Final Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: -1-
In the Court of Sh. Ashwani Kumar Sarpal, Principal
District & Sessions Judge, East District
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
(RCT no. 05/2025)
CNR no.DLET010028142025
Avtar Singh (deceased) through LRs
Vs.
Sachin Verma & Another
Date of institution---3-6--2025
Date of decision------1-8-2026
(Rent Appeal u/s 38 of DRC Act against the eviction order
dated 20-5-2025 passed by ACJ/CCJ/ARC)
********************
JUDGMENT:-
1) There are two connected matters and common evidence was recorded in both
as controversy raised, legal and factual was the same. Though in both cases
landlord and sub-tenant are same, but there are two different shops and
original tenants are also different but closely related to each other being
husband and wife.
-- 1 of 13 --
-2-
2) Respondent no. 1 Sh. Sachin Verma (who is referred as landlord) filed an
eviction petition on ground of non payment of rent and sub-letting under
Section 14 (1) (a) and (b) of DRC Act against respondent no. 2 Smt. Pushpa
M. Vatlani (referred as tenant) and one Sh. Avtar Singh (sub-tenant). During
pendency of the petition at final arguments stage before ld. Trial Court, Sh.
Avtar Singh expired and his LRs were brought on record. Sh. Avtar
Singh/LRs are now referred hereunder as sub-tenant. This petition was
allowed vide judgment 20-5-2025 by ld. ARC and LRs of deceased Sh. Avtar
Singh (sub-tenant) were directed to vacate the shop bearing no. V, First
Floor, X/439, Gali no. 0, Ram Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, who have filed
the present appeal.
3) Respondent no. 2 tenant Smt. Pushpa M. Vatlani did not file any appeal nor
came forward to contest the present appeal who had also expired. Her son
Sh. Devkishan impleaded in this appeal in her place and is settled in Dubai
has sent an affidavit dated 5-4-2026 through email to this court mentioning
therein that his mother Smt. Pushpa M. Vatlani and father Sh. Murlidhar
Vatlani both have expired in the year 2025 and 2016 respectively, who were
tenants in two separate shops bearing no. IV and V and they had already
vacated these two shops in the year 2010 and handed over its possession to
Smt. Sharda Rani, previous owner of the same. He also stated that he is not
claiming any tenancy rights in these two shops and requested for deleting his
name from the present appeal.
4) This fact is not in dispute that Smt. Sharda Rani was the erstwhile owner of
the suit shop who died on 5-9-2011 and deceased respondent no. 2 Smt.
Pushpa M. Vatlani was her tenant in the said shop at the monthly rent of Rs.
150/- per month. Even before ld. Trial Court, tenant had stated that with the
passage of time, she was not in need of the suit shop and asked Smt. Sharda
-- 2 of 13 --
-3-
Rani to return her pagri amount and take back possession of the shop.
However, Smt. Sharda Rani was unable to return the pagri amount due to
insufficiency of funds. Thus, there arose an understanding among Smt.
Sharda Rani, tenant and sub-tenant. Sub-tenant returned the pagri amount to
tenant on behalf of Smt. Sharda Rani and got possession of the suit shop and
he became new tenant in the said shop under the oral agreement of tenancy
on 11-10-2010. Sub-tenant thereafter agreed to pay monthly rent to Smt.
Sharda Rani in the capacity of new tenant. It is also stated that since Smt.
Sharda Rani was treating sub-tenant like her son, so he did not press for any
documentation regarding creation of any new tenancy. Tenant denied
allegations of sub-letting of the suit shop to sub-tenant.
5) Landlord Sh. Sachin Verma is admittedly grandson of Smt. Sharda Rani in
whose favour she executed a Will dated 20-1-2011. Thus, landlord claimed
that he has become owner of this suit shop and accordingly filed eviction
petition on the ground of non payment of rent since year 1998 and for
subletting the shop by tenant respondent no. 2 to appellant sub-tenant. He
sent legal notice dated 30-5-2015 and 6-7-2015 to both tenant and sub-tenant
and only sub-tenant gave reply of the same.
6) Sub-tenant is claiming that he had become new tenant in the suit shop with
the consent of landlady Smt. Sharda Rani. He also disputed the status and
locus standi of the landlord to file eviction petition and also described the
Will dated 20-1-2011 as forged document. According to him, unless the Will
is probated, landlord has no legal right to file an eviction petition. He also
stated that he regularly paid rent to Smt. Sharda Rani till the time she
remained alive but when he tendered the rent to landlord, he refused to issue
receipt on the ground that he was having disputes with other legal heirs of
Smt. Sharda Rani. Thereafter, sub-tenant stopped paying rent to the landlord
-- 3 of 13 --
-4-
and told him to settle the dispute with other legal heirs first and then he will
pay the rent including arrears.
7) To prove his case, landlord Sh. Sahin Verma examined himself as PW-1
whereas tenant examined her attorney RW-1 Sh. Manoj Kumar. Sub-tenant
Sh. Avtar Singh examined himself as RW2A. Firstly, the question is to be
decided whether tenant subletted the suit shop to sub-tenant or new tenancy
was created on 11-10-2010 by erstwhile owner/landlady Smt. Sharda Rani.
Then, it is to be decided whether sub-tenant is liable to pay any arrears of
rent to the landlord or not.
8) Landlord in order to show ownership of suit shop relied upon Will executed
by his grandmother as well as mutation order of MCD issued in his favour
on basis of this Will. The landlord was not required to obtain any
probate/letter of administration on basis of Will dated 20-1-2011 executed by
Smt. Sharda Rani before filing of the present eviction petition. In this regard,
law is well settled by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in cases Ishwar Dass
Rajput vs. Chaman Prakash Puri 44 (1991) DLT 639 and Munni Devi
vs. Manmohan Verma 2007 (1) RCR 223 wherein it is held that tenant
cannot challenge the legality and validity of the Will relied upon by the
owner to establish his ownership in rent proceedings as Rent Controller is
not conferred with jurisdiction under Indian Succession Act and he has to
decide the matter as per provisions of DRC Act only. In another case
Plastichemicals Company vs. Ashit Chadha 114 (2004) DLT 408 it is
held by our own High Court that once landlord is able to show that there is
testament in his favour, he deem to have discharged his burden of ownership
vis a vis Rent Control Act. Such testament can be challenged only by the
heirs of owner and not by the tenant. The reliance placed by counsel for the
sub-tenant on the decision Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand Civil
-- 4 of 13 --
-5-
Appeal no. 6377/2012 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 1-9-
2025 is misconceived as in this cited case it is simply laid down law, how
and in which manner and through what procedure, any Will is to be proved
but it nowhere says that before seeking eviction of any tenant of previous
owner/landlord of property, the Will relied upon firstly is to be probated. In
this cited case, the actual question involved was whether GPA, Agreement to
sell, Will etc. confers any ownership and title upon the person in whose
favour documents are executed or not. Will was not proved as per law by
examining attesting witness, so the suit was dismissed. Otherwise also, in
Delhi obtaining of probate is not mandatory before initiating any legal action
by beneficiary of the Will, if the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
cases Clarence Pais vs. UOI AIR 2001 SC 1151 and Kanta Yadav vs.
Om Parkash Yadav (2020) 14 SCC 102 are taken into consideration. The
dispute in respect of forgery of Will can be raised only by legal heirs of
deceased executor of Will and not by any third party. Thus, neither tenant nor
sub-tenant were having any right to question the Will of Smt. Sharda Rani in
favour of landlord especially, when no other legal heirs of Smt. Sharda Rani
intervened in the proceedings to question locus standi of the landlord for
about 10 years or to claim rent from any other tenant or even from sub-
tenant. Moreover, sub-tenant admittedly is tenant in one another shop
bearing no. 1 in the same building and he is paying rent to landlord after
accepting his status being owner as acquired on the basis of the Will of Smt.
Sharda Rani, so now he cannot be permitted to raise contradictory stand in
the present eviction petition. Similarly, reliance placed upon decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case A. Kamala Bai vs. B. Kanna Rao 2026
(2) CLJ 174 (SC) which also deals with issue how to prove the Will in civil
proceedings is not applicable in this proceeding under Rent Act.
-- 5 of 13 --
-6-
9) Counsel for landlord relied upon decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case M/s. Puri Investments vs. M/s. Young Friends & Co., Civil
Appeal no. 1609/2022 decided on 23-2-2022, Munshi Lal vs. Santosh
AIR 2017 SC 1057, Vaishakhi Ram vs. Sanjeev Kumar Bhatiani II
(2008) SLT 600 and Bhairon Sahai vs. Bishamber Dayal (2017) SLT
641 and argued that it is difficult for the landlord to prove by direct
evidence, the contract or agreement or understanding between the tenant and
sub-tenant and burden is upon the sub-tenant to show in which capacity he is
occupying the disputed property, though court can draw some inference
during trial on the basis of evidence including delivery of exclusive
possession of sub-tenant that property was actually sub-letted.
10) Sub-tenant has alleged in his written statement filed before ld. Trial Court
that his new tenancy came in existence on the basis of oral understanding of
erstwhile owner Smt. Sharda Rani dated 11-10-2010. However, during trial
sub-tenant produced one document Ex. RW-2/8 to show that Smt. Sharda
Rani acknowledged through this document that fresh tenancy has been
created. This document dated 11-10-2010 Ex. RW-2/8 shows that it is
‘Receipt cum Handing Over Possession’ in which tenant states that she has
received Rs. 3 lakhs from sub-tenant in the presence of Smt. Sharda Rani as
she has entered into a fresh tenancy with sub-tenant. This document also
mentions the averments that tenant has handed over the vacant peaceful
possession of the suit shop to sub-tenant in the presence of witnesses. The
rate of rent of suit shop is fixed at Rs. 200/- per month payable by sub-tenant
and thereafter tenant will have no concern with this shop. This document is
also signed by Smt. Sharda Rani, tenant, sub-tenant and two witnesses
namely Sh. Ramesh and Sh. Mahesh Chandra.
-- 6 of 13 --
-7-
11) The reference of this document Ex. RW-2/8 is not mentioned anywhere in
the written statement of sub-tenant or in the reply of the legal notice Ex.
PW1/9 dated 24-6-2015 sent by him to the landlord. On the other hand, his
consistent stand since beginning as per his own written statement was that
tenancy was oral. It is also a fact that this document was filed on record of
ld. Trial Court after 10 months of filing of written statement by sub-tenant
and was not filed at initial stage. Even tenant in her written statement
mentioned that “sub-tenant might have not pressed for any documentation
while creating fresh tenancy in respect of the aforesaid shops, handed over to
him at the instance of Smt. Sharda Rani.” Sub-tenant RW2A at one stage of
his evidence stated that tenant did not meet Smt. Sharda Rani in year 2010
till the date of her death, then how this document could be executed on 11-
10-2010 has remained unexplained fact. Further, this document was
containing acknowledgment of tenant regarding receipt of pagri amount and
in normal circumstances, it should have been in possession of Smt. Sharda
Rani. How this original document came in possession of sub-tenant could
not be clarified. This very important and crucial document was allegedly in
possession or knowledge of sub-tenant and he was also party to the same but
still not mentioning of it in the written statement and even earlier reply to the
notice given by him to the landlord, the possibility cannot be ruled out that it
was manufactured lateron. Sub-tenant had no knowledge who had prepared
this document. These facts create doubt about the genuineness and
correctness of this document. As per ld. Trial Court, the same might be
forged and fabricated and in the above circumstances, this court endorse the
findings of ld. Trial Court that sub-tenant has failed to prove that he had
actually become new tenant in the suit shop. Non examination of any
attesting witnesses of this document further creates a big dent in the story of
sub-tenant. Though, sub-tenant tried to prove this document through his own
evidence but the above facts and circumstances especially leading evidence
-- 7 of 13 --
-8-
beyond pleadings makes him also an unreliable witness. He allegedly paid
pagri amount in the present and connected matter to an extent of total Rs. 7
lakhs but no other proof regarding availability of such amount with him is
brought on record. He admittedly did not mention this amount given to
tenant on behalf of Smt. Sharda Rani in his income tax return which makes
this story as doubtful. Special Power of Attorney holder of tenant while
appearing as RW-1 at one stage stated that Pagri amount was given by tenant
to sub-tenant which is contradictory to the stand of sub-tenant. He also stated
in his cross examination that tenant remained in the suit shop till the date of
issuing of legal notice by the landlord. This version of RW-1 also rule out the
story of the sub-tenant that he had become tenant in the suit shop. Landlord
never accepted this document as genuine at any stage and described the same
as forged and fabricated not only in his own evidence but also in the cross
examination of Special Power of Attorney of tenant and sub-tenant by giving
suggestions in this regard.
12) Sub-tenant RW-2A in his evidence also stated that Smt. Sharda Rani had
treated him as tenant in the disputed shop in question and issued rent receipts
also but no such rent receipts are produced. He also stated that for the month
of January and February, 2012, he had paid rent to the landlord in cash but
he did not issue any receipt. In this regard, he did not take any action at any
stage and even not issued any notice to him to give rent receipts of payments
taken. Whatever, rent receipts are produced by him on record relates to
another shop no. 1 only qua which there is no dispute. Issuing of rent
receipts in respect of shop no. 1 by the landlord even during life time of Smt.
Sharda Rani as well as after her death does not lead to the presumption that
landlord had also accepted the sub-tenant as his tenant in respect of suit shop
no. V. Except producing the document Ex. RW2/8, sub-tenant has not
produced any other document to establish his tenancy qua the suit shop no. V
-- 8 of 13 --
-9-
and even legally this document is also not proved and thus cannot be relied
upon.
13) On one hand, RW-2A also stated that Smt. Sharda Rani and tenant Smt.
Pushpa M. Vatlani and her husband executed this document Ex. RW2/8 on
11-10-2010 in his presence but at the same time in his cross examination
showed ignorance whether tenant and her husband had gone to Dubai from
September, 2010 to March, 2011 to meet their son. Infact he should have
denied this suggestion specifically and not to show any ignorance about the
same which also makes this document as unreliable and even genuine.
14) This document Ex. RW2/8 was given to the counsel at the time of
preparation of written statement as stated by RW-2A during his cross
examination but neither this document was produced along with the written
statement nor its reference can be found in the same. Infact this document
was produced in the ld. Trial Court after 10 months of the filing of the
written statement. Taking of documents at late stage by the court itself does
not mean that it was accepted as genuine document. This fact makes the
version of the landlord more strong that it was fabricated lateron. Non
examination of any handwriting expert to prove that this document is bearing
the signatures of Smt. Sharda Rani and tenant Smt. Pushpa M. Vatlani also is
a fact which goes against him.
15) Another stand taken by the sub-tenant that Smt. Sharda Rani was unable to
return the pagri amount of tenant so he had paid Rs. 3 lakhs on her behalf
also difficult to be accepted because Smt. Sharda Rani was owner of 20-25
shops in the same and adjoining building and was having income of Rs.
45,000/- to 50,000/- per month and chances of her having no money are very
-- 9 of 13 --
-10-
dim especially when sub-tenant instead of denying this fact simply showed
having no knowledge about it.
16) Reliance was placed upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case
Chaman Lal vs. Manish Kumar RC. Rev. 325/2023 decided on 16-12-
2025 by counsel for the appellant but in this cited case for eviction filed on
basis of bonafide requirements, there was no dispute between the landlord
and sub-tenant. The relationship of landlord and tenant also could not be
established between the parties and there was a dispute about identity of the
person in whose favour alleged title documents were executed. This decision
is not applicable in the present facts and circumstances.
17) Even RW-1, Special Power of Attorney of tenant had no personal knowledge
about various facts including the execution of this document as it was not
executed in his presence as admitted in his cross examination. This Special
Power of Attorney holder even did not know number of LRs of tenant, where
her son was residing, when tenancy in favour of tenant started, when
document executed, what amount of pagri received and to whom possession
of suit shop was handed over etc. Infact from cross examination of this
witness, it can be said that he deposed facts whatever he was informed and
had not seen any transaction himself. RW-1 further showed ignorance in
respect of various facts as alleged by him in his affidavit, so he cannot be
treated as reliable witness. His testimony is liable to be totally rejected being
hearsay evidence and in this regard, reliance can be placed upon decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani vs. Indusind
Bank Ltd. AIR 2005 SC 439, wherein it is held that power of attorney
holder cannot depose in place and instead of principal and maximum can
depose only those facts which are in his personal knowledge. Accordingly, it
is held that this document Ex. RW-2/8 is not reliable document and has to be
-- 10 of 13 --
-11-
discarded. Non filing of any police complaint or taking any legal action by
the landlord in respect of this forged document is not sufficient to hold that it
is genuine and reliable.
18) Admittedly, sub-tenant is in possession of suit shop since 11-10-2010 and
there is no other written document produced to show that Smt. Sharda Rani
ever gave any written permission to tenant to sub-let the suit shop. Simple
fact that during her life time, Smt. Sharda Rani did not take any action
against tenant or sub-tenant is of no consequences. Mere fact that landlord
filed eviction petition after about 4 years of death of Smt. Sharda Rani is not
material as no limitation is applicable in such proceedings. Non issuing of
any letter of attornment to tenant by landlord will not make the sub-tenant as
tenant. Case law cited by counsel for tenant British Motor Car Company
Ltd. vs. M/s. Hindustan Commercial Bank Ltd. Civil Appeal no. 5714
of 2012 decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court on 9-7-2026 is totally
distinguishable from present facts and circumstances. Thus, ld. Trial Court
was right in passing an eviction order against the sub-tenant on ground of
sub-letting under Section 14 (1) (b) DRC Act and findings in this regard is
confirmed and upheld.
19) Counsel for the appellant relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case Rishab Chand Bhandari vs. National Engineering Industry Ltd.
(2009) 10 SCC 601. In this case the meaning of ‘landlord’ is defined and
elaborated. Qua sub-tenant, the real landlord is tenant himself who had let
out the premises to him and not original owner/landlord from whom tenant
had got possession. Thus, sub-tenant is not bound to pay any rent or any
charges to original landlord except where there is any such understanding or
contract in writing, otherwise he was to pay rent only to tenant (who has
become his landlord in the eyes of law). Thus, findings of ld. Trial Court that
-- 11 of 13 --
-12-
sub-tenant is also liable to pay rent to erstwhile owner Smt. Sharda Rani or
her successors is not justified and accordingly the eviction order passed in
respect of non payment of rent u/s 14 (1) (a) DRC Act is hereby set aside.
20) Counsel for the sub-tenant argued that one application u/s 151 CPC dated 6-
9-2018 was moved by landlord for directing him to pay rent which leads to
the inference that he was treating sub-tenant as tenant. However, this
application shows that landlord had asked directions from tenant and not
sub-tenant for deposit of rent. Order of the ld. Trial Court dated 9-9-2019
shows that it was the sub-tenant, who himself voluntarily offered to deposit
it without prejudice to his rights and contentions. This fact alone will not
make sub-tenant as tenant of the landlord and liable to pay rent to him.
21) The eviction order does not become nullity only on the ground that after the
conclusion of the final arguments on 17-4-2025 and before passing of final
judgment on 20-5-2025, tenant expired and this fact was brought to the
knowledge of the court but still he passed the judgment. Ld. Trial Court
record nowhere shows that this fact of death of tenant was ever brought into
the knowledge of the court during this period. Otherwise also, as per Order
22 Rule 6 CPC, passing of judgment at that stage does not make it invalid
and proceedings cannot be abated against tenant. Another argument
advanced that petition was bad for non joinder of causes of action in filing
the same with two grounds simultaneously is liable to be rejected because
there is no bar in DRC Act that in one petition, different grounds of eviction
cannot be clubbed together. If legal notice issued by landlord to tenant and
sub-tenant are taken into consideration, then it clearly shows that rent was
asked from tenant only and not from sub-tenant. Otherwise also, demand
made in this legal notice from sub-tenant was in respect of another shop and
not the suit shop in question.
-- 12 of 13 --
-13-
22) In view of the above, this appeal is hereby partly allowed. Eviction order
passed on account of non payment of rent is set aside but it is confirmed on
the ground of sub-letting. Sub-tenant/appellant is given time of three months
to vacate the suit shop bearing no. V, First Floor, X/439, Gali no. 0, Ram
Nagar, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and handover its vacant possession to the
landlord. As landlord has not challenged the impugned order or filed any
cross objection in the present appeal that arrears of rent should be paid by the
tenant Smt. Pushpa M. Vatlani, so even now, no order is required to be
passed that LR of deceased tenant should pay arrears. Trial court record be
returned with copy of this judgment and appeal file be consigned to record
room.
Dt- 1-8-2026. (Ashwani Kumar Sarpal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi..
-- 13 of 13 --