J U D G M E N T

% 17.08.2022

1. These proceedings emanate from CS 82664/2016 (Sneh Mehta v. Bundu Khan & Ors.) instituted by the respondent against the appellants. The suit was originally instituted against Bundu Khan but, consequent to his death, he was substituted by his legal representatives who, therefore, are the appellants before this Court.

Facts

2. The respondent Sneh Mehta claimed ownership in respect of a room on the ground floor of property bearing no. 319-A, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi (“the suit property”), having obtained possession of the property in 1993 under an agreement to sell and registered General Power of Attorney and, subsequently, having obtained title under a registered sale deed, executed in favour of the respondent on 24th December 2003. The plaint asserted that, at the time of purchase of the suit property by the respondent, there were four tenants residing therein, namely Shyam Lal, Sat Paul, Daroga Mal and the original defendant Bundu Khan. The respondent also asserted, in the suit, that the previous owner of the suit property Padam Singh wrote to the aforementioned four tenants namely Shyam Lal, Sat Paul, Daroga Mal and Bundu Khan on 2nd March 1993, (consequent on the respondent coming into possession of the suit property under the agreement to sell and registered GPA) directing the said four tenants to attorn to the respondent and pay rent to her.

3. It was further averred, in the plaint, that, as Bundu Khan was a habitual defaulter in payment of rent, the respondent, vide notice dated 2nd June 2003, terminated his tenancy with effect from 30th June 2003. Consequent to the said termination, the plaint asserted that Bundu Khan’s status was converted from that of a contractual tenant to a statutory tenant. At the time of death of Bundu Khan on 23rd June 2009, Fiaz Ahmad, the son of Bundu Khan alone was residing in the suit property, with the remaining legal heirs of Bundu Khan residing elsewhere. As such, the plaint averred that the remaining legal heirs of Bundu Khan, who are Appellants 2 to 7 in the present appeal, were merely proforma parties, as they were unaffected by the outcome of the litigation.

4. Predicated on the above facts, the plaint proceeded to rely on Explanation II to Section 2(l)(iii)1 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the DRC Act) to contend that Appellant 1 was entitled to continue in the suit property only for a year following the death of Bundu Khan, as he was not financially dependent on Bundu Khan. On 21st December 2011, therefore, the respondent issued a legal notice to Appellant 1, calling on him to vacate the suit property. Appellant 1 having failed to do so, the plaint alleged that the Appellant 1 was continuing in the suit property as an unauthorised occupant.

5. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and allegations, the respondent prayed, in the suit, for (i) a decree of recovery of possession in favour of the respondent and against the appellants, (ii) a decree of recovery of ₹ 18,000/- representing the rent unpaid for the

1 2. Definitions.—In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -

*****

(l) “tenant” means any person by whom or on whose account or behalf the rent of any premises is or, but for a special contract, would be, payable, and includes –

*****

(iii) in the event of the death of the person continuing in possession after the termination of his tenancy, subject to the order of succession and conditions specified, respectively, in Explanation I and Explanation II to this clause, such of the aforesaid person's—

(a) spouse, (b) son or daughter, or, where there are both son and daughter, both of them, (c) parents, (d) daughter-in-law, being the widow of his pre-deceased son, as had been ordinarily living in the premises with such person as a member or members of his family up to the date of his death, but does not include, -

(A) any person against whom an order or decree for eviction has been made, except where such decree or order for eviction is liable to be r