Delhi District Court
Kishori Lal vs Roshan Ors on 5 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
CCJ-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Dev Chaudhary, DJS
RC ARC -: 19/2014 & 25250/16
Unique Case ID -: DLWT030000272014
In the matter of -
SH. KISHORI LAL
S/o- Late Sh. Pyare Lal
R/o- WZ-18, Shadipur,
Top Floor, Ranjit Nagar,
Gali No.10, New Delhi-110008
......... Petitioner
VS
1. SH. ROSHAN (Ex-Parte)
S/o- Sh. Budhi Lal
R/o- H.No.M-3/3072, Gali No.10,
Top Floor, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi-110008
2. SMT. PREM WATI
W/o- Late Sh. Ghan Shyam
R/o- H.No.3025, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
3. SH. CHANDER PAL
S/o- Late Sh. Ghan Shyam
R/o- H.No.3025, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
4. SH. PARMOD KUMAR
S/o- Late Sh. Ghanshyam
R/o- H.No.3025, Ranjit Nagar,
New Delhi-110008
......... Respondents
1. Date of Institution : 05.03.2014
2. Date of Reserving Order : 02.05.2025
3. Date of Decision : 05.05.2025
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 1 of 19 DEV
DEV
CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05
15:21:49
+0530
4. Decision : Dismissed
Argued by -: Sh. Chander Mal, Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Vikas Manchanda, Ld. counsel for
respondent no.2 to 4.
JUDGMENT -
HEADING PARA No.
1. Petition 2-3
2. Written Statement 4-6
3. Evidence 7-10
4. Arguments 11-13
5. Analysis 14-38
6. Conclusion 39-41
1. The present eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (a) (b),
(d) and (h) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, "the Act") has been filed by Sh. Kishori Lal (hereinafter, "petitioner") against Sh. Roshan, Smt. Prem Wati, Sh. Chander Pal and Sh. Parmod Kumar (hereinafter, "respondents") in respect of one room situated on the ground floor of property bearing no.3025, Ranjit Nagar, New Delhi-110008 as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter, "the tenanted premises"), which was allegedly let out to respondent no. 1 for a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-.
PETITION -
2. Brief facts pleaded in the petition are that late Shri Pyare Lal, the father of the petitioner was the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and after his death, the petitioner along with his brothers jointly became the owners and landlord of the aforesaid property. On account of partition, this portion as shown red in the site plan came to Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 2 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:48 +0530 the share of the petitioner.
2.1. It is averred that respondent no. 1 was inducted as tenant by the petitioner in the tenanted premises for a rent of Rs. 250/- per month excluding of other charges. Rent receipts had been issued to the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner as and when the rent was paid by him. It is averred that the respondent no. 1 has paid the rent up to 31.12.2009 to the petitioner and thereafter, no rent was paid from 01.01.2010 onwards. The petitioner then issued a demand cum termination of tenancy notice dated 20.09.2013, calling upon the respondents to pay or tender the entire arrears of rent from 01.09.2010 to 31.10.2013, which were legally recoverable rent along with interest @ 15% thereon for the delayed payment of arrears of rent to the petitioner with increased rent.
2.2. It is further averred that the respondent no. 1 has unlawfully sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole of the tenanted premises to respondent no. 2 to 4, without obtaining the consent either oral or in writing of the petitioner. It is claimed that the respondent no. 2 to 4 are residing therein as unauthorized sub-tenants of the respondent no. 1 for last many years.
Further, the respondents have made additions and alterations in the tenanted premises as they have raised the construction of a staircase in the tenanted premises. It is also averred that the respondent no. 1 has acquired alternative accommodation and shifted his residence as mentioned in the array of parties to the petition and is not residing in the tenanted premises since last many years. Hence, the present petition has been filed seeking eviction of the respondents from the tenanted premises.
3. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondents Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 3 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:49 +0530 and thereafter, written statement was filed by the respondents.
WRITTEN STATEMENT -
4. The respondent no.1 in his written statement averred that the present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner to cause harassment to the respondent no. 1 deliberately. It is stated that it is not denied that the petitioner is the landlord qua the tenanted premises. It is stated that respondent no.1 was the lawful tenant in the suit premises, but he was dispossessed by the other respondents and they had forcibly taken possession of the premises from the respondent no.1, and this fact is very much in the knowledge of the petitioner. The respondent no. 1 has admitted that he was inducted as a tenant in the premises by the petitioner and rent receipts were issued by the petitioner till 31.12.2009. It is mentioned that since respondent no. 2 to 4 are in possession of the tenanted premises, they are liable to pay rent to the petitioner. It is stated that the construction of staircase has been done by the respondent nos. 2 to 4.
5. A separate written statement has been filed by respondent nos .2 to 4. In their written statement, it is averred that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the present petition has been filed by the petitioner in collusion and connivance of the respondent no. 1. It is alleged that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as he is neither owner nor landlord of the suit premises. It is stated that the counter foils of the rent receipts placed on record are forged and fabricated. The claim of the respondents in the written statement is that the respondents are living in their own right in the property as they are owners of the property, having purchased it from Mr. Roshan son of Anju for lawful Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 4 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:49 +0530 consideration on 15.11.1999. It is alleged that the respondent no.1 was never a tenant of the petitioner at any point of time. In fact, the respondent no.1 is the own person of the petitioner, and the petition is a collusive petition.
5.1. It is further averred in the written statement that the respondent no. 2 got installed electricity and water connections in the property in her own name by concerned authorities. She also has other documentary proofs such as documents of gas connection, ration card and bills etc. It is averred that respondent no.1 was never a tenant so the question of his subletting the premises to the respondents no 2 to 4 does not arise at all. It is further averred that the respondents are also owners of adjoining built up portion of five feet which they have purchased after paying consideration. 5.2. It is averred that the site plan filed by the petitioner is wrong and the respondents are filing their own site plan. It is mentioned that the respondent no. 1 had sold five-foot portion adjoining the suit property on 15.11.1999 for consideration. The receipt of legal notice is denied. Further, the respondents have denied the other averments in the petition.
6. A replication has been filed by the petitioner, wherein the allegations made in the written statement filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4 have been denied.
EVIDENCE -
7. In support of his petition, the petitioner has led the following oral and documentary evidence -
ORAL EVIDENCE PW-1 : Kishori Lal (petitioner) Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 5 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:48 +0530 Sachin Kumar (Assessor & PW-2 :
Collector Department) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex. PW1/A : Evidence affidavit of PW-1 Ex.PW1/1 : Site plan Ex.PW1/2 & Counter foils of rent receipts (2 :
Ex.PW1/3 in number)
Ex.PW1/4 : Copy of notice
Ex.PW1/5 to
: Postal receipts (4 in number)
Ex.PW1/8
Ex.PW1/9 to
: AD Cards (03 in number)
Ex.PW1/11
Authorization letter dated
Ex.PW2/1 :
08.02.2018
Ex.PW2/2 : Assessment order/Survey report
(Colly 11
pages)
Ex.PW2/3
: ID Card of PW-2
(OSR)
8. In support of their defence, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have led the following oral and documentary evidence -
ORAL EVIDENCE Pramod Kumar (respondent R4W1 :
no.4) DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Ex.R4W1/A : Evidence affidavit of R4W1 Ex.R4W1/1 Bill voucher dated 24.03.1992 of :
(OSR) Indian Oil Corporation
Ex.R4W1/2 Delivery voucher dated
:
(OSR) 11.09.1992
: Copy of receipt dated
Ex.R4W1/5
15.11.1999 issued to Premwati
(OSR)
by Roshan
Site plan filed by respondents
Ex.R4W1/6 :
no.2 to 4
9. A detailed discussion of the evidence led in this case by both the side is done in the latter part of the judgment.
Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 6 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:50 +0530
10. It is also apposite to note at this stage that out of the four respondents, the respondent no. 1 had filed his written statement but thereafter, he stopped appearing in this case. As such, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.05.2019. Thus, only the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have contested the present case.
ARGUMENTS -
11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties at length. I have also given my thorough consideration to the material on record. Written submissions have been filed by the petitioner, which have also been considered.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has proved his case by proving all ingredients of the grounds on which the petition has been filed. He has argued that the petitioner has been successful in showing his ownership on the standard required in an eviction petition, as he has been filing the house tax of the tenanted premises. It is argued that the tenant of the petitioner has admitted the landlord-tenant relation between the parties, the factum of non-payment of rent etc., and these facts do not require any proof. It is argued that the legal notice has been proved to be sent as per law, and presumption can be drawn qua its service.
Further, it is argued that the respondent nos. 2 to 4 have not challenged the order under Section 15(1) of the Act till date. It is further argued that the respondents have admitted being related to the erstwhile tenants of the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that since there was assignment of interest, the ground under Section 14(1)
(b) of the Act stands proved. His contention is that the premises has been vacated by the respondent no. 1 and therefore, since the Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 7 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:49 +0530 respondent no. 1 has admitted to residing somewhere else, the petition deserves to be allowed under Section 14(1)(d) and Section 14(1)(h) of the Act as well. Learned counsel has relied upon Mansa Ram vs. Sohan Singh 54 DLT 434 (1994), Kalu Ram vs. Sita Ram 1980 RLR (N) 44, Rubber House vs. Excelsor Needle Industries AIR 1989 SC 1160, M/s Madan & Co vs. Waszir Jaivir Chand AIR 1989 SC 630, Parasram Harnand Rao vs. Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain (1980) 3 SCC 565, Krishna Das Nandy vs. Bidhan Chandra Roy AIR 1959 Cal 181, Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. LIC (1998) 3 SCC 1, AK Nayar vs. Mahesh Prasad 153 (2008) DLT 423, Sushil Chander Gupta vs. Radha Krishan Bhatija AIR 1980 Delhi 110 and Modi Spinning & Weaving Co. Ltd. vs. Krishnawati C(M) No. 1158/2011 d.o.d.
23.02.2012 in support of his contentions. As such, it is prayed that the petition be allowed, and the eviction be ordered.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. He has argued that the petitioner has filed a collusive petition with the respondent no. 1, and the respondent no. 1 mysteriously stopped appearing in this case after filing a written statement containing admissions favouring the petitioner. He has argued that the case of the petitioner is totally false and fabricated, as the petitioner has deposed against his pleaded case. It is argued that the documentary evidence tendered into evidence by the respondents amply proves the falsity in the case of the petitioner as the respondents have proved that they have been residing in the property since a long time while the petitioner has claimed that the respondent no. 1 had inducted the other respondents as sub-tenants in 2009. It is argued that the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence to show the ownership of the tenanted premises and it is prayed that the Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 8 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:48 +0530 present petition be dismissed.
ANALYSIS -
14. As noted above, the present petition has been filed under four separate grounds enshrined under Section 14 of the Act. Each ground has different ingredients, and the petitioner is required to prove the ingredients of each of the ground separately. In this case, the petitioner has claimed that while respondent no. 1 is his tenant, the other respondents (no. 2 to 4) are sub-tenants of the respondent no. 1, who have been inducted in the tenanted premises without his consent.
15. In order to prove the case, the petitioner has relied mainly upon three factors. The admission of the respondent no.1 in his written statement, the documentary evidence of the petitioner and the oral testimony of the petitioner.
16. With regard to the admissions, the respondent no. 1 in this case appeared in the initial stages and after filing his written statement, stopped appearing. Subsequently, he was proceeded against ex-parte. In the written statement, the respondent no.1 has admitted that he is a tenant of the petitioner, and that the petitioner is the landlord qua the tenanted premises. He has admitted that he had been issued rent receipts by the petitioner till the year 2009. His version is that since the respondent nos. 2 to 4 had forcibly dispossessed him from the tenanted premises, he has not paid any further rent. He has also admitted that he is residing on the address as mentioned in the memo of parties. Notably, this address is different from the tenanted premises. Thus, the respondent no. 1 has admitted that he is not residing in the tenanted premises. However, the written statement is silent with respect to the duration from which he has not Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 9 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:48 +0530 been residing in the tenanted premises and whether he has acquired these premises.
17. Therefore, on appreciation of the written statement filed by the respondent no. 1, it appears that the respondent no. 1 has admitted the crucial facts forming basis of the ingredients required under Section 14 of the Act. However, on deeper appreciation of the other evidence on record, I find that the petition cannot be allowed despite the fact that the respondent no. 1 has admitted certain facts in this case.
18. This is because the other evidence on record suggests that there is more to this petition than meets the eye. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that facts admitted need not be proved. However, the provision under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, which enshrines this legal doctrine, also stipulates that the Court may require proof of the facts otherwise than the admission.
19. The main document in an eviction petition is the site plan, which helps in identifying the property in question. Any site plan ought to be sufficient to identify the tenanted premises with precision. In this case, the petitioner has tendered into evidence the site plan Ex. PW1/1. In the evidence affidavit of the petitioner, he has deposed that the site plan is correct as per the site, and the same has been prepared by an architect. However, during cross examination of the petitioner, the whole site plan of the petitioner has been called into question.
20. During cross examination, the petitioner PW1 deposed that he has filed the present petition for vacation of the red portion as marked in the site plan. For ready reference, the site plan Ex. PW1/1 is reproduced below -
Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 10 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:49 +0530 As is evident from the above site plan, the red portion is a smaller portion in front of the street/gali. The petitioner has deposed that the respondent had constructed a staircase after demolishing a kothri and the kothri was demolished by Pramod, Premwati, Chanderpal and others. The site plan filed in this case does not depict any such staircase or kothri. The petitioner could not depose about any dates or other details pertaining to the alleged demolition of kothri and no documentary evidence whatsoever has been led by the petitioner in support of his deposition qua the demolition of the kothri and construction of staircase.
21. On being questioned, the petitioner deposed that the respondent no. 2,3 and 4 reside in the portion marked as A-B-C-D in the site plan. He then deposed that they are residing on the first floor of the said portion. This deposition of the witness is totally contrary to the case pleaded by him. The case of the petitioner is that the red portion in the site plan was let out to respondent no. 1 and was further Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 11 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:49 +0530 sub-let to respondent nos. 2-4 by the respondent no.1, without his consent. In the petition and the evidence affidavit, the petitioner has pleaded that the respondent no. 1 was let out the ground floor of the property.
22. However, during his evidence, the witness contradicted himself and deposed that the respondent no. 2-4 are residing on the first floor, and in portion A-B-C-D, which is different from the tenanted premises. The petitioner PW1 deposed that the relatives of his tenant Man Singh are residing in the said portion. However, he again changed his version and deposed that Man Singh is residing till date in the portion A to D. The witness once again changed this statement and deposed that he does not know when Man Singh had left the said portion.
23. At another point, the petitioner deposed that he does not know if the respondent no. 2-4 are residing in any portion of the premises no. 3025, Ranjit Nagar but he immediately changed his stand to say that the respondent no. 2-4 are residing with his tenant. All these versions of the petitioner are against his pleaded case. The case of the petitioner being that the respondent no. 1 has parted with possession of the tenanted premises, there is no explanation qua his assertion as to how the respondent no. 2-4 are residing with his tenant i.e. respondent no. 1. The petitioner further deposed in his cross examination that Man Singh was his other tenant, and he was a tenant qua the premises where respondent no. 2 now resides. In that case, the petitioner has not explained as to why the petition has not been filed against Man Singh and has been filed instead against Roshan Lal.
24. PW1 also deposed that there is a stair-case within the portion A-B-C-D but admitted that the site plan does not depict any Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 12 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:49 +0530 such staircase. He also could not depose about the points E-F-G-H and M-N-O-P in his own site plan, which pertain to the first floor of the premises in question. He also could not depose as to who is in occupation of the said portions of the property in question. The witness also deposed that he had sold part of the property comprised in House No. 3025 to one Dharamveer. However, he could not point from the site plan as to which portion of the property was sold to the said Dharamveer.
25. That being the case, the deposition of the petitioner, PW1, cannot be relied by this Court at all. The above narration clearly reveals that the case pleaded by the petitioner is totally different from his deposition before the Court. The witness does not seem to have any idea about the status of the property in question, and his deposition contradicts his whole version in the petition. In every case, the pleadings are to be supported by evidence. Pleadings, although the basis for evidence, cannot be read in isolation, and de hors the evidence on record. In this case, the deposition of the petitioner totally belies his pleadings. The petitioner has failed to prove by leading evidence that the tenanted premises is under the occupation of the respondent no. 2-4. He has been unable to identify the tenanted premises and infact has deposed that the respondents are in possession of some other portion of the property. On that account alone, the petition of the petitioner is destined to fail. No reliance can be placed upon the testimony of this witness.
26. Moving forward, in order to prove that the petitioner is the landlord of the tenanted premises, the petitioner has relied upon two rent receipts to prove that he is the landlord. At the outset, it is seen that the petitioner has not led any other documentary evidence to Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 13 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:50 +0530 show that the tenanted premises was owned by his father, and has subsequently devolved upon him. The only evidence produced on record are the rent receipts. The rent receipts, Ex. PW1/2, are two rent receipts pertaining to rent paid for 01.01.2008 to 3.06.2009 and 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2007. Out of these two rent receipts, there is cutting and over-writing on the date of one rent receipt having no. 40.
The description of the property in the rent receipt is 3025, Ranjit Nagar, N.D-8, however, there is no further description of the portion of the property. The petitioner has deposed in his cross examination that there are 8 portions of the above-mentioned property but there is no description of the portion of the property for which the rent receipts were issued to the respondent no. 1.
27. During cross examination, the petitioner PW1 deposed that he used to issue rent receipt to Roshan since August, 1990. However, despite being given opportunity, he failed to produce on record any other rent receipt qua the property in question. Further, the witness deposed that the receipts formed part of a receipt book of 50 receipts with the serial number being printed. However, when confronted, he admitted that the receipt nos. on the receipts on record have been hand-written instead of being printed. He could not produce the counter foil pertaining to any other tenant in the same property. The witness admitted that he had the receipt book with him at the time when the petition was filed. There is no explanation as to why only two receipts were produced and not the complete receipt book. Thus, the receipts produced on record are not free from doubt.
28. During cross examination, the petitioner has admitted that he has not filed any document on record to show that his father was the owner of the premises in question. Further, PW2 is another Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 14 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:48 +0530 witness brought to the stand by the petitioner. He has produced the survey report of the house no. 3025, Ranjit Nagar, which is in the name of father of the petitioner. However, the witness admitted during cross examination that the assessment is only for the purposes of taxation and does not give any ownership rights. He admitted that there is no ownership document on record regarding the property in question. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the judgment of Mansa Ram supra cited by him, in order to contend that the person paying house tax is owner of the property. However, the said judgment can be distinguished on the ground that in that case, the property in question was Nazul land, and even otherwise, the judgment in no manner lays down that payment of house tax confers any title upon the person paying the tax in respect of any ordinary property.
29. The defence of the respondent no. 2-4 is that they had purchased the tenanted premises from Roshan (respondent no. 1) vide document executed on 15.11.1999. However, a perusal of the said document reveals that the document Ex. R4W1 is not registered, and cannot convey title. The witness RW4 has admitted in his cross examination that Roshan had shown only ration card as title document qua the property. The document even otherwise mentions the name of seller as Roshan wife of Anju whereas the witness admitted that Anju is infact wife of Roshan and not vice-versa. Therefore, the document also cannot be relied upon by the respondents to claim ownership.
30. That said, the petitioner has deposed in his cross examination that he came to know about the fact that the tenanted premises has been sold by Roshan to the respondent no. 2-4 some Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 15 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:48 +0530 days prior to the filing of the petition. Therefore, it is an admitted fact that as per the petitioner himself, the tenanted premises was sold by respondent no. 1 to the respondent no. 2-4, and not sub-let. This version of the petitioner before the Court is different from his version in the petition wherein there is no mention about the fact of sale of the tenanted premises. For purposes of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act, the petitioner is also bound to prove the relation of landlord and tenant between the original tenant and the sub-tenants. However, he admitted during his cross examination that the respondent no. 2-4 never paid rent to Roshan in his presence and he was not aware if they were paying rent to him or not.
31. The above version of the petitioner is negated by the version of the respondent no. 1 in his written statement, wherein he has claimed that the tenanted premises was forcibly occupied by the respondent no. 2-4. Further, in case the tenanted premises was forcibly occupied by the respondents, the respondents cannot be said to have been assigned the property by the respondent no. 1 and on this ground, the case under Section 14(1)(b) of the Act is bound to fail. The petitioner has neither proved the sub-tenancy of the respondent no. 2-4, nor the sale by respondent no. 1 in this case.
32. There are other material facts on record, that disentitle the petitioner any relief. The petitioner has admitted in his cross examination that the respondent no. 2-4 have been residing in the property in question for the last 25 years. This is the version of the respondent no. 2-4 as well, and they have led evidence to show that they have been residing in the property much prior to the dates as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner has nowhere stated in the petition as to when the tenanted premises was sub-let by the Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 16 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:48 +0530 respondent. His only version being that rent has not been paid since 2010. In that case, the petitioner's version is that the respondents have been living only for a few years prior to filing of the petition, which is contrary to the evidence led on record by the respondents. The documents such as delivery voucher Ex. R4W1/1 and Ex. R4W1/2 prove that the address of the respondent no. 2 was that of the premises in question many years prior to the filing of the petition.
33. The petitioner has not made any assertion as to under what capacity the respondent no. 2-4 were residing in the property in question prior to filing of the petition. However, during cross examination, he deposed that they were residing as relatives of Man Singh, his other tenant, since the last 25 years. He deposed that his father had inducted Man Singh and his brother Ram Prakash in the property in question as tenants. However, no proof was filed in this regard. The petitioner has also put suggestions on this aspect to the respondent's witness, however, no factual foundation of the same has been laid down in the pleadings or evidence of the petitioner.
34. Therefore, the petitioner has concealed the fact that the respondent no. 2-4 were already residing in the property in question since many years prior to filing of the case, and the evidence on record including the suggestions of the petitioner do more harm than good to the petitioner's case. In view of the above discussion, I find that the petitioner has failed to prove that he is the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises.
35. I have also gone through each of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The legal position is not in dispute, however, the judgments filed by the petitioner can be differentiated on facts. The factum of the legal notice being served Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 17 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:49 +0530 upon the respondent has been proved in this case by the petitioner, on account of proving the legal notice and proof of sending the same. However, the basic law remains that the petitioner has to stand on its own legs and the weakness of the defence is no ground to decree the case of the petitioner. Given the fact that the deposition of the petitioner himself is not reliable, no adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents.
36. Further, even though the landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership of the tenanted premises, some evidence is to be shown by the landlord to prove this factum. In the present case, the weakness of the documentary evidence, coupled with the inherently contrary stands taken by the petitioner do not amount to proof of his land lordship and the relation of landlord-tenant between the parties. This is despite the fact that the respondents have been unable to show the ownership of the tenanted premises, on the basis of the documents relied upon by them. Therefore, the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner.
37. An argument has been made by the petitioner that the respondent no. 2 to 4 did not challenge the order under Section 15(1) of the Act, however, a perusal of the order reveals that the directions of the Court were to the respondent no.1 to pay the rent and not to the respondent nos. 2-4.
38. Much stress has been made on the admissions of the respondent no. 1 in this case. However, as noted above, there appears to be a possibility of collusion between the respondent no. 1 and the petitioner, as the respondent no. 1 stopped appearing in this case after filing of the written statement after claiming forcible dispossession. No evidence qua the same was produced and there is no suit or complaint qua the forcible dispossession. The petitioner has admitted that the respondent no. 2-4 are relatives of his other tenant and resided Digitally signed by RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 18 of 19 DEV DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05 15:21:49 +0530 with him since long. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the written statement of the respondent no. 1 qua the admissions made in the document. Apart from the fact that the tenanted premises has not been identified and the landlord-tenant relation between the parties has not been proved qua the tenanted premises, the petitioner has failed to lead any evidence qua the proof of the ingredients under Section 14(1)(d) and (h) of the Act.
CONCLUSION -
39. In my opinion, the evidence on record cogently proves that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands, and the possibility of collusion between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1, cannot be ruled out. On account of the ocular evidence of the petitioner, the whole case of the petitioner is called into question. The petitioner has failed to prove landlord-tenant relation with the respondent no. 1, and subsequent relation between the respondent no. 1 and the respondent no. 2-4, despite the admission of the respondent no. 1, which cannot be relied upon. The identification of the tenanted premises, which is the crucial fact in this case, itself has not been proved by the petitioner, and his contrary stands on the same has further made his case doubtful. I find that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court, given the circumstances narrated above.
40. Resultantly, the petition filed by the petitioner on ground of Section 14(1)(a)(b)(d) and (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, stands dismissed.
41. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
Announced in Open (DEV CHAUDHARY)
Court.
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST)
This judgment TIS HAZARI COURTS
contains 19 signed DELHI/ 05.05.2025
pages.
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 25250/2016 Kishori Lal vs. Roshan & Ors. Page No. 19 of 19 DEV
DEV
CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.05.05
15:21:49
+0530