* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 26.03.2025 + RC.REV. 155/2022, CM APPL. 39218/2023 NATHU LAL & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Vishwa Aman Kandwal and Mr.

Subhash Baghel, Advocates..

Versus SHAZIA AHMAD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Sumit Kumar Khatri, Mr. Pawan Kumar and Mr. Parv Passi, Advocates. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. By way of present revision petition filed under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘DRC Act’), the petitioners seek to assail the order/judgement dated 07.04.2022 passed by CCJ-cum-ARC, Tis Hazari Courts, Central District, in RC ARC 81/2019, titled as ‘Smt. Shazia Ahmad vs. Sh Nathu Lal & Ors.’

Vide the impugned order/judgement, the learned ARC dismissed the petitioner-tenant’s application for grant of leave to defend and an eviction order came to be passed in favour of the respondent-landlord and against the petitioners, in relation to premises bearing No.10337, measuring 43.48 sq. ft., consisting of ground floor and first floor with its roof rights situated at Bagichi Peerji, Ram Bagh Road, Subzi Mandi, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to Signature Not Verified RC.REV. 155/2022 PageD i1gi taollfy 5Si gned as ‘subject premises’).

2. In the eviction petition, the respondent-landlord, claimed that she had a bona fide requirement of the said premises for residential purposes to live alongwith her husband and four children (three at the time of filing of the eviction petition) as she is currently living in one-room premises at 7015, Beriwalan Bagh, Azad Nagar, Delhi-110006 on the mercy of her in-laws, while the petitioner enjoys the subject premises comprising of four rooms.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that the respondent had purchased the subject premises from one Sh. Shahid Ahmad Ferozie by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 05.09.2013. It is the petitioner’s case that the erstwhile owner, i.e., Sh. Shahid Ahmad Ferozie had let out the subject premises to the father of the petitioners, Sh. Rewar Ram (now deceased). The factum of the transfer through the aforesaid Sale Deed was informed to the tenant by the erstwhile owner vide Attornment Letter dated

05.09.2013.

4. Before this Court, the petitioners challenge the ownership of the respondent over the subject premises as well as the existence of landlord- tenant relationship between the parties. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that firstly, as is the respondent’s own case, no rent was ever paid by the petitioners to the respondent. Reference is made to paragraph 2 of the impugned order wherein the ARC has noted the same. Secondly, while relying on North MCD records, as placed on record before the ARC, it is submitted that the petitioners are the independent assessees of the property tax in North MCD, Delhi, and that the respondent never got the subject premises mutated in her name in the revenue records. Thirdly, it is contended that the title of the erstwhile owner, Sh. Shahid Signature Not Verified RC.REV. 155/2022 PageD i2gi taollfy 5Si gned Ahmad Ferozie himself is under dispute in various judicial proceedings and thus, better title regarding the subject premises could not have been transferred to the respondent in the first place and that she therefore cannot claim absolute ownership over the subject premises. To dispute the ownership, reliance is placed on a judgment in parallel proceedings titled as 'Lai Chand vs. Begum Jaan, in RSA No. 40/77, wherein this Court held that Mst. Begum Jaan, late grandmother of Sh. Shahid Ahmed Ferozie, had never succeeded to title of the entire area wherein the subject premises is located.

5. Per contra, the respondent defends the impugned order/judgment and contends that the petitioners have themselves admitted that their father was a tenant of the erstwhile owner, Sh. Shahid Ahmad Ferozie and that he also used to pay rent for the subject premises.