Delhi District Court
Satish Chand Rastogi vs Rawat Mal Saini (Now Deceased) Through ... on 30 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV GOYAL,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER - 01, (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No. 845/19
Sh. Satish Chand Rastogi
S/o Late Sh. Harish Chand Rastogi,
K-92B, Ground Floor,
Veer Sawarkar Marg, Central Market,
Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024.
VERSUS ................ Petitioner
1. Shri Rawat Mal Saini (now deceased)
Through his Legal Heirs and Representatives
A. Sh. Babu Lal
B. Shri Murlidhar
C. Shri Parmeshwar Lal
D. Shri Sita Ram
E. Shri Shiv Bhagwan
All Sons of Late Sh. Rawat Mal Saini,
R/o Mohalla Bani Dabass, 114, Sadar
Sahar, W.N. 28, Distt, Churu Rajasthan-331001.
Second Address: -
Pvt. Office No. 34-B, Second Floor
Municipal No. 1681/19, Mangal Market,
Jogdhian Colony, Bhagirath Palace,
Delhi-110006.
2. Divyajyoti Electronics
Through its prop. Sampat Saini
Pvt. Office No. 34-B, Second Floor
Municipal No. 1681/19, Mangal Market,
Jogdhian Colony, Bhagirath Palace,
Delhi-110006.
................ Respondents
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30
14:46:03 +0530
RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 1 of 16
Date of Institution of the case : 19.11.2019
Date of Judgment reserved : 04.02.2026
Date of Judgment pronounced : 30.03.2026
Decision : Petition under Section
14 (1) (b) of DRC Act is
allowed.
JUDGMENT
This is an eviction petition under Sections 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (or in short "DRCA") filed by the petitioner against the respondent.
PETITION: -
1. That the Petitioner is the absolute and exclusive owner of Private Office No. 34-B, situated on the Second Floor of property bearing Municipal No. 1681/19 Mangal Market, Jogdhian Colony, Bhagirath Place, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. That the premises in question was let out to Shri Rawat Mal Saini [the deceased father of the Respondents 1A-1E] by virtue of Rent Note for a fixed period of 11 months commencing from 16th January, 1995 at a monthly rental of Rs. 300/-, excluding all other charges such as electricity, water, house-tax etc. The last rent was paid at the rate 483/- per month till 31.03.2013. That upon the death of Shri Rawat Mal Saini, the tenancy rights devolved upon his legal heirs. However, none of the legal heirs of the Late Sh. Rawat Mal Saini are in possession of the suit premises, as the suit premises have been unauthorizedly sublet, assigned and/or parted with the possession to Respondent No.2 M/s Divya Jyoti Electronics without the written consent of the Petitioner/Landlord. None of the legal heirs of Late Sh. Rawat Mal Saini are in possession of the suit premises, which is in the exclusive use & occupation of respondent No.2. Digitally signed by GAURAV GOYAL GAURAV Date:
GOYAL 2026.03.30
14:46:10
+0530
RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 2 of 16
2. That prior to the filling of the present petition for eviction, the Petitioner had filed a suit for Perpetual & Mandatory injunction against the Rawat Mal Saini as well as against the respondent No.2, being suit No.61 of 2016, in which the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 02.08.2016 granted injunction in favour of the Petitioner whereby restrained the Defendants in the suit to part with possession or create third party interest in respect of the suit premises. However, the said suit was got dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner vide orders dated 26.07.2018.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. The respondent in their WS have stated that the present petition is not maintainable under law and facts of the case and the same has been filed on the basis of concocted story and on the basis of forged, fabricated and manipulated documents. That the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition, as the petitioner is not the owner of the suit/tenanted premises of the respondents i.e. the legal heirs of late Shri Rawat Mal. That the petitioner has time and again been alleging his ownership over the suit premises but till date, the petitioner has failed to file any title documents of the suit premises till date despite strong opposition made by the respondents i.e. the legal heirs of Shri Rawat Mal in the earlier litigation. That the present petition is bad for mis-joinder of the respondent No.2 Divya Jyoti Electronics. That the alleged firm Divya Jyoti Electronics or any of his alleged proprietor Sampat Saini had/have nothing to do with the suit/tenanted premises in dispute.
4. That the present petition is an outcome of the greed of the Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:49:04 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 3 of 16 petitioner, who is bent upon to evict the Shri Rawat Mal and after his death, his legal heirs including the answering respondents from the suit premises by implicating the tenants in false and frivolous multiple litigations. That prior to the present petition, the petitioner filed a civil suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions In Re: - Satish Chand Rastogi Versus Rawat Mal & Anr. vide suit No. 403/2013. In the said suit, when the present petitioner realized that he was on the verge of losing the case, the petitioner withdrew the said petition. The respondents admitted that Sh. Rawat Mal was inducted as a tenant in the suit premises and that Sh. Rawat Mal was carrying on a petty business from the suit premises since inception of the tenancy till his death and that after his death, his legal heirs became the tenants in the suit premises and has been carrying on their petty business therein. The respondents denied that the premises was let out to Shri Rawat Mal Saini vide alleged Rent Note w.e.f. 16.01.1995, as falsely alleged by the petitioner. The respondents further denied that none of the legal heirs of Sh. Rawat Mal Saini are in possession of the suit premises or that the suit premises have been allegedly unauthorizedly sub-let, assigned and/or parted with the possession to the respondent No.2 M/s Divya Jyoti Electronics without the written consent of the petitioner/landlord, as falsely alleged by the petitioner.
TRIAL Petitioner's Evidence
5. In order to prove his case, petitioner Sh. Satish Chand Rastogi was examined as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex. PW-1/A. Following documents were relied upon and proved by PW-1: Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:49:13 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 4 of 16
1. Site plan which is Ex.PW1/1;
2. Rent deed dated 16.01.1995 which is Ex.PW1/2(OSR);
3. Rent receipt no.1372, 1333 and 1827 Ex.PW1/3 (colly) (OSR)
4. Copy of trade license and GST Ex.PW1/4(colly)
5. Certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/5;
6. Certified copy of order dated 08.10.2013 and 27.11.2015 in the suit titled as Rawat Mal Saini and M/s Divya Jyoti Electronic is Ex.PW1/6 (colly);
7. Certified copy of order passed by the Slum court dated 15.03.2019 and 06.06.2019 is Ex.PW1/7 (colly);
6. The witness was cross examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the respondents on 15.05.2024 and 12.08.2024. During his cross-examination, the witness submitted that the legal heirs of the respondent no.1 are not doing any business and have sub-let the property to respondent no.2.
7. No other witness was examined; matter was then adjourned for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
8. Final arguments were thereafter advanced by the counsels for petitioner and respondent Sh. Mohit Khanna and Sh. Vinay Gupta respectively. At the outset, it is stated that there is no doubt qua the case laws relied upon by the Counsels for Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:49:23 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 5 of 16 petitioner where principles of law have been laid down by the Hon'ble Higher Courts in the light of factual scenario existing therein. However, each case has to be decided in the light of its established facts. Hence, I proceed to consider the contentions of the parties.
FINDINGS THE LAW: -
9. The petitioner has filed the present case under Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act which provides for an eviction order to be passed in favour of the petitioner, in case the following conditions are met: -
9.1 It is expedient to reproduce the Section 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act which is as under: -
"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, namely: -
(b) That the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or part of the Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:49:54 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 6 of 16 premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord".
9.2 As per Delhi Rent Control Act, Section 14 (1)(b) D.R.C. Act is one of the grounds entitling landlord to get the order of eviction against the tenant. It is well settled that subletting is not absolutely prohibited by the law or by the Delhi Rent Control Act but the subletting should be with the consent of landlord and such consent should be in writing. Section 14 (1) (b) clearly lays down that eviction may take place even when the tenant has parted with the possession of whole or part of the premises. In view of provision of law, the landlord is required to prove following essential conditions:
(i.) The tenant sub-let, assigned or parted with the possession of the whole or part of the premises. i.e. the sub tenant was in exclusive possession of property or part of the property. (ii.) No consent in writing was taken from the landlord by the tenant.
9.3 It is well settled that exclusive possession means the possession to the exclusion of others and it includes not only the physical possession but also the legal possession. It is also clear that parting with possession means giving possession to persons other than those to whom possession was assigned by the lessee and parting with possession must have been by the tenant.
9.4 It is also settled that mere use by other persons is not parting with possession so long as the tenant retains the legal possession himself. Subletting takes place only when there is divesting of physical possession as well as of the right to possession. In other words, there must be vesting of possession by the tenant in other Digitally signed by GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:50:01 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 7 of 16 person by divesting himself not only of physical possession but also of the right to possession. So long as the tenant keeps the control with him, it cannot be said that sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of premises and in such situation the case does not fall within Section 14 (1)(b) D.R.C. Act.
9.5 The divestment or abandonment of the right to possession is always necessary to invoke the clause of parting with possession.
9.6 In the case titled as Vaishakhi Ram & Others Vs Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani 2008, 14 SCC, it was held as under: -
"21. It is well settled that the burden of proving subletting is on the landlord but if the landlord proves that the subtenant is in exclusive possession of the suit premises, then the onus is shifted to the tenant to prove that it was not a case of subletting."
9.7 In the case titled as Kala and another Vs. Madho Parshad Vaidya, 1998, 6 SCC, 573; the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the very same principle observing that the burden of proof of subletting is on the landlord but once he establishes parting of possession by the tenant to third party, the onus would shift on the tenant to explain his possession. If he is unable to discharge that onus, it is permissible for the court to raise an inference that such possession was for monetary consideration.
9.8 In the case titled as Prem Parkash Vs. Santosh Kumar Jain & Sons and another, 2017, law suit (SC) 872, the relevant para is as under:
-"18. sub-tenancy or subletting comes into Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:50:14 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 8 of 16 existence when the tenant gives a possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession of that person, instead of the tenant which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person in possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and the subtenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property had been sublet, had paid monetary consideration to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an essential element of lease or sublease. It may be paid in cash or in kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid. It may have been paid in lump sum in advance covering the period for which the premises is let out or sublet or it may have been paid or promised to have been paid periodically. Since payment of rent or monetary consideration may have been made secretly, the law does not require such payment to be proved by affirmative evidence and the court is permitted to draw its own inference upon the fact of the case."
9.9 In the case titled as Munshi Ram Vs Bhoj Ram through LRs Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:50:20 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 9 of 16 in C.M. (M) No.1612/2010 and C.M. No.8004/2005, wherein it was observed as under:
"It is well settled that to make out a case for subletting or parting with possession, it means giving a possession to persons other than those to whom the possession had been given by the original lessor and that parted with possession must have been made by the tenant. The word 'subletting' necessarily means transfer of an exclusive right to enjoy the property in favour of the third party."
9.10 In case bearing C.M. (Main) No.172 of 2010 & C.M. Appl. Nos.2248-2249 of 2010 in case titled as M/s Udhey Bhan Ashok Kumar & Co. & Ors. vs. Neelam Kumari February 24, 2010; it was observed that: -
10"4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has argued that mere change of the constitution of firm from partnership to proprietorship would not amount to sub-tenancy. I consider that this argument is not tenable. A partnership firm is not a legal entity. It is a conglomeration of partners. A tenancy in the name of partnership firm is a joint tenancy of the partners. If none of the partners in whose favour the tenancy was created is in possession of the shop and another person, who was later on inducted as a partner and then becomes sole proprietor of the firm is in possession of the tenanted premises then it is a clear cut case of sub-letting and parting with possession through the device of first inducting a stranger as a partner and then dissolving the partnership firm and handing over the premises to him. It makes no difference that he continues the business in the same name or that he was related to an erstwhile partner. I find no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed."Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:50:27 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 10 of 16 9.11 Coming to the case in hand, as far as the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is concerned, the testimony of PW-1 has gone unrebutted. Furthermore, the said testimony also corroborated by rent receipt Ex.PW1/2. There is nothing on record to doubt the said assertion of the petitioner.
Hence, I find that the petitioner has proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities that he is the landlord of the tenanted premises and the respondent is his tenant.
9.12 The other requirement required to be proved is that the tenant has either: Sub-let the premises, or assigned his tenancy rights, or otherwise parted with possession of the whole or part of the premises. These are three distinct but overlapping concepts:
(1) Sub-letting: creation of a derivative tenancy where the tenant gives possession to another in lieu of monetary consideration (rent or benefit). (2) Assignment: transfer of the tenant's entire interest in favour of another person. (3) Parting with possession: handing over possession, even temporarily, without the landlord's consent, where the tenant completely divests control of the premises. In the present case, LRs no. 1 (C), (D), (E) of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 have not turned up despite service of summons.
LRs Respondent no. 1(A) & (B) admitted that they are in possession of the tenanted premises. Respondents no. 1(A) & (B) are silent with respect to possession of tenanted premises by respondent no.1(C), (D) & (E). The record shows that summons were duly served upon the legal representatives of respondent no.1. Despite service, none of them appeared before the Court to contest the claim of the petitioner or to assert any right, title or interest in the tenanted property. Consequently, they were Digitally signed GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:51:40 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 11 of 16 proceeded against ex-parte. Their deliberate abstention from the proceedings carries important evidentiary implications.
9.13 In a case where the landlord asserts that the tenancy stood in the name of a particular person and that such tenant has unlawfully parted with possession in favour of another, the participation of the recorded tenant or his heirs is material to test the truth of the landlord's claim. When the recorded tenant or his heirs do not enter appearance, the petitioner's version stands unrebutted. The Court is then entitled to draw an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act that, had they appeared, their evidence would not have supported the case of the respondents.
9.14 It has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Hari Ram v. Rukhmani Devi and others 64(1996) DLT 662 wherein it has been held that " The relationship of sub-lessee and the lessee is a matter of knowledge which is confined to those two parties alone. All that the landlord can do in such circumstances is to prove the circumstances which would reasonably lead to an inference of sub-letting or parting with possession or assigning the premises or any part of thereof. In the present case, enough evidence has been brought on record to discharge this onus and now it is for the appellant to prove with the help of best evidence to prove the contrary. The witnesses produced by the appellant are interested witnesses and their testimony does not inspire confidence."
9.15 Further in Prem Prakash vs Santosh Kumar Jain AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 4060, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: -
Digitally signedGAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:51:45 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 12 of 16 "15) In this regard, it is appropriate to quote a decision of this Court in Associated Hotels of India Ltd., Delhi vs. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh AIR 1968 SC 933 wherein it was held that when eviction is sought on the ground of sub-
letting, the onus to prove sub-letting is on the landlord. If the landlord prima-facie shows that the occupant who was in exclusive possession of the premises let out for valuable consideration, it would then be for the tenant to rebut the evidence."
"18) Sub-tenancy or sub-letting comes into existence when the tenant gives up possession of the tenanted accommodation, wholly or in part, and puts another person in exclusive possession thereof. This arrangement comes about obviously under a mutual agreement or understanding between the tenant and the person to whom the possession is so delivered. In this process, the landlord is kept out of the scene. Rather, the scene is enacted behind the back of the landlord, concealing the overt acts and transferring possession clandestinely to a person who is an utter stranger to the landlord, in the sense that the landlord had not let out the premises to that person nor had he allowed or consented to his entering into possession of that person, instead of the RC/ARC No. 271/16 Page no. 16 of 21 tenant, which ultimately reveals to the landlord that the tenant to whom the property was let out has put some other person in possession of that property. In such a situation, it would be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and the sub-tenant. It would also be difficult for the landlord to prove, by direct evidence, that the person to whom the property Digitally signed by had been sub-let had paid monetary consideration GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL GOYAL Date:
to the tenant. Payment of rent, undoubtedly, is an 2026.03.30 14:51:52 +0530 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 13 of 16 essential element of lease or sub-lease. It may be paid in cash or in kind or may have been paid or promised to be paid.
9.16 As held in the aforesaid judgments, the relationship between a tenant and subtenant is a secret relationship hidden from the landlord. The landlord cannot be expected to bring only direct evidence to prove sub-tenancy but what is least expected of him is to prove by circumstantial evidence that the tenant has parted with the exclusive possession of the demised premises in favour of the subtenant and when the petitioner proves the same, the burden of proof will shift upon the respondent to prove the contrary.
9.17 The absence of the respondents from the witness box has a significant bearing on the issue. In the absence of any defence from the respondents, the pleadings and evidence led by the petitioner regarding the existence of tenancy in the name of Rawat Mal Saini and the subsequent parting with possession in favour of respondent no.2 remain uncontroverted. In the present case, the petitioner has stated that LRs of respondent no.1 have parted away with the possession of the demised premises and have sub-let the same to respondent no.2. To corroborate his case, the petitioner has filed Ex. PW-1/4(colly) i.e. the trade licence and GST number to prove the same. The petitioner has averred that respondent no.2 is running his business from the tenanted premises itself. The petitioner has further alleged that no permission in writing was taken from him before the possession was handed over to respondent no.2 by LRs of respondent no.1.
GAURAV 9.18 The evidence on record rather shows that respondent no.2 GOYAL Digitally signed by GAURAV GOYAL RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 14 of 16 Date:2026.03.30 14:51:58 +0530
was in exclusive possession of the premises and the LRs of respondent no.1 was no longer in possession of the demised premises. In law, once a tenant parts with possession of the tenanted premises in favour of another person without the consent of the landlord, whether in whole or in part, such act constitutes sub-letting or parting with possession within the meaning of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. In the absence of any material to show that the landlord had consented to respondent no.2's occupation, or that the LRs of respondent no.1 continued to exercise any control or supervision over the premises, the inference that the tenant had parted with possession in favour of respondent no.2 is irresistible.
9.19 It is apposite to say here that the petitioner has discharged his burden of sub-letting by leading cogent evidence. In the present case, the petitioner has been successful in establishing that the respondent no.2 was running his own separate business from the suit premises. This fact is sufficient in itself that the legal as well as physical possession of the suit premises was conveyed to the respondent no.2. Though the LRs of respondent no.1 claim to be in possession of the suit premises but the same stands unproved. Consequently, the essential ingredients of Section 14 (1) (b) DRC Act stand satisfied.
RELIEF
10. Hence, in view of the foregoing discussion and findings, it is held that the petitioner has succeeded in establishing his case u/s Section 14(1)(b) DRC Act. Accordingly, Eviction order is passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondents thereby GAURAV GOYAL directing the respondents to vacate the tenanted premises i.e Pvt.
Digitally signed by GAURAV GOYALRC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 15 of 16 Date:
2026.03.30 14:52:04 +0530Office No. 34-B, Second Floor Municipal No. 1681/19, Mangal Market, Jogdhian Colony, Bhagirath Palace, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan in terms of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.The petition is thus allowed and eviction order is passed under Section 14 (1) (b) DRC Act.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV GOYAL (Announced in open court) GOYAL Date: 2026.03.30 14:52:12 +0530 (Gaurav Goyal) ARC-01, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 30.03.2026 RC ARC No. 845/19 Satish Chand Rastogi Vs. Rawat Mal Saini Page no. 16 of 16