Delhi District Court
Ajay Sindhwani vs Sunil Durgan on 16 September, 2025
RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL
DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS
IN THE COURT OF MS. VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No: 79403/16
Shri. Ajay Sindhwani
Son of Late Madan Lal
R/o B-192, Priyadarshni Vihar
New Delhi-110092.
........Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Sunil Dargan (NOW DECEASED)
Through his Legal Heirs
(i) Sushma Dargan
W/o Late Sunil Dargan
(ii) Ankit Dargan
S/o Late Sunil Dargan.
Tenanted premises At
Private Flat No. 12, at Second Floor
In property bearing municipal no. 18B/2,
Desh Bandhu Gupta Road,
Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005
Residing at
30/37, West Patel Nager,
Delhi.
....... Respondent
Date of Filing : 02.06.2014
Date of reserving order : 04.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 16.09.2025
Decision : Allowed
******************
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
16.09.2025
Page no. 1 of 23
RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL
DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed the present petition Under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent i.e Two barsati rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom in private flat no.12, at Barsati Floor in property bearing municipal no.18B/2, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005 as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
THE PETITION:-
2. It is averred by the petitioner the respondent is habitual defaulter in making the payment of rent and has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally recoverable from the respondent within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served upon the respondent by the petitioner. That the respondent has sublet, transfer, assign or parted with the possession of whole of the tenanted premises to without any written consent of the petitioner. That that the sub tenant enjoying the tenanted premises exclusively and respondent is not in legal possession of the tenanted premises. That the premises was let out for the purpose of resident to the respondent and neither the respondent nor any of the family members of the respondent has been (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 2 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of filing of the present application. That the premises was let out for residential purposes and the same is required for bonafide purpose of the petitioner as the petitioner/landlord does not have any other suitable and reasonable accommodation for himself as well as the family members of the Petitioner who is dependent upon him. That the present accommodation i.e. the suit premises is very much for the petitioner for his bonafide purpose and of his use. That the premises was let out for residential purpose and the respondent had been using the same for residential purpose. That the respondent has acquired vacant possession of, and been allotted a residence which is an alternative accommodation to the Respondent. That the respondent is not residing and enjoying in the tenanted premises and the same has been sublet of the respondent without written consent of the petitioner. 2.1 It is further submitted that the property bearing no. 18- B/2 was purchased by the grandfather of the petitioner namely Lt. Shri Govind Ram Sindhwani by virtue of registered sale deed and after his demise, the property was inherited by his sons those are Shri Madan Lal and Shri Kul Bhushan Sindhwanni. That after the demise of Shri Govind Ram Sindhwani his two sons namely Shri Madan Lal and Shri Kul Bhushan Sindhwanni divided the property by meets and bound in equal shares and the tenancy of the respondent fell in to the share of the father of the respondent, the respondent become the tenant of Shri previously was the tenant of the Shri Madan Lal who is the father of the petitioner; after demise of Shri Madan Lal his son who is the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 3 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS petitioner herein become the owner/landlord of the half of the property in which the respondent is the tenant. Hence, the present eviction petition has been filed seeking eviction of the respondent in respect of the Two Barsati rooms, one kitchen, one bath room in private flat no. 12 at Barsati floor in property bearing municipal no. 18B/2, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi-110005. Thus, the eviction of respondent from the subject premises has been prayed for.
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
3. Written Statement was filed by the respondent in response to petition filed by the petitioner praying to the court to dismiss the present petition with costs. The preliminary objections have been taken stating that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable as the petitioner has not complied with the mandatory provisions of DRC Act and DRC Rules and hence on this sole ground along the petition of the petitioner is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the tenanted premises. That the tenanted premises is a joint property and there are several co-owner of the suit property and suit property still stands in the name of Late Sh. Govind Ram Sandhwani.
That the petitioner has not filed the correct site plan of the entire property and has not given the correct and specific dimension of the tenanted premises in possession of the respondent and other portion of the property and its stories constructed thereon. That the father of the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 4 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS respondent late Sh. Jagan Nath was the tenant in the tenanted premises bearing Flat No. 12 in premises bearing No. 18-B/2, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 which consist of two Barsati Rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom and front of open space @ Rent of Rs. 82.50 per month since the year 1965. That late Sh. Govind Ram Sindhwani was the owner of the premises bearing No. 18-B/2, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 and let out the tenanted premises to the father of the respondent in the year 1965 @ monthly rent of Rs. 82.50p and the rent @ Rs. 82.50p used to be deposited in the account of late Sh. Govind Ram Sindhwani bearing account no. 1492, New Bank of India Limited, Karol Bagh, New Delhi branch. That after the death of Govind Ram Sindhwani, Father of respondent was paying rent jointly to Sh. Madan Lal and Sh. Kul Bhusan Sindhwani and rent receipt was issued by them jointly. That till date the title of the ownership is not clear among the co-owners. That as since 1997 nobody came to the respondent to claim the ownership of the property and no rent was demanded .That the property in question consists of 12 flats and two mezzanine floors and 6 of them are lying vacant and at present there are 8 tenants in the said premises. In reply on merits, all the paragraphs no.1,2,4, 6 to 10, 12 to 15 , 17 are stated to be matter of record and that they need no reply. The averments of preliminary objections are further reiterated and the other averments of eviction petition are denied. It is also stated that petitioner is having several other properties available with him in Delhi as well as outside (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 5 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS Delhi.
REPLICATION:-
4. Replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioner in reply to written statement of the respondent denying the averments made by the respondent and reiterating the version of the eviction petition. It is also stated that after demise of Sh. Govind Ram Sindhwani and mutual family settlement arrived between his two sons namely Mdan Lal and Sh. Kulbhushan Sindwani and family settlement was recorded. That after division of said property and after death of Sh.Kulbhushan Sindhwani, all his other LRs have relinquished their share in property in question in favour of petitioner and relinquishment deed was executed and thereafter matter was listed for petitioner's evidence.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER:-
5. To prove his case, the petitioner Sh. Ajay Sindhwani examined himself as PW1 and relied upon several documents i.e. Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/7 i.e. site plan Ex.PW1/1, Legal demand notice Ex.PW1/2, Postal receipts Ex.PW1/3, reply to legal notice Ex.PW1/4, family settlement dt. 01.01.1990 Ex.PW1/5 (OSR), relinquishment Deed dt. 03.02.2011, Ex.PW1/6 (OSR) and mutation letter dt. 19.11.2013 from NDMC Ex.PW1/7 (OSR) . Witness was cross examined and thereafter, PE was closed on 28.02.2024.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 6 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT:-
6. The Respondent namely Sh. Sunil Dargan examined himself as RW1 and relied upon several documents, rent receipts bearing no. 2555 and 2560 issued by late Sh. Madan Lal and Kulbhushan Sidhwani, already Ex.PW1/R1 and Ex.PW1/R2 respectively. That the receipts of new bank of India limited amount no. 1492 since January 1967 to December 1967 total in 6 receipts(OSR), Ex.RW1/3(Colly)(6 receipts). The bank receipts in joint account of Sh. Madan Lal and Sh. Kulbhushan Sindhwani in account bearing no. 2531, the new bank of India limited from October 1968 to February 1972 total 15 receipts, Ex.RW1/4(Colly)(13 receipts) (OSR) and thereafter, RE was closed by separate statement of respondent dated 24.07.2025 and matter was fixed for final arguments.
PROCEEDINGS OF COURT: -
7. It is pertinent to mention that vide order dated 17.03.2015 , it was observed that no order could be passed u/s 15(1) of DRC Act as relationship of landlord and tenant and amount of rent was in dispute . However, during the proceedings before Ld. Appellate Court/RCT, the counsel for respondent conceded that respondent was a tenant in the premises and therefore, the order dated 16.09.2015 was passed by Ld. RCT u/s 15(4) of DRC Act with the directions to the respondent /tenant to deposit the rent @ of Rs. 82.50 per month with arrears for last three years from date of filing of the petition within 30 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 7 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS days and to deposit the future rent by the 15 th day of each succeeding month. It is further pertinent to mention that at the stage of final arguments, the respondent expired and his LRs were impleaded vide order dated 04.09.2025 and vakalatnama was filed on behalf of said LRs.
ARGUMENTS:-
8. I have heard the arguments advanced by counsel for both the parties. I have also carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents and material on record and case law relied upon and the findings on all the separate grounds of eviction are as follow in the succeeding paragraphs.
GROUND OF EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14(1) (a) D.R.C. ACT:-
9. It is expedient to reproduce the relevant provision of Delhi Rent Control Act so that position may be crystal clear:-
"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 only, namely:-
(a) that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole arrears of the rent legally recoverable from him within two months of the day on which a notice of demand for the arrears of rent has been served of him (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 8 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS by the landlord in the manner provided in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)."
As such, the following are the ingredients of section 14(1) proviso (a) :-
(i) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
(ii) There should be non-payment or tendering of whole arrears of legally recoverable rent within two months of service of legal notice upon the tenant given by the landlord.
10. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(a) D.R.C. Act one y one.
(i). RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT:-
10.1 It has been argued by ld. counsel for petitioner that though the respondent has disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant, however, he has clearly admitted that predecessor in interest of the petitioner namely late Govind Ram Sindwani, who was the grandfather of petitioner, was the owner and landlord of property in question and after his death Sh. Madan Lal and Sh. Kulbhushan Sindhwani were the owners/landlords. It is submitted that a settlement between the LRs of late Sh.Govind Ram had already taken place by way of memorandum of family settlement i.e. Ex. PW1/5 and even if said document is disputed on part of the respondent, the status of the petitioner remains of the co-owner in the property in question and the law is very well settled that any co-owner can file an (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 9 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS eviction petition. It is further submitted that as the respondent has admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and of the respondent, said relationship devolved between both the parties to the present petition as it is not disputed that petitioner is the successor in interest of late Sh. Govind Ram Sindhwani.
10.2 On the other hand, it is submitted that in the legal notice sent by the petitioner Ex. PW1/2, the petitioner claimed the respondent to be his tenant, whereas the respondent was never the tenant of the petitioner and that as stated in WS, the respondent was the tenant of late Sh. Govind Ram Sindhwani and after his death, the tenant of Sh. Madan Lal and Sh. Kulbhushan Sindhwani. That there was a dispute among the LRs of Sh. Govind Ram Sindhwani and till date the title with respect to property in question was not cleared and accordingly, petitioner is neither owner nor landlord of the property in question and he has also not filed any document to establish his ownership in the property in question.
10.3 Heard. It is observed that legal preposition is very well settled that once a tenant is always a tenant. In the WS filed by the respondent, he had specifically admitted in para no. 5 to 7 of preliminary objections as well as in para no. 11 on reply on merits that the father of the respondent late Sh. Jagannath was the tenant in the premises in question at the monthly rent of Rs. 82.50 /- per month since the year 1965 and that late Sh. Govind Ram Sindhwani was the owner/landlord of the said premises. That after demise of late Sh.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 10 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS Govind Ram Sindhwani the father of respondent was paying the rent @ Rs. 82.50/- per month jointly to Sh. Madan Lal and Sh. Kulbhushan Sindhwani and rent receipt was also issued by them jointly. Again the respondent himself had placed on record rent receipt, Ex. PW1/R1 and Ex. PW1/R2,which were issued by Late Sh. Madan Lal and Sh. Kulbushan in favour of father of respondent namely Sh. Jagannath. Therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant between the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and of the respondent is not in question in any manner. It is settled preposition that if the ownership of property is acquired by a person, the landlordship devolves upon the said person by way of law and there is no requirement of any attornment.In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in J.C. Mehra Vs. Smt. Kusum Gupta, 2006(1) RCR (Civil) 31 . Now it is not the matter of dispute in any manner that the petitioner is the son of late Sh. Madan Lal Sindhwani. Accordingly, if the petitioner claimed himself to be the landlord of the respondent in the legal notice Ex. PW1/2, there was no illegality in the said claim.
Now even if there is any dispute among the co-owners of property in question, it is not the matter of concerned for respondent in any manner and he has no right to challenge the ownership of the petitioner in view of provision of section 116 of IEA (122 BSA). It is observed that section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, lays down as under:-
"116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession.--No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 11 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given."
10.4 Going one step further , it is also pertinent to mention that even if it is taken for sake of arguments that petitioner is not the exclusive owner of property in question, the fact remains that admittedly petitioner is the co-owner of property in question being the son of late Sh. Madan Lal Sindhwani.It is matter of legal trite that any co-owner can file the eviction petition. In the case titled as M/s Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRs Smt. Savitri Agarwalla & Ors., AIR 2004 1321; it was held that:
"The consent of other co-owners is assumed to be taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to the ejectment of the tenant and suit/petition for their eviction was filed despite their dis-agreement."
10.5 Accordingly,in view of aforesaid discussion, the landlord- tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent is duly proved.
(II)ARREARS OF RENT AND SERVICEC OF DEMAND NOTICE AND NON PAYMENT OF RENT.
10.6 It is observed that in the WS, the respondent has clearly stated that his father had paid the rent for the amount of Rs. 82.50/- to (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 12 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS Sh Madan lal and Sh. Kulbushan Sindhwani and as since 1997 nobody came to the respondent to claim the ownership of the tenanted premises and never demanded the rent, no such rent was deposited. Again as further reflected from the document Ex.PW1/2, the respondent was duly sent a demand notice by the petitioner asking him to pay the arrears of rent @ of Rs. 50/- per month w.e.f 01.01.1997 alongwith interest @ of 15 % per annum. Now in the WS, the respondent has not denied the receipt of said notice as reflected from the para 18(b) of reply on merits of the WS, wherein the receipt of said notice is not denied, however said notice is stated to be false. Again the respondent himself has given the reply to the said notice, which is document Ex. PW1/4 and same has been further admitted by the respondent in his cross examination dated 09.07.2025 by stating that he had given the reply of legal demand notice Ex. PW1/2. 10.7 Now again as recorded in the cross examination of respondent/RW1, it is also admitted fact that the respondent had not paid any rent amount to the petitioner after receipt of demand notice Ex.PW1/2. The respondent has clearly stated in his cross examination dated 23.01.2025 that he had not paid the rent after the death of Madan Lal Sindhwani and he had also not deposited any rent in the court prior to passing of the court order in this regard. Even otherwise, the respondent has not led any evidence to prove if he had made any payment of rent within the period of 2 months after service of demand notice Ex. PW1/2.
10.8 Thus, it stands proved that respondent was in arrears of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 13 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS rent when legal demand notice was served upon him and that the respondent failed to pay the said arrears of rent within two months from the receipt of the said legal notice. 10.9 Accordingly, as the petitioner has duly satisfied the ingredients of section 14(1) (a) of DRC Act, the eviction petition filed by petitioner against the respondent under section 14 (1) (a) of the DRC Act is allowed.
THE GROUND OF EVICTION U/S 14 (1) (b) of DRC Act :-
11. 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 only, 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 premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord".
11.1 In view of provision of law, the landlord is required to prove following essential conditions u/s 14(1) (b) of DRC Act :-
(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.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 14 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS
(ii). No consent in writing was taken from the landlord by the tenant.
11.2 It is further observed 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. Subletting takes place only when there is divesting of physical possession as well as of the right to possession. It is further well settled that initial burden to prove that sub-tenant is in exclusive possession of the suit property is on the owner. However, the onus to prove the exclusive possession of the subtenant is that of preponderance of probability only and he has to prove the same prima- facie only and if he succeeds then the burden to rebut the same lies on the tenant. 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."
Again 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 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 15 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS 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.
Similarly 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 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."
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 16 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS 11.3 Keeping in view, the aforementioned principles of law and observations made by the Hon'ble Superior Courts, I have carefully gone through the testimonies of the witness from the petitioner's side and also all the relevant documents filed on record. 11.4 Now in the facts of the present case, in the eviction petition the petitioner has categorically stated in para no. 16 in the eviction petition, the respondent has sublet, assign and partly with teh possession of tenanted premises without any written consent of the petitioner and in reply to same, in the WS, respondent has simply denied the same and has stated that respondent is still in possession of tenanted premsies, however the respondent has not led any single evidence to prove his possession in the subject premises. 11.5 It is further observed that subletting is often a concealed act and petitioner cannot always have direct evidence in this regard and accordingly the respodnent was in the best position to rebutt the said allegation of the petitioner by leading any evidence in this regard. In this regard, reliance can be also placed upon judgment of M/s Bharat Sales Limited Vs. LIC AIR 1998 SC 1240. Now in the facts of the present case, it is not the matter of dispute that predecessor in interest of the petitioner had given exclusive possession of the subject premises to the predecessor in interest of the respondent. Now the petitioner in the eviction petition and also in his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A has categorically stated about the sub letting by the respondent and has also further stated that sub tenant has been enjoying the tenanted premises exclusively and accordingly, the onus had certainly (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 17 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS shifted upon the respondent to counter the said deposition of the petitioner and he could have easily done the same by producing the relevant documents to show the possession of the respondent. However, neither any electricity bill nor any other such document has been produced by the respondent to show his exclusive possession in the subject premises. Again it is an admitted fact that no such consent was ever taken from the petitioner /landlord. Accordingly in such circumstances the adverse inference has to be drawn against the respondent himself and the version of the petitioner is certainly reliable.
11.6 Accordingly, In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled proposition of law, the eviction petition filed by petitioner against the respondent under section 14 (1) (b) of the DRC Act is allowed.
THE GROUND OF EVICTION U/S 14 (1) (d) of DRC Act :-
11.7 Section: 14 (1) (d) is reproduced hereunder for reference :-
"..........That the premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of his family has been residing therein for the period of six months immediately before the date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof.........."
11.8 For seeking eviction u/s 14 (1) (d), it is necessary to prove the premises must have been let out for the residential purpose. Again, it is observed that the question of residence or non-residence is (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 18 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS not a question of presumption and rather it is a question of fact. It is not a question of inference but of positive proof. In this regard, reference is made the judgment of Sushil Chander Gupta V Radha Krishan Bathija, 1981(1) RCJ 711. In the case of Sita Ram Talwar Vs. Jai Dev Sharma 1979 (16) DLT 225, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed as follows in this regard:-
".........The respondent/landlord could only prove the tenant has not occupied the premises for the last 6 months. Once he has been able to prove that the onus must be on the tenant to show though he had not occupying the premises for the 6 months, there were good and sound reason for not occupying the premises like illness or trip abroad but that in law his residence was in the premises, and if he had shown that courts may come to the conclusion that in such a case, it cannot be held that the tenant had not resided for more than 6 months. This is because, if there are good reasons for not occupying the premises due to illness in the family or his own reasons which had kept him out of the house, it must be said that he was residing there. But this is a matter which being special knowledge of the tenant has necessarily to be shown him............." .
11.9 Now in view of this legal position, let me advert to the facts of the present case. As per the case of the petitioner, the respondent had to use the said premises only for residential purpose and neither the respondent nor any of his family members were residing for more than the period of 6 months immediately before the date of filing of the present petition. The petitioner has duly deposed the same on oath in his affidavit Ex.PW1/A, apart from the averments made in the eviction petition. On the other hand, the respondent has simply denied the same. In his cross examination, he has stated that the premises in his possession consisting of two rooms, one kitchen, (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 19 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS one WC and open veranda / courtyard, however, as discuss ever the respondent has failed to discharge his onus to lead the evidence to establish that he or his family member were residing in the tenanted premises. It is pertinent to mention that section 14(1) (d) of DRC Act, provides for 'residing' and not only for possession. The respondent could have certainly produced any document to show the use of the property in question as 'residence' or he could have at least examined any other independent witness to prove his version in this regard, however, no such effort was made on part of the respondent and therefore the respondent completely failed to discharge his onus in this regard.
11.10 Accordingly, In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled proposition of law, the eviction petition filed by petitioner against the respondent under section 14 (1) (d) of the DRC Act is allowed.
GROUND OF EVICTION U/S 14(1) (h) of DRC Act.
11.11 Regarding the provision of section 14 (1) (h) of DRC Act, it is observe that the petitioner has to prove that the respondent/tenant has acquired vacant possession of a residence or have been allotted a residence. It is observed that in the case of N. K. Rastogi vs Kakori Lal 50 (1993) DLT 401, an eviction petition was filed u/s 14 (1) (h) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the allegations that the tenant had acquired a residential flat in the name of his wife. The Hon'ble High (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 20 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS Court affirmed the order of eviction and held that the tenant had full domain over the property of his wife which was available to the family of the tenant for residence. Similarly, in the case of Kanwal Nain vs Prem Nath 1999 RLR 514, it was contented in eviction petition filed u/s 14 (1) (h) that the tenant had no legal right in the property of his wife. The Hon'ble High Court did not accept this contention and allowed the eviction petition. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Asha Kapoor vs Hari Om Sharda 171 (2010) DLT 743.
11.12 Now in the facts of the present case, the respondent/RW1 has duly admitted in his cross examination dated 09.07.2025 that property bearing no. 30/37, West Patel Nagar, belonged to his mother and that his mother had already died. Though the witness has stated that the he had no claimed of any ownership /right over the said property, however, he also admitted that his mother had executed the Will of the said property in his favour. The respondent/RW1 further took the plea that a court case was pending qua the said property , however he failed to specify the nature or any particulars of the said court case. No record of such court case was filed on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly, on the basis of a vague plea made by the respondent, it cannot be assumed that the respondent was not able or restrained in any manner to enjoy the said property bequeathed by his mother in his favour. Again it is not the case, that the said property acquired by the respondent is not vacant or is not habitable as a residence. Therefore, the petitioner has again successfully proved the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 21 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS requirement of section 14(1)(h) of DRC Act. Accordingly, In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled proposition of law, the eviction petition filed by petitioner against the respondent under section 14 (1)
(h) of the DRC Act is allowed.
CONCLUSION:-
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled proposition of law, the eviction petition filed by petitioner against the respondent under section 14 (1) (a) (b) (d) and (h) of the DRC Act is hereby allowed.
13. As eviction petition has been allowed under section 14 (1) (b) (d) and (h) of the DRC Act, eviction order is passed in respect of tenanted premises i.e. two barsati rooms, one kitchen, one bathroom in private flat no. 12, Barsati Floor, Property bearing municipal no. 18 B /2, Deshbandhu Gupta Road, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, as shown red in the site plan Ex. PW1/1 annexed with the petition.
14. It is further observed that the present eviction petition was filed in the year 2014 and the was pending before the court for more than 11 years. As reflected from the ordersheets the delay was caused for the reasons to be assigned to both the parties, however, the fact remains that for more than 11 years, the petitioner was deprived of the enjoyment of his own property for more than 11 years. It is the case where the respondent falsely denied the ownership/landlordship of the petitioner. Accordingly, I am of the view that it is a fit case (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 22 of 23 RC ARC No. 79403/2016 AJAY SINDHWANI VS. SUNIL DARGON THROUGH HIS LRS where realistic amount of cost should be imposed upon the respondent. Even otherwise, the imposition of cost goes a longway in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings by the litigants.
In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Ram Rameshwari Devi & Ors Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors dated 04.07.2011 and also on the celebrated case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3353. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is imposed the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- ( rupees one lac only) to be paid to the petitioner.
15. Ahlmad is directed to prepare a misc. separate file for the consideration of benefit under section 14 (2) of Delhi Rent Control Act. Nazir is also directed to file his report on 16.10.2025 regarding compliance of order dated 16.09.2015 passed by Ld. RCT, Central, THC, Delhi. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
Date: 2025.09.16
AGARWAL 16:35:55 +0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
ARC-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
(Announced in open court
On 16.09.2025 ).
Note: This judgment contains 23 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK KUMAR Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2025.09.16 AGARWAL 16:35:50 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) ARC-02 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 16.09.2025 Page no. 23 of 23