held that the petitioner has been able to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant and as such, this ingredient of section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act has been satisfied.
(ii). SERVICE OF LEGAL DEMAND NOTICE :-
31. Perusal of Section 14 (1)(a) D.R.C. Act clearly shows that before initiating the eviction proceeding before the Rent Controller under D.R.C Act, the landlord has to serve the legal notice demanding the payment of arrears of rent, and if the tenant does not pay or tender the rent within two months of service of such notice, the landlord becomes entitled to file eviction proceeding under section 14 (1) (a) of D.R.C Act.
32. It is pertinent to reproduce the section 27 of General clauses Act which is as under :-
"Section-27- Meaning of service by post--where any central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 16 / 21 Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14 15:57:53 +0530 which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
33. In the case titled as K. Bhaskaran vs sankaran vaidhyan Balan 1999 A.I.R SC 3762, the Hon'ble supreme court observed :-
"The principle incorporated in section 27 can profitably be imported in a case where the sender has dispatched the notice by post with the correct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the sendee unless he proves that it was not really served and that he was not responsible for such non-service."
34. Perusal of the material on record reveals, that the Petitioner has claimed to have served the legal demand notice dated 11.06.2021 alongwith tracking report exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3 (Colly) to pay the arrears of rent on the respondent/tenant but the same was not complied with by the respondent. The tracking report regarding proof of dispatch of the legal demand notice to the address of the respondent has also been tendered in evidence. However, the respondent has not put himself in the witness box to rebut the claim of the petitioner in respect of service of aforesaid legal notice. Moreover, no evidence was led by the respondent to rebut the averments of the Petitioner. Therefore, in view of the above ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the notice is deemed to be served.
35. As such, in view of averments, unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of PW-1, one of the ingredients in respect of service of legal demand notice has been satisfied by the Petitioner U/S 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act.
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14
15:57:59
+0530
RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 17 / 21
(iii). NON PAYMENT OF LEGALLY RECOVERABLE RENT :-
36. It is well settled law that when the petitioner files the petition under section 14(1) (a) of D.R.C Act alleging non- payment of rent, the onus is always upon the respondent/tenant to prove that he had paid the rent and there was no due against him at the time of service of legal demand notice served by the petitioner on the respondent/tenant.
37. It is well settled that whenever landlord alleges that legally recoverable rent has not been paid by the tenant, it becomes the duty of tenant to prove that he has paid or tendered the aforesaid rent and there is no due against him as such onus is on the tenant to prove the payment or tendering of rent.
38. Perusal of 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act also stipulates that a tenant is required to pay or tender the legally recoverable rent due within two months of the service of notice. Perusal of record reflects that the petitioner is demanding the legally recoverable rent and the respondent was given an opportunity to pay or tender the legally recoverable rent within two months. As such, the respondent was obliged to pay or tender the demanded rent within two months from the date of service of legal notice for the claimed period prior to date mentioned in legal notice.
39. It is settled law that when the petitioner alleges non- payment of rent under section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act, the onus lies upon the respondent/tenant to prove that he has paid the rent. It has been held in Sukhanand Vs. Ivth Additional District Judge, Bulendshahar & ors., [1994(2) AIRCJ 27] that the onus to show payment of rent lies on the tenant and oral testimony of tenant in regard to the payment of rent claiming discharge of liability in this regard cannot be admitted to be worth reliance at all. It is also held in Raghubir Prasad Vs. Rajendra RC ARC No.Digitally 58/2021 signed Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 18 / 21 by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14 15:58:04 +0530 Kumar Gurudev, 1993(2) R.C.R. (Rent) 234] that on default in payment of rent the onus to show payment of rent lies on tenant. It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Karamchand Deojee Sanghavi Vs. Tulshiram Kalu Kumawat, (1992(1) RCR 118] that in a case of eviction on arrears of rent, the onus would always be on tenant to prove that he has paid the rent.
40. Thus, the onus was upon the respondent to prove that he had made upto date payment of rent and that there was no arrears of rent in any case for three consecutive months due against him as otherwise claimed in the legal demand notice, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3(colly). The respondent could have proved the said fact either through oral or documentary evidence.
41. Furthermore, in Jai Kishan Versus Kamleshwar Nath Arora, 20132 CLJ 77 Del., wherein judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Sarla Goel and Ors Versus Kishan Chand, (2009) 7 SCC 658 was relied upon, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, held that on refusal of the landlord to accept the rent tendered through money order, it was incumbent upon the tenant to have deposited the rent before the Rent Controller as prescribed under section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act and the tenant having failed to deposit rent under section 27 of D.R.C. Act and, committed second default, is not entitled to protection under section 14(2) of the Act.
42. From the aforesaid judgment it is clear that if the landlord refuses to accept rent, then the tenant is required to deposit rent in court under section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act and in case he does not deposit rent in the court, then he cannot claim that he is protected from eviction under section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act because he has tendered rent to the landlord and that the landlord refused to accept the rent.
Digitally signed by RICHARICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14 15:58:10 +0530 RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 19 / 21
43. The respondent has failed to produce any document on record which could show that he has made the payment of rent demanded in the legal notice Ex.PW1/3(colly). It is held that the respondent has failed to discharge the burden of proof cast upon him to show that he tendered the rent to the petitioner. The respondent has also failed to prove that any rent was deposited with the Court under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Therefore, another ingredient of Section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act stands satisfied.
CONCLUSION:-
44. It is pertinent to mention here that in terms of the order dated 05.04.2022 passed by the Ld. Predecessor under section 15 (4) of the DRC Act, the respondent had not deposited the FDR in compliance of the order passed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. The order passed under Section 15 (4) DRC Act is read as order passed under Section 15 (1) DRC Act. Therefore, there is no need to pass separate order under Section 15(1) DRC Act. Accordingly, the benefit under Section 14 (2) cannot be granted as the respondent has defaulted in payment of rent, as per the report of the Nazir.
45. Therefore, it is held that the respondent is a defaulter within the meaning of Section 14(1)(a) of DRC Act and accordingly an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent with respect to the tenanted premises i.e. shop bearing Store Room No. WZ-9-A/1, in gali no. 18, adjoining with stairs of flat of Gomteshwar Mandir in Krishna Park Extn., Mahavir Nagar, New Delhi-110018 as shown in red colour in the site plan.
46. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RICHAPronounced in the open court SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2026.01.14 15:58:15 +0530 RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 20 / 21 Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.01.14 on 14.01.2026 15:58:24 +0530 (Richa Sharma) Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC THC / Delhi / 14.01.2026 RC ARC No. 58/2021 Kiran Walia Vs. Raj Malhotra Page No. 21 / 21