Delhi District Court
Kishori Lal vs Shella Saini on 6 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN, ARC-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09)
Bhagwant Singh
S/o Late Sh. Deva Singh
Through LRs.
i. Brijbala W/o Late Sh. Bhagwant Singh
ii. Arun Saini S/o Late Sh. Bhagwant Singh
iii. Tarun Saini S/o Late Sh. Bhagwant Singh
R/o 3373, Kucha Jalal Bukhari, Delhi ..... Objector
Versus
Kishori Lal (since deceased)
Through his son Rakesh Saini
S/o Sh. Ranjit
R/o 9135/14, Ground Floor,
Ward No. XII, Katra Nawab Ganj,
Gali Zameer Wali, Pul Bangash, Delhi - 110006 .... Non-applicant/ DH
Date of Institution of the case : 04.09.2009
Date of reserving Judgment : 19.05.225
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 06.10.2025
Under Section : 25 of Delhi Rent Control Act
R/w Order 21 Rule 97 & 99 CPC
Decision : Objections are dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. The present judgment shall decide the objections u/s 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") R/w Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 of Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred as "CPC") filed on behalf of Bhagwant Singh in execution petition no. 97928/2016 (Old No. 78/2009) with respect to eviction order dated 17.02.2009 obtained by Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 1/19 Kishori Lal against Sheela Saini in the eviction petition u/s 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act bearing no. 365/2008 (Old No. 193/2005).
OBJECTIONS
2. Briefly stated, Kishori Lal had filed eviction petition against Sheela Saini alleging that Sheela Saini was tenant in respect of portion on the ground floor of property bearing no. 3373, Kucha Jalal Bukhari, near Delhi Gate, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises") and more specifically shown in red colour in site plan Ex. C1 in the main file under the petitioner and co-owner Smt. Rakshawati (proforma respondent). However, the objector, on coming to know about the collusive nature of the said eviction petition, filed application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. However, the said application was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 17.02.2009. It is alleged that the eviction petition, proceeded on the assumption that Kishori Lal and Smt. Rakshawati, being co-owner/landlords had let out the tenanted premises to Sheela Saini several years ago. It is stated that Kishori Lal alleged that he did not own or possess any property in Delhi and therefore, required the tenanted premises for the bonafide need of residence for himself and/or dependent family members. However, it is averred that neither Sheela Saini nor Smt. Rakshawati contested the said proceedings and therefore, eviction order was passed on the said eviction petition. It is contended by the objector that his father, namely Deva Singh was the original tenant in the premises under petitioner Kishori Lal and Smt. Rakshawati. It is further stated that the rent receipts used to be issued in the name of Deva Singh till his demise in the year 1972. It is further contended that the objector since his birth was living with Deva Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 2/19 Singh and on the demise of Deva Singh continued to occupy the premises in question. It is alleged that Babu Lal, (brother of the objector) was husband of Sheela Saini, who is also the niece of Smt. Rakshawati. It is further alleged that the petitioner and Rakshawati, in collusion with Babu Lal, issued some rent receipts in the name of Babu Lal, though Babu Lal never resided in the premises as he was in service at UP and always resided at UP. Further, it is stated that Sheela Saini used to live in House No. 3314, Kucha Jalal Bukhari near Delhi Gate, Delhi. It is therefore contended that Sheela Saini never resided in tenanted premises, either in the life of Deva Singh or in the lifetime of Babu Lal. It is further alleged that when the objector got to know about collusive issuance of rent receipts in the name of Babu Lal, though Babu Lal was not living in the premises in dispute, the objector raised contention in this regard and ultimately Kishori Lal issued rent receipt bearing no. 1798 dated 08.10.1974 in the name of Deva Singh and the rent of the said receipt was paid by the objector. It is further alleged that after 1974, no rent receipt was issued nor rent was paid either by Babu Lal or by the objector herein to petitioner Kishori Lal or Rakshawati. However, it is further contended that Rakshawati in collusion with Sheela Saini got some rent receipts issued in the name of Sheela Saini. It is stated that the objector had been sending the rent through money order to Kishori Lal, but he always refused the money order. It is stated that since the death of Deva Singh, objector has claimed himself to be a tenant in the premises. It is further stated that objector never surrendered impliedly or otherwise his tenancy rights. It is stated that Babu Lal or JD Sheela Saini never remained in possession of the tenanted premises. Hence, it is contended that objector is claiming independent title. Therefore, it is stated that the impugned Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 3/19 eviction order cannot be executed against the objector. It is also alleged that Sheela Saini had also served a notice upon the objector claiming her residence in property no. 3314 and sent notice to the objector at 3373. Hence, it is stated that the Sheela Saini has also admitted the possession of the objector in the tenanted premises as far as back on 14.05.1999. It is also contended that JD Sheela Saini was in collusion with the other party and therefore, never came forward to contest the eviction proceedings. It is further contended that the decree holder Kishori demised after passing of the eviction order, but the execution petition was filed only on behalf of one of the legal heir, whereas he was survived by 03 sons and 01 daughter. Hence, it is stated that the execution petition is not maintainable qua the objector.
REPLY
3. Per contra, the DH has contested the objections. It is stated that application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC of the objector already stands dismissed vide order dated 17.02.2009, wherein the same contentions had been raised by the objector. Further, it is contended that the objector is one of the legal heirs of original tenant Deva Singh and therefore, he being a joint tenant cannot go behind the decree. It is further contended that on the demise of Deva Singh, only his elder son Babu Lal (brother of the objector) had attorned to the owner/landlord in the capacity of tenant qua the premises being the eldest male member in the family of Deva Singh and he continued to pay rent till 1998. It is further stated that since 1972 till 1998 and even thereafter, till the date on which eviction petition was instituted on 05.09.2009, nobody other than Babu Lal and Sheela Saini came forward to Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 4/19 propound their tenancy rights in the premises in question. It is contended that the objector was only a joint tenant with his elder brother Babu Lal and therefore, his purported tenancy rights stand terminated on passing of eviction order dated 17.02.2009. It is denied that there is any collusion between the petitioner with Rakshwati or Sheela Saini. It is stated that objector is only trying to delay the proceedings and therefore, the objections are liable to be dismissed.
4. Vide order dated 03.07.2010, Ld. Predecessor of this Court held that the objections cannot be thrown out at the threshold and therefore, the matter requires evidence for deciding the objections. Appeal against the said order filed by the DH was dismissed vide order dated 18.04.2016. Hence, the parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
TRIAL
5. During the pendency of the petition, objector Bhagwant Singh demised and his legal heirs ie. wife and two sons were impleaded on his behalf vide order dated 10.08.2018.
Evidence Of Objector
6. Matter was then fixed for evidence of objector. Brijbala W/o Bhagwant Singh examined herself as OW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex. OW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
i. Ex. OW1/1 is the original rent receipt
Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 5/19
ii. Ex. OW1/2 to Ex. OW1/7 are the money order coupon
and postal receipts of rent.
iii. Ex. OW1/8 is the original notice
iv. Ex. OW1/9 is the copy of the death certificate of Sh. Deva Singh v. Ex. OW1/10 is the copy of birth certificate of the son vi. Ex. OW1/11 is the copy of election card vii. Ex. OW1/12 is the letter dated 30.08.1972 viii. Ex. OW1/13 is the memorandum dated 25.08.1972 ix. Ex. OW1/14 is the electricity bill x. Ex. OW1/15 is the photocopy of ration card (same is de-
exhibited being photocopy and now marked as Mark 'A') xi. Ex. OW1/16 and Ex. OW1/17 are the premium receipt xii. Ex.OW1/18 is the photocopy of election I card of Bhagwat Singh xiii. Ex. OW1/19 is the school leaving certificate of Bhagwat Singh xiv. Ex. OW1/20 is the receipt no. 1513 ((same is de-exhibited being photocopy and now marked as Mark 'B')
7. She was duly cross examined at length by the counsel for DH on 31.01.2019 and 15.12.2022.
8. Arun Saini S/o Bhagwant Singh examined himself as OW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex. OW2/A and relied upon the documents already tendered by OW1 in her examination in chief. In addition, he also tendered his election card, which is Ex.OW2/2 (OSR). He was duly cross examined at length on 25.04.2023 and 01.06.2023 by the counsel for DH.
Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 6/199. Tarun Saini S/o Bhagwant Singh examined himself as OW-3. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex. OW3/A and relied upon the documents already tendered by OW1 in her examination in chief. In addition, he deposed that the documents referred as Ex. OW3/1 in his evidence affidavit has already been tendered as Ex. OW1/10 in the testimony of OW1 and therefore, the same may be read as Ex. OW1/10. Furthermore, he also relied upon Marksheet dated 28.07.2004, which is Ex. OW3/4. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.08.2023, OW3 was permitted to lead supplementary examination in chief and he tendered his marriage card dated 16.11.2021, which is Ex. OW3/5. He was duly cross examined at length on 23.09.2023 and 10.01.2024.
10. Thereafter, vide separate statement, objectors closed their evidence on 10.01.2024.
Evidence Of Decree Holder
11. The matter was fixed for evidence of the decree holders. Rakesh Saini S/o Late Sh. Kishori Lal examined himself as DHW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex. DHW1/1. In addition, he relied upon the following documents:
i. Ex.DHW1/A (colly) (page no. 1 to 6 in first booklet X-1 and page no. 7 to 12 in booklet X-2 and page no. 13 to 25 filed individually on 15.12.2022) (Objected to for the reason that Ex. DHW1/A (colly) from page no. 7 to 12 in booklet X-2 are already exhibited as Ex. OW-2/P-2 and pages 13 to 26 are already exhibited as OW-1/R1 (colly) and pages no. 1 to 14) (rent receipts are objected as mode Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 7/19 of proof in the evidence affidavit) are the rent receipts of the tenanted premises at property bearing no. 3373, Kucha Jalal Bukhari, Darya Ganj, Delhi. (Objected to by ld. counsel for the objector for the reason that the affidavit is not properly verified as the same is based on hearsay evidence).
ii. Ex.DHW1/B is the death certificate of late Sh. Babu Lal.
(Objected to by ld. counsel for the objector as the same has already been exhibited as Ex. OW-1/R-18). iii. Ex.DHW1/C (colly) are the four photographs of the marriage ceremony of Jai Singh Saini and Archana Saini. (Objected to by ld. counsel for the objector for the absence of certificate u/s 65 B of IEA).
iv. Ex.DHW1/D is the certified copy of eviction order dated 17.02.2009 (in execution petition bearing no. 78/2009, New number 97928/2016) v. Ex.DHW1/E is the certified copy of order of dismissal of application under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure dated 17.02.2009 (in execution petition bearing no. 78/2009, New number 97928/2016). (Objected to by ld. counsel for objector for the reason that the original file of the original execution petition has not been summoned).
vi. Ex.DHW1/F is the site plan of suit premises. (Objected to by Ld. counsel for objector that the same has already been exhibited as Ex. OW-1/R-19)
12. He was cross examined at length on 13.03.2024 and 30.05.2024.
Thereafter vide separate statement, DH closed his evidence on 30.05.2024.
Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 8/19ARGUMENTS
13. Matter was then fixed for final arguments. Both the parties advanced oral arguments through their respective counsels and also filed written submissions and judgments in support of their contentions. At the outset, it is stated that there is no doubt regarding the case laws relied upon on behalf of both the parties where the Superior Courts have laid down the principles of law in different factual scenarios. However, each case has its own distinguishing facts and circumstances and each matter has to be decided in its own factual background.
FINDINGS
14. Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions, it is pertinent to note that certain facts are not in dispute amongst the parties. It is an admitted position that Late Sh. Deva Singh (father of the objector) was the erstwhile tenant under the decree holder Kishori Lal. The identity and extent of tenanted premises is also not in dispute. OW1 in her cross examination dated 15.12.2022 has categorically admitted that the tenanted premises is correctly shown as Mark G in certified copy of the site plan in the execution petition and was marked as Ex. OW1/19 in the execution file bearing no. Ex. No. 597928/2016. Therefore, in the light of said facts, I have proceed to consider the rival contentions of the parties.
15. The first contention raised on behalf of the objector is that the execution petition is not maintainable as the same has been filed only on behalf of one son of the decree holder and the remaining legal heirs have not been impleaded. However, it is trite to state that the term used in CPC is Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 9/19 legal representative and not legal heir. Further, it is not in dispute that the Rakesh Saini is the son of the deceased decree holder Kishori Lal and therefore, right to sue prima facie survives in his favour. Moreover, as per Order 22 Rule 12 CPC, nothing in Order 22 Rule 3, Rule 4 and Rule 8 CPC shall apply to proceedings in execution of a decree or an order. Therefore, any of the legal heirs of DH can apply for execution of the decree/order and objection in this regard is not sustainable. Furthermore, it is also well settled law that petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act can be filed even by one of the co-owners without impleading the other co-owners. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Company Vs. Bhaja Bandei Aggarwalla, 2004 (3) SCC 178 whereby it was held that even a co-owner can file an eviction petition against the tenant and all the co-owners are not required to be joined as a party. Similarly, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Dhannalal Vs. Kalawati Bai & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 16 that even one of the co-owner can file a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act on the ground of bonafide necessity, against the tenants without impleading the other co-owners. Hence, the said contention is devoid of merits.
16. Next, it is contended that the execution petition is not maintainable as the eviction order was obtained by collusion between the decree holder and Sheela Saini. In this regard, it is contended that Sheela Saini deliberately did not seek any leave to contest as she is the niece of co-owner Rakshawati. However, merely because a tenant does not seek any leave within the prescribed period, that by itself is not a ground to infer collusion.
Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 10/19It is no longer res integra that occupation of one of the LRs of the original tenant is considered occupation of all the LRs and therefore, eviction order passed against one of the LRs is valid against all other LRs. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in RCR 69/2008, "Aslam & Anr. Vs. Sajid Parvez & Ors." dated 25.09.2008. Further, in Tahira Begum Vs. Sumitar Kaur & Anr. 166 (2010) DLT 443, it was held that one heir of the tenant is capable of representing the entire estate unless he is shown to be in collusion with the landlord. In the present matter, however, other than the bald averment that Sheela Saini was relative of one of the co-owner and therefore, did not file the leave to defend application, no cogent material has been brought on record in support of the said contention.
17. Lastly, the main contention which has been pressed on behalf of the objector is that he is not bound by the eviction order dated 17.02.2009 obtained by the decree holder against Sheela Saini since he is claiming independent right in the premises as a tenant which is neither through Sheela Saini or her late husband Babu Lal (brother of the objector). In this regard, evidence of OW1 Brijbala, OW2 Arun Saini and OW3 Tarun Saini has been relied upon whereby they have deposed that after the demise of Deva Singh in 1972, the tenancy was inherited by Bhagwant Singh to the exclusion of other children of Deva Singh. Further, reliance has been placed upon the various documents i.e. death certificate, voter ID card, electricity bills, school leaving certificate, ration card etc. to show that Bhagwant Singh was in possession of the premises after the demise of Deva Singh. However, even if, the possession of Bhagwant Singh, is conceded on the Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 11/19 basis of said documents, the relevant question to be determined is whether the said possession was to the exclusion of his siblings, and therefore, whether Bhagwant Singh was the sole tenant after the demise of Deva Singh. It is not in dispute that Babu Lal (husband of Sheela Saini) was the elder brother of Bhagwant Singh and therefore, being son of erstwhile tenant also entitled to succeed as joint tenant in the premises in question. OW1 in her cross examination has categorically admitted that she was not present in the year 1972 in the tenanted premises since her marriage with objector Bhagwant Singh had been solemnized at a later stage. Similarly, OW2 and OW3 have also admitted that being sons of Bhagwant Singh, they too were not present in 1972 and do not have personal knowledge qua the succession of tenancy of Deva Singh. All the three witnesses have admitted that they have deposed in this regard on the basis of what was told to them by Bhagwant Singh in his lifetime. Hence, it is essential to determine if reliance can be placed upon the testimony of the said witnesses in this regard.
18. It is pertinent to note that OW1 has relied upon a letter dated 30.08.1972 i.e. Ex. OW1/12 to contend that Bhagwant Singh was residing in the tenanted premises during the lifetime of Deva Singh. However, perusal of said letter shows that the same was also addressed simultaneously to his siblings Anand Prakash, Om Prakash as well as Babu Lal (husband of Sheela Singh). Therefore, the testimony of the witnesses OW1, OW2 and OW3 and document Ex. OW1/12 relied by them itself shows that the other siblings of the deceased Deva Singh were also residing in the tenanted premises in dispute at the time of his death. Admittedly, Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 12/19 there is no written letter or document to show that the other siblings had surrendered the tenancy in favour of Bhagwant Singh.
19. Furthermore, it is also pertinent to note that OW1 in her cross examination dated 15.12.2022 has admitted that before October, 1974, Late Kishori Lal was issuing rent receipt in the name of Babu Lal Saini (husband of Sheela Saini). Therefore, from the said fact, it is apparent that Babu Lal Saini had not surrendered his joint tenancy in favour of Bhagwant Singh. Though, it is contended that Bhagwant Singh had raised objections in this regard and thereafter, rent receipt was issued in the name of Late Deva Singh, which is Ex. OW1/1, but the said fact only shows that there was dispute amongst the successors of Deva Singh. As no single successor was attorned as exclusive tenant, therefore, the rent receipt was issued in the name of erstwhile original tenant who had demised. This fact in no way supports the claim of the objector that he was the exclusive tenant in possession on demise of Deva Singh. It is also pertinent to note that OW1 has admitted in her cross examination that the rent receipt was not issued in her presence and she has deposed in this regard on the basis of what was informed to her by her late husband Bhagwant Singh.
20. It is also relevant to note that the objector has relied upon money-
order receipts Ex. OW1/2 to Ex.OW1/7 to contend that rent was being tendered by Bhagwant Singh as exclusive tenant, but the same was refused by the landlord. However, admittedly, no deposit of rent petition was filed by Bhagwant Singh as per Section 26/27 DRC Act. Here, I find it pertinent to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of E. Palanisamy vs Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 13/19 Palanisamy (D) By Lrs & Ors, AIR 2003 SC 153, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that equitable consideration have no place in rent legislation and statute contains express provisions. In the absence of filing of DR petitions, pursuant to the purported refusal by the landlord, the said money orders cannot be considered valid tender of rent and therefore, are of no assistance to the claim of the objector.
21. With respect to the credibility of OW1 as a witness, I also find it relevant to note that despite being specifically confronted during cross examination about the ownership of property at Khasra No. 553, Gyanodya Public School, Village Alipur, Delhi-110036, she denied the same. She was specifically shown the online DORIS record as per which, property is jointly owned by her and her brother Ajit Kumar. It is pertinent to note that OW3, son of OW1 has admitted that the ' Barat' for his marriage had assembled at the aforesaid address and that her mother is the owner of the said property. The said fact impeaches the credibility of OW1 as a witness, and therefore, it is difficult to place reliance upon her testimony.
22. It is also pertinent to mention that the witnesses have placed reliance upon Ex. OW1/8 to contend that Sheela Saini has admitted that the address of the objector Bhagwant Singh was the tenanted premises and that she was residing at a different address. However, it is pertinent to note that OW2 in his cross examination dated 01.06.2023 categorically admitted that despite issuance of Ex. OW1/8, relation between Sheela Saini and his parents ie. OW1 Brijbala and objector Bhagwant Singh remained cordial and never deteriorated. Perusal of the contents of Ex. OW1/8 shows that Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 14/19 OW1 had raised allegations of forceful entry in her locked room and theft/destruction of her articles by Bhagwant Singh. The said letter is dated 14.05.1999, however, OW2 categorically stated in his cross examination that in the year 1999 there was no dispute between late Smt. Sheela Saini and his parents and further that she used to regularly visit his parents and their family. It is hard to fathom that despite serious allegations of commission of an offence, the relations between the parties would remain normal. Furthermore, the admission of OW2 that Sheela Saini never filed any complaint against his parents and that his parents too never filed any complaint against Sheela Saini, brings into question the authenticity and genuineness of letter Ex. OW1/8. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed upon the same.
23. It is also relevant to note that the objectors have admitted that Babu Lal demised in Delhi. Furthermore, perusal of death certificate of Babu Lal shows that the address and place of death of Babu Lal in the death certificate is recorded as 3373, Kucha Sayeed Jalal Bukhari, Delhi Gate, Delhi, which is the same as the tenanted premises in question. Therefore, the contention of the objector that Babu Lal had surrendered the tenancy due to obtaining job in UP is contradicted by the record. Even if, it is assumed that Babu Lal due to his job was working at UP or other places, prima facie he continued to maintain his domicile at the tenanted premises itself. Hence, it cannot be assumed that the objector succeeded the tenancy on the demise of Deva Singh to the exclusion of other legal heirs. In this regard it is also relevant to note that OW1 has conceded in her cross examination that marriage of Babu Lal with Sheela Saini was solemnized at the tenanted premises itself.
Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 15/19Therefore, Sheela Saini's matrimonial home on marriage was the tenanted premises in question. Except Ex. OW1/8, there is no document on record to show that Sheela Saini was not residing at the tenanted premises. As discussed above, reliance cannot be placed upon Ex. OW1/8. Furthermore, the envelope vide which the purported letter was sent was also not placed upon record despite specific question in this regard being put to OW3 and he seeking time to produce the same on 23.09.2023.
24. The crux of the objections, on which the execution of the eviction order is being opposed is that on the demise of Deva Singh, objector Bhagwant Singh succeeded the tenancy to the exclusion of other legal heirs. It is trite to state that whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right, dependent upon the existence of facts which he asserts, he must prove that those facts exist. Thus, the burden of proving fact always lies upon the person who assert it and unless such burden is discharged, the other party is not required to be called upon to prove his case. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Rangammal Vs. Kuppuswami, AIR 2011 SCC 2344. A bald self-serving ipse dixit averment has been made by the objector that Babu Lal had surrendered the tenancy and the objector was the exclusive tenant in possession of the premises. But the said bald assertion is not sufficient to resist the execution of eviction order.
25. Hence, the burden to prove the same was on the objector and he cannot rely upon the fact that there are weaknesses in the reply of the decree holder. The objections of the Bhagwant Singh cannot stand on their on own legs and therefore, he cannot contend that the decree holder must prove to Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 16/19 the contrary. It is also well settled that on the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. The incidence of the tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs. There is no division of the premises or of the rent payable thereof. That is the position as between the landlord and the heirs of the deceased tenant. In other words, the heirs succeed to the tenancy as joint tenants. Reliance in this regard is placed upon H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul (1989) 3 SCC 77 and Suresh kumar kohli vs Rakesh Jain & Anr Civil Appeal no 3996/2018. It is also pertinent to note that the tenancy cannot be split and bifurcated and therefore, the unity and integrity of the tenancy cannot be destroyed either by the landlord or the tenant. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case of S. S. Rikhy Vs. Hermes Travels and Cargo Pvt. Ltd, 2001 SCC Online Del 422.
26. Therefore, merely because the objector was also in possession does not imply that the other siblings were not the joint tenants in the premises in question. Hence, Sheela Saini being successor in interest of Deva Singh was a joint tenant in the premises. It is trite to state that any one joint tenant can represent the interest of all joint tenants and there is no splitting of tenancy in this regard. Hence, the objector cannot claim to have a independent right to continue in possession of the property. Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides that an eviction order shall be binding on all persons who are in occupation of the premises and vacant possession shall be given to the landlord by evicting all such persons. It is however provided that this section shall not apply to persons who have an independent title over the Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 17/19 premises. In the case of Rattan Devi Vs. Bal Kishan SAO No. 164 of 1977, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that mere possession of a premises cannot save the person in possession from eviction in view of section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The proviso to Section 25 of the Delhi Rent Control Act only empowers the person who has an independent title to the tenanted premises, to file objections and resist execution of the eviction order passed under the Delhi Rent Control Act. It is apparent that the predecessor-in-interest of the objector was a tenant under the landlord/ Kishori Lal. Therefore, the objector was also a joint tenant in the premises alongwith his siblings on the demise of his father.
27. In the case of Bhikobai Kanhaiyala & Ors. Vs. Dhannalal Chintaman & Ors. Misc. Appeal No. 147/1971 decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh on 18.02.1975, it was held that a mere claim to an independent title is not sufficient to get the benefit of the proviso. It was held that when a person claims an independent title, it must be found on an inquiry that he possesses the title as claimed by him. It was held that unless it is so found, benefit of the proviso is not available. It was observed that use of the word 'has' in the proviso must necessarily lead to this conclusion. The Hon'ble High Court noted that if the intention of the legislature was to provide benefit of the proviso even to a person who makes such a claim even though he is unable to prove the same to the satisfaction of the Court, then instead of using the word "has", the word used would have been "claims". The use of the word "has" in the context must mean that the claim to an independent title has been substantiated in an enquiry. But the claim of the objector that he is not bound by eviction order dated 17.02.2009 since he Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 18/19 has independent title in the premises has remained unsubstantiated. Hence, his objections for resisting the execution of the eviction order are devoid of merits.
RELIEF
28. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, it is held that objector Bhagwant Singh does not have independent title as per Section 25 of the DRC Act r/w Order 21 Rule 97 & 99 CPC. Rather, objector is claiming interest in the premises through erstwhile tenant Deva Singh whose interest was represented by the JD/Sheela Saini since she too succeeded the interest of Deva Singh on the demise of her late husband namely Babu Lal, who was the eldest son of Deva Singh and brother of the objector herein. Thus, the objections filed by the Bhagwant Singh, S/o late Sh. Deva Singh in execution petition with respect to impugned eviction order dated 17.02.2009 stand dismissed qua tenanted premises i.e. portion on the ground floor of property bearing no. 3373, Kucha Jalal Bukhari, near Delhi Gate, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan Ex. C-1 in the main file.
29. Let the objections be tagged with the main execution petition for the purpose of consignment.
Digitally signed RUPINDER by RUPINDER SINGH SINGH DHIMAN Date: 2025.10.06 DHIMAN 17:50:37 +0530 (Announced in the Open Court) (Rupinder Singh Dhiman) ARC-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi 06.10.2025 Ex. No. 98171/2016 (Old No. M-43/09) Bhagwant Singh Vs. Kishori Lal Page No. 19/19