Ramesh Chand Alias Ramesh Chander vs Uganti Devi (D) Th. Lr'S & Anr on 2 November, 2007
9. Though, the respondent has disputed the ownership of Sh. G.K.
Bhatnagar, father of the petitioner over the property in question, but the
respondent has not disputed the fact that Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar had inducted
him in the suit premises. Therefore, the respondent cannot challenge the
ownership of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar over the property in question. It is also not
in dispute that petitioner is son of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar and after the death of
Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar, the respondent has been paying the rentals in respect of
the suit premises to the petitioner since 1986. The petitioner has also placed
Eviction Petition No. E120/10 Page 9 of 25
on record the photocopy of rent receipts issued to the respondent in respect
of the tenanted premises in which name of owner has been shown as Sh. A.
K. Bhatnagar, petitioner herein. The said rent receipts also bears the
signature of respondent and have not been disputed by the respondent.
Therefore, the respondent cannot be heard saying that the petitioner is only a
rent collector collecting rent after the death of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar. When
the respondent himself admits the relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties, he is estopped from disputing the title of Sh. G.K.
Bhatnagar and after his death of the petitioner over the property in question.
It has been held in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450
by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that, "It is settled preposition of law
that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control
Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant.
The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been
receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else.
If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone
else, he is to be considered as the owner howsoever imperfect his title over
the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot
stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC
Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or
title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been
Eviction Petition No. E120/10 Page 10 of 25
paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates
estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord
only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises.
In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises,
to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly." Hence, there is no merit in the
contention of the respondent that Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar, father of the petitioner
was not the owner of the property in question and the petitioner is only a
rent collector after the death of Sh. G.K. Bhatnagar.