Delhi District Court
Pradeep Mehra vs Ashwani Kumar Khanna on 30 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided Over By: Sh. Bharat Aggarwal
PETITION NO. : RC ARC/310/2019
CNR NO.: DLCT03-002874-2019
Pradeep Mehra & Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1. Pradeep Mehra
s/o Late Shri P. N. Mehra
r/o 4583-4585, Kucha Bibi Gohar.
Charke Walan, Delhi. 110006
2. Sandeep Mehra
s/o Late Shri P. N. Mehra,
r/o 4583-4585, Kucha Bibi Gohar.
Charke Walan, Delhi, 110006
3. Ravi Narain (Deceased)
Through His LRs
(a) Rekha Mehra (Wife)
w/o Late Shri Ravi Narain
r/o 4583-4585, Kucha Bibi Gohar,
Charke Walan, Delhi-110006
(b) Jyoti Mehra (Daughter)
w/o Shri Nitin Mehra
d/o Late Shri Ravi Narain
r/o B-134, Surya Nagar,
I.E. Shahibabad, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh-201010
Also At:
RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 1 of 28
Digitally
signed by
BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30
17:38:52
+0530
4583-4585, Kucha Bibi Gohar,
Charke Walan, Delhi-110006
(c) Nidhi Mehra (Daughter)
w/o Shri Vikas Mehra
d/o Late Shri Ravi Narain
r/o PP-39, Upper Ground Floor,
Maurya Enclave, Pitampura,
Delhi-110034
Also at:
4583-4585, Kucha Bibi Gohar.
Charke Walan, Delhi- 110006
(d) Taru Mehra (Daughter)
w/o. Shri Amit Mehra
d/o Late Shri Ravi Narain
r/o C-177, 2nd Floor, Ramprastha Colony,
Chander Nagar, Ghaizabad,
Uttar Pradesh
Also at:
4583-4585, Kucha Bibi Gohar,
Charke Walan, Delhi-110006
...PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Ashwani Kumar Khanna
s/o Late Shri Hira Lal Khanna
r/o B-13, Ground Floor,
South End Floors, Sector-49,
Sohna Road, Gurgaon
Also At: Tenancy Premises
4583, Ground Floor,
Kucha Bibi Gohar, Charkhewalan,
Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006
...RESPONDENT
RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 2 of 28
Digitally signed
by BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30
17:39:02 +0530
Date of institution : 26.04.2019
Date of judgment : 30.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off an eviction petition filed by the petitioners under Section 14 (1) (c) (d) (h) & (hh) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the 'DRC Act') against the respondent in respect of two rooms admeasuring 10'9" x 9'0" x 13'7" and 13'10" x 8'0", kitchen, bathroom and two stores admeasuring 7'6" x 8'8", 7'6" x 3'6", one kolki admeasuring 6'6" x 3'6" situated at 4583, Ground Floor, Kucha Bibi Gohar, Charkhewalan, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises') as shown in red colour in the site plan filed alongwith the petition.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PETITION:
2. Brief facts, as stated in the petition, are that the tenanted premises are stated to be residential in nature and the same were in the occupation of joint tenants i.e. the respondent and his mother Smt. Gopi Devi who is stated to have expired and the premises are allegedly lying locked since the past decade. The monthly rent in respect of the tenanted premises is stated to be Rs.333/- besides electricity and water charges.
RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 3 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:39:10 +0530
3. It is stated that sometime in the beginning of 2010, respondents / joint tenants left the tenanted premises and shifted to Gurugram, Haryana, where they are living alongwith their family members. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the owners of the tenanted premises which were let out to Sh. Hira Lal Khanna long back for a period of ten months for residential purposes @ Rs.110/- excluding other charges. It is further stated that after the death of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna, upon the request of his legal heirs, a new tenancy was created wherein the respondents were joint tenants and rent receipts were issued in their names as joint tenants.
4. It is stated that another son of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna namely Sh. Anil Kumar Khanna is residing in his own house in the same locality and daughters of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna are married and well- settled and residing with their respective families.
5. It is alleged that the joint tenants paid rent upto 30.06.2009 at a monthly rent of Rs.333/- per month and thereafter, they neither paid nor tendered the rent to the petitioners. That sometime in 2010, they locked the tenanted premises and shifted to Gurugram, Haryana. It is stated that their names do not appear in the electoral roll of the concerned assembly constituency i.e. Ballimaran, NCT of Delhi and rather, their names appear in the electoral roll of assembly constituency of Badshahpur, Haryana. It is alleged that the respondent performed the wedding of his son namely Prateek from his residential address in Gurugram, Haryana and even the RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 4 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.08.30 17:39:16 +0530 electricity bill of the tenanted premises since last several years reflects that nobody is living in the said premises and hence, the respondent no longer needs such premises for his residence.
6. It is further stated that respondent has shifted his residence to B-13, Ground Floor, South End Floors, Sector-49, Sohna Road, Gurugram, Haryana, and that the petitioners have sought permission from the competent authority of slum against the respondent for seeking eviction and the same was granted by the competent authority vide order dated 15.03.2019.
7. It is stated that the family of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna is living comfortably in their acquired residence and the tenanted premises is no longer required by the tenant and hence, the landlord is entitled to regain vacant and peaceful possession of the premises.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
8. Summons of the petition were issued to the respondent vide order dated 27.04.2019 and a written statement was filed on behalf of respondent on 27.08.2019.
9. In the written statement so filed, respondent has inter-alia alleged that petitioners are not the owners/landlord of the tenanted premises and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Further, it is alleged that the premises were let out in RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 5 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.08.30 17:39:24 +0530 January, 1947 for ten months and thereafter, respondent alongwith other LRs of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna were occupying the said premises. It was further stated that no action for recovery of possession was taken by the petitioners and after November, 1947, respondent and other legal heirs of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna became owners of the tenanted premises by way of adverse possession.
10. It is further stated that Sh. Anil Khanna i.e. other son of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna is also having possession of suit premises and after the death of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna, valuable right has accrued not only to the respondent but other legal heirs of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna. It is further alleged that one of the family members of the respondent has always remained in possession of the tenanted premises.
11. It is also averred that petitioners have not established on probabilities that there is any relationship of landlord and tenant or that petitioners were ever attorned as landlord by the respondent. It is stated that petitioners have not filed any municipal record or house tax assessment record of the tenanted premises and the same were being used as residential-cum-commercial accommodation from the date of inception of tenancy in the year 1947. It is further stated that the tenanted premises are being used for workshop / godown as well as residence by the legal heirs of Late Sh. Hira Lal Khanna and therefore, none of the provisions under which the eviction petition has been filed are attracted in the present case.
RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 6 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:39:30 +0530
12. It is averred by the respondent in the written statement that respondent has not acquired any premises within Delhi and hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that respondent has remained in occupation in the suit premises where he spent a considerable period of his life as his relatives and other facilities were surrounded to the tenanted premises. It is alleged that the rent receipts filed by the petitioners are forged and fabricated. It is further vaguely stated that Sh. Hira Lal Khanna i.e. father of the respondent used to do certain job works at the tenanted premises with the consent of the erstwhile landlord and after his retirement from the bank, the premises in question were being used for residential-cum-commercial purposes.
13. It is alleged by the respondent that the property in question was let out for composite purposes i.e. residential-cum-commercial and the rent was less than Rs. 10/- per month. It is further stated that after expiry of the tenancy of the year 1947, no steps were taken by the petitioner to take back the possession of the portion till 2016 and a valuable right has been accrued to the legal heirs of the deceased Sh. Hira Lal Khanna. Respondent admitted that the marriage of his grandson was performed at the address of son of the respondent. Lastly, it is stated that Sh. Anil Kumar Khanna and daughters of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna are also having right, title and interest in the tenanted premises by way of adverse possession and hence, the eviction petition must be dismissed.
RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 7 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:39:37 +0530 REPLICATION:
14. Thereafter, a replication was filed on behalf of the petitioners to the written statement of the respondent on 26.11.2019. In the replication, the petitioners have inter-alia denied the allegations of the respondent in the written statement and have re-affirmed and reiterated their contentions in the eviction petition.
15. Petitioners have inter-alia stated in the replication that Sh. Anil Kumar Khanna is a permanent resident of another property in the said locality and he is residing alongwith his family since long and the tenancy does not come to an end as stated by the respondent and the tenant does not become an owner by virtue of adverse possession as a tenant always remains a tenant.
16. It is further stated that there is an estoppel upon the tenant to question the ownership of the landlord and it is an admitted position of the respondent that respondent's predecessor-in-interest was in occupation of the tenanted premises in capacity of a tenant.
PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE:
17. In order to prove their case, petitioners examined petitioner no.3 as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 8 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.08.30 17:39:41 +0530 affidavit as Ex.PW1/A, wherein he has reiterated the contents of petition and has relied upon the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW-1/1 being the site plan annexed with the petition;
(ii) Ex. PW-1/2 (Colly.) being the certified copy of the order dated 15.03.2019;
(iii) Ex. PW-1/3 (OS&R) being the copy of his Aadhar Card;
(iv) Mark A being the copy of Aadhar card of Sh. Pradeep Mehra;
(v) Ex. PW-1/5 (OS&R) being the copy Aadhar Card of Mr. Sandeep Mehra;
(vi) Mark B (Colly.) being the translated copy of Will dated 28.08.1919 of Sh. Brij Nath;
(vii) Ex. PW-1/7 (OS&R) (Colly) being the copy of Relinquishment Deed dated 10.10.2013 of Mrs. Ruchi Mehra and Gaurav Mehra in favour of Pradeep Mehra and Sandeep Mehra;
(viii) Ex. PW-1/8 (OS&R) (Colly) being the copy of Relinquishment Deed dated 10.10.2013 of Mr. Dhurv Narain Mehra in favour of Sh. Ravi Narain Mehra;
(ix) Mark C and D being the copies of death certificates of Mr. Prem Narain Mehra and Smt. Kusum Mehra;
RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 9 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.08.30 17:39:45 +0530
(x) Ex. PW-1/11 (OS&R) being the copy of rent receipt dated 05.01.1989 for Rs.559/- commencing from 01.08.88 to 31.12.88;
(xi) Ex. PW-1/12 (OS&R) being the copy of rent receipt for Rs.1,998/- commencing from 01.01.2009 to 30.06.2009;
(xii) Ex. PW-1/13 (OS&R) being the copies of four electricity bills having CA No. 100318265 dated 05.12.2014, 02.12.2015, 01.02.2016 and 01.03.2016;
(xiii) Mark E being the copy of electoral list for the year 2012;
(xiv) Mark F being the copy of electoral list for the year 2016;
(xv) Mark G being the copy of electoral list for the year 2016;
(xvi) Ex. PW-1/17 (OS&R) being the copy of marriage card of Prateek S/o. Sh. Ashwani Khanna dated 09.02.2011;
(xvii) Ex. PW-1/18 (Colly) being the photographs of the suit property; and (xviiii) Mark H being the copy of the bill of Prem Studio, photographer dated 13.05.2013.
The witness/PW-1 was cross-examined and discharged on 25.11.2023.
RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 10 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:39:50 +0530
18. One Mr. Sevajit, Record Attendant, Department of Archives, New Delhi-110067 was examined by the petitioners as PW-2 who brought on record the original Will dated 26.08.1919.
RESPONDENTS' EVIDENCE:
19. In order to prove his case, respondent examined himself as RW-1 and he filed his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.RW-1/1.
No document was relied upon by the respondent.
RW-1/respondent was cross-examined and discharged on 19.09.2024.
ARGUMENTS:
20. On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that no plausible defence/objection has been raised by the respondent in the written statement. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the original tenancy was in favour of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna @ Rs.110/- as monthly rent and after he passed away, his wife Smt. Gopi Devi and the respondents became tenants. It was argued that they paid rent upto 30.06.2009 @ Rs.333/- per month and then in 2010, they left the tenanted premises.
21. Further, it was argued on behalf of the petitioners that respondent has made substantial admissions during his cross-
RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 11 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:39:53 +0530 examination in favour of the petitioners. It was pointed out that respondent admitted that the tenanted premises are lying locked and he resides at Gurugram alongwith his family. It was submitted that the respondent further admitted that he has not paid the electricity bill qua the premises for the last several years and that the premises located at Gurugram is jointly in his name alongwith his son Sh. Prateek Khanna.
22. It was further argued that the respondent has admitted that his father entered in the tenanted premises as a tenant and that the petitioners have placed on record their ownership documents qua the tenanted premises. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that respondent has admitted the identification of the tenanted premises and the site plan relied upon by the petitioners. Accordingly, it was argued that the petitioners are entitled to decree of eviction. It is pertinent to mention here that during the course of arguments, petitioners as well as Ld. Counsel for petitioners submitted that the eviction may be granted in favour of the petitioners under proviso (d) of the Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act as they are not pressing the other provisos, as mentioned in the eviction petition.
23. Per-contra, it was argued on behalf of the respondent that the suit property never devolved upon the petitioners as per the will of Sh. Baij Nath. It was further argued that the tenancy in favour of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna came to an end by efflux of time and the occupants RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 12 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:39:58 +0530 in the property became unauthorized trespasser. It was further argued that despite lapse of 12 years, no action was taken to recover the possession of the property against such unauthorized trespassers and therefore, a right accrued to the occupants and they became owners by virtue of adverse possession. It was argued that since no suit was filed after 12 years of expiry of the oral tenancy, the eviction petition would be barred by limitation.
24. It was further argued that no fresh tenancy was created in favour of the respondent and no rent receipt from the year 1988 till 2009 has been shown. Accordingly, it was argued that there is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Furthermore, it was argued that for the purpose of Section 14 (1) (h) of the DRC Act, the acquisition of a residence at Gurgaon i.e. outside the area to which the DRC Act applies, would have no consequence.
25. Ld. Counsel for respondent further argued that the original will dated 26.08.1919 was never filed on record by the petitioner. It was argued that petitioners are not the owners of the suit property and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It was further argued that no fresh tenancy was created between the parties in the year 2010 and the story put forth by the petitioners regarding the tenancy is false and fabricated. It was further argued that the provisions of the DRC Act which have been stated by the petitioner are not attracted in the present case as even as per the case of the petitioners, the respondent is residing at RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 13 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:03 +0530 Gurugram and has acquired another residence at Gurugram, Haryana to which the DRC Act does not extend. Accordingly, it was argued that the none of the grounds taken by the petitioners in the eviction petition are made out and accordingly, the same must be dismissed with heavy costs.
ANALYSIS WITH REASONS:
26. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the petitioners have pressed their eviction petition only under proviso (d) to Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act. In order to obtain an order of eviction against the respondent under Section 14 (1) (d) of the DRC Act, the following ingredients have to be proved on record by the petitioner:
(a) That there exists landlord-tenant relationship between the parties;
(b) That the tenanted premises were let out by the landlord for use as a residence; and
(c) That neither the tenant nor any of his family member has been residing in such tenanted premises for a period of six months immediately before filing of the eviction petition.
27. In view of the aforesaid statutory requirements, it shall now be ascertained whether petitioners have successfully established the aforesaid ingredients of law during the course of the trial, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 14 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:07 +0530
28. Briefly put, the present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioners against the respondent primarily on the allegations that the tenanted premises were let out to the father of the respondent for a period of ten months only and thereafter, he stopped making payment of rent. It is the case of the petitioner that a new tenancy was created in the name of respondents i.e. Sh. Ashwani and his mother Smt. Gopi Devi as joint tenants and they paid rent upto 30.06.2009 at Rs. 333/- per month. The primary allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent has left the tenanted premises since 2010 and has shifted to Gurugram, Haryana. The petitioner has filed the present eviction petition on the ground that the respondent is neither residing nor utilizing the tenanted premises and even the electricity bills qua the tenanted premises of several years reflects that nobody is residing at the tenanted premises.
29. The eviction petition is opposed on behalf of the respondent by alleging that the legal heirs of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna i.e. the original tenants have become owners of the tenanted premises by virtue of adverse possession. The respondent has further averred that Sh. Anil Kumar Khanna being the son of the Sh. Hira Lal Khanna remains in the suit property as and when the respondent or his family members go out of station. The respondent has also opposed the eviction petition on the ground that the tenanted premises were being used for residential-cum-commercial purpose from the inception of tenancy in the year 1947 and it is also alleged that for RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 15 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.08.30 17:40:11 +0530 last ten years such premises are used for workshop / godown as well as residence of legal heirs of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna.
30. The present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner under several clauses of Section 14 of the DRC Act. It is the allegation of the petitioner that proviso (c) regarding change of use of tenanted premises; proviso (d) regarding non-occupation of tenanted premises, proviso (h) which provides for eviction when tenant acquires vacant possession or is allotted a residence; and proviso (hh) regarding building another residence after 1988; are attracted in the present case.
31. In order to prove his case u/s 14 (1) (c) of the Act, petitioner is required to prove that:
"that the tenant has used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were let-
(i) if the premises have been let on or after the th 9 day of June, 1952, without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord; or
(ii) if the premises have been let before the said date without obtaining his consent"
32. In order to prove his case u/s 14 (1) (d) of the Act, petitioner is required to prove that:
"That the premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 16 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:16 +0530 family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof"
33. In order to prove his case u/s 14 (1) (h) of the Act, petitioner is required to prove that:
"That the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, acquired vacant possession of, or been allotted, a residence;"
34. In order to prove his case u/s 14 (1) (hh) of the Act, petitioner is required to prove that:
"That the tenant has, after the commencement of the Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988, built a residence and ten years have elapsed thereafter;"
35. However, during course of final arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that he is only pressing the present eviction petition on the ground of proviso (d) of Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act. Careful perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent in the present case shows that it is not in dispute that father of the respondent Sh. Hira Lal Khanna occupied the tenanted premises as a tenant. Hence, it is quite apparent that the legal heirs of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna cannot allege any other independent RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 17 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:20 +0530 capacity in the tenanted premises in terms of the settled legal proposition that once a person enters the premises as a tenant, he shall always remain a tenant and he does not become anything more than a tenant.
36. Bare perusal of the written statement filed by the respondent shows that respondent admits the capacity of legal heirs of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna as legal heirs of the original tenant. In these circumstances, the argument of the respondent that due to non-filing of a suit / petition or recovery of possession, they have become owners by virtue of adverse possession is found to be completely bereft of any merit. Merely because the landlord chose not to file any eviction petition or suit seeking re-possession does not confer any title upon the tenant over the tenanted premises. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karnataka Board of Waqf Vs. Government of India & Ors., [2004 (10) SCC 779] has inter-alia observed regarding the pleadings to be made by a person while claiming title over an immovable property on the basis of adverse possession and has held as follows:
"Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 18 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:25 +0530 adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. (Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 128)."
37. It is trite that burden of proof to show adverse possession is on the person who claims title by way of adverse possession. It is also established position of law that the mere enjoyment of the property over long period of time does not amount to adverse possession unless it is accompanied by adverse animus i.e. intention to hold adversely. Furthermore, such adverse intention must be openly and explicitly brought within the knowledge and notice of the real owner. Furthermore, the person claiming title by adverse possession must show as to when his possession became adverse and must acknowledge the actual ownership of the landlord. The said possession must be peaceful, open and continuous. Reverting to the facts of the present case, careful examination of the evidence led on record by the respondent would show that he has miserably failed to prove any such requirement of law regarding adverse possession.
38. It is quite apparent that the plea of adverse possession has been taken by the respondent to create semblance of defence and meaningful reading of the written statement filed by the respondent would show that the capacity of respondent and other legal heirs of Sh. Hira Lal Khanna i.e. the original tenant is that of a tenant in the RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 19 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:31 +0530 tenanted premises and nothing more. Furthermore, it is not the requirement of law that a suit for possession is required to be filed against the statutory tenant after the term of tenancy has elapsed by time. Such statutory tenant who remains in possession after expiry of the period of tenancy, does not per se become a trespasser and against such statutory tenant, the remedy of the landlord lies under the DRC Act and not elsewhere. Hence, the argument that the eviction petition is barred by time and a suit for possession was required to be filed by the petitioner instead of an eviction petition, appears to be completely misconceived and unfounded.
39. A bare perusal of the title documents relied upon by the petitioners, more specifically Ex.PW-1/7, Ex.PW-1/8 and Ex.PW-2/2 alongwith the rent receipts Ex.PW-1/11 and Ex.PW-1/12 coupled with the fact that it is an admitted position on record that the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent was admitted in the tenanted premises in capacity of a tenant by predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, shows that the petitioners have better rights, title and interest than the respondent in the tenanted premises. In such circumstances, it is a well settled position of law that tenant has no locus to challenge the ownership of the landlord under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is trite that in proceedings under the DRC Act, petitioner is not required to demonstrate a perfect title over the tenanted property but is only required to show that he/she is somewhat more than a tenant therein. Be that as it may, in the present case, the relationship between the parties as landlord-tenant RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 20 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.08.30 17:40:35 +0530 has been clearly established and it is also established that the petitioners are the owners of the tenanted premises for the purposes of the present eviction petition.
40. It is well settled that the petitioners are not required to show his/her absolute title over the tenanted premises and the ownership has to be considered qua the tenant. It is settled that if the landlord was receiving rent for himself/herself and not on behalf of someone else, he/she will be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his/her title may be over the property. A tenant can only challenge the title of the landlord after vacating the premises and not prior to that. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi [2008 SCC OnLine Del 1187].
41. It is trite that once a person has been inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises, he/she shall always remain a tenant therein unless proper conveyance deed is executed in terms of applicable law in his/her favour by the owner of the property. The tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord or his successor-in-interest as he is estopped under the law of evidence. Since admittedly, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner inducted the predecessor-in- interest of the respondent as a tenant, the respondent is duly estopped from challenging the title of the petitioners in the present proceedings, in view of the law contained under section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, there is no legal requirement of RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 21 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:40 +0530 the landlord to attorn the tenancy in favour of his legal representatives. Thus, it is quite apparent that there exists landlord- tenant relationship between the parties in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
42. It is noticeable that the respondent has made several unambiguous and unequivocal admissions during his cross- examination in favour of the petitioners. The respondent has admitted that the tenanted premises remains locked and he visits the same only once a month. He has further admitted that he resides at Gurugram, Haryana, alongwith his family and he does not even remember when he last opened the tenanted premises. Another significant admission of the respondent was to the effect that he has not paid any electricity bill qua the tenanted premises since last several years, which in-turn clearly shows that the tenanted premises are lying unutilized and unoccupied since long.
43. The respondent further admitted that he has not paid any water consumption charges to the concerned authority regarding the tenanted premises. It is quite apparent that electricity and water are basic necessities of human life and very evidently, respondent has not been utilizing any such necessity of life in the tenanted premises, which clearly indicates that he is not residing in the tenanted premises and not utilizing the same. He further admitted that his residence at Gurugram, Haryana, is jointly owned by him and his son.
RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 22 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:45 +0530
44. It is also significant to note here that respondent further admitted that his father entered into the tenanted premises as a tenant and he has never paid any rent in the tenanted premises. In these circumstances also, it is quite apparent that the respondent cannot claim ownership over the tenanted premises and his capacity alongwith the other legal heirs of the original tenant cannot be anything more than that of a tenant as they are all claiming under their father. He further categorically admitted that no one is staying on the ground floor of the property i.e. the tenanted premises. More importantly, he admitted that petitioners have placed on record a Will in their favour and the he has himself not filed any document whatsoever in respect of the tenanted premises or to buttress his averments in the written statement. Thus, plain and simple reading of the testimony led on record by the respondent would per se establish that most of the allegations of the petitioners were not required to be proved by them in terms of the explicit admissions made by the respondent.
45. The respondent has further admitted the fact that his election ID card is having the address of Gurugram and not the tenanted premises and he has himself got the Delhi address deleted from his voter ID card as he has been residing at Gurugram since 2010. Such admission that he has been residing at Gurugram since 2010, has added much force to the allegations of the petitioners. He further deposed that his son got married in the year 2011 at Gurugram and RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 23 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:49 +0530 he also admitted the identification / location of the tenanted premises in the site plan Ex.PW-1/1 filed by the petitioner. Such admissions of the respondent per se establishes the primary ingredient of Section 14 (1) (d) of the DRC Act pertaining to non- occupation of the tenanted premises.
46. The petitioners have specifically averred that the tenanted premises were let out for residential purpose and the respondent has also admitted that until 2010, he was residing in the tenanted premises. A plea was taken by the respondent that the tenanted premises were let out for residential-cum-commercial purpose and for last decade the same was used for workshop / godown. It is also pertinent to note that respondent took no steps whatsoever to prove the fact that the tenanted premises were ever used for commercial purpose or that the same was converted into a workshop / godown as alleged in the written statement. Furthermore, it is noticeable that respondent has not even bothered to explain or clarify what commercial use was being done of the tenanted premises and what goods were being kept in it as a godown. Such defence of the respondent has remained extremely vague, unproved and baseless.
47. It appears that such averment was made by the respondent merely to create semblance of a defence and the same has remained extremely unsubstantiated on record. Respondent miserably failed during the trial to add any force to his only meritorious defence that the tenanted premises were not let out for residential purpose only RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 24 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:54 +0530 and the same was being used by him or his predecessor-in-interest for commercial purpose.
48. Even though, petitioner has inter-alia filed the present eviction petition on the ground of change of use as prescribed under proviso (c) to Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act, yet no allegation whatsoever has been made by the petitioners in the eviction regarding such change of use. Further, there is no averment of the petitioners to the effect that the residence of the respondent at Gurugram, Haryana was built after the commencement of Delhi Rent Control (Amendment) Act, 1988. Hence, neither proviso (c) nor proviso (hh) to Section 14(1) of the DRC Act are attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In any event, during final arguments, petitioners have restricted their grounds of eviction in the present petition to proviso (d) to Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act only.
49. On a scale of preponderance of probabilities, petitioners have successfully established their case through the evidence of PW-1 and through cross-examination of RW-1 that the purpose of letting of the tenanted premises was residential in nature and respondent has failed to disprove the same. Even otherwise, perusal of the documents relied upon by the petitioner, more specifically the electricity bill shows that the category of electricity connection was domestic / residential in nature and admittedly, the respondent has not been paying such electricity bill since several years. This fact RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 25 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.08.30 17:40:59 +0530 per-se shows that neither the respondent nor the other legal heirs of the original tenant Sh. Hira Lal Khanna were residing in the tenanted premises and the defences taken by the respondent in the written statement have remained miserably unproved on record. Hence, it stands established on record that the tenanted premises are not being used by the tenant or any of his family member for at least more than six months immediately preceding the filing of the present petition. It is quite apparent that the objection regarding the use of tenanted premises for commercial / workshop / godown has only been cleverly taken by the respondent to wriggle out of proviso
(d) and proviso (h) to Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act.
50. Further, the admissions of the respondent to the effect that he is registered voter at Gurugram, Haryana and not at Delhi goes a long way to prove the allegations of the petitioner that the tenanted premises are lying locked and unutilized since several years. The objections of the respondent regarding lack of ownership of petitioner or absence of proper proof are found to be equally meritless for the simple reason that it is not in dispute that the father of the respondent came into occupation of the premises as a tenant and hence, estoppel u/s 116 of the Indian Evidence Act is clearly attracted against the respondent herein. Hence, the respondent cannot raise any question on the ownership of the tenanted premises by the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest. In these circumstances and in view of the aforesaid observations, there is no hesitation in concluding that the petitioners have successfully RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 26 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.08.30 17:41:03 +0530 fulfilled all the legal requirements and ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(d) of the DRC Act and accordingly, they are entitled for an order of eviction against the respondent.
51. It is indeed unfortunate that, despite the tenant having admittedly not utilized the premises for several years, his legal representatives have embroiled the landlord's heirs in protracted and unwarranted litigation, raising entirely meritless defenses. Such conduct appears to be driven by ego and greed, rather than any legitimate legal claim, and exemplifies a classic misuse of the tenant protections afforded under the DRC Act. Such actions reflect a misuse of the statutory protections available to tenants under the DRC Act, which are not intended to shield parties acting in bad faith. The defenses raised by the respondent in the course of the present petition were found to be wholly devoid of any merit and appear to be aimed solely at delaying the adjudication of the matter and continuing his de jure possession without having any justifiable defence. Employing these protections under the DRC Act to obstruct rightful recovery by the landlord's heirs not only defeats the purpose of the statute but also imposes an undue burden on the judicial system.
52. Accordingly, an eviction order is hereby passed under Section 14 (1) (d) of the DRC Act in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. two rooms admeasuring 10'9" x 9'0" x 13'7" and 13'10" x 8'0", RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 27 of 28 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.08.30 17:41:07 +0530 kitchen, bathroom and two stores admeasuring 7'6" x 8'8", 7'6" x 3'6", one kolki admeasuring 6'6" x 3'6" situated at 4583, Ground Floor, Kucha Bibi Gohar, Charkhewalan, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006, as shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW-1/1 filed alongwith the petition. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.08.30 17:41:12 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal) Today i.e. 30.08.2025 ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
Present judgment consists of 28 pages and each page bears my initials. Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date:
AGGARWAL 2025.08.30 17:41:16 +0530 (Bharat Aggarwal) ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 30.08.2025 RC ARC/310/19 Pradeep Mehra and Ors. Vs. Ashwani Kumar Khanna Page No. 28 of 28