SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46259

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRIYANKA CHOWDHARY – Appellant
Versus
HARI RAM @ HARI PRAKASH (DECEASED) THR LRS – Respondent
RC.REV.-246/2019



##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: December 2, 2025

% Pronounced on: December 23, 2025

+ RC.REV. 246/2019

PRIYANKA CHOWDHARY .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Hitendra Kr. Nahata and Mr.

Puru C., Advocates.

Versus

HARI RAM @ HARI PRAKASH (DECEASED) THR LRS

.....Respondent

Through: Ms. Khyati Jain, Mr. Hariom Gupta,

Mr. Prince Choudhary, Ms. Sukriti

Gupta and Mr. Annanya Giri,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner/ landlady, Hereinafter ‘landlady filed an Eviction Petition being No. E-

504/14/2012 New No.79384/2016 entitled ‘Priyanka Chaudhary vs. Hari

Ram @ Hari Prakash’ under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control

Act, 1958, Hereinafter ‘DRC Act against the respondent/ tenant, Hereinafter ‘tenant seeking eviction of premises

being the entire first floor and one room on the second floor terrace of

property situated at 2735-2736, Chhattar Pratap Singh, Kinari Bazar, Delhi-

110 006, before the learned Additional Rent Controller-02, Central District,

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Hereinafter ‘learned ARC, on the ground that the landlady was in bona fide

RC.REV. 246/2019 Page 1 of 8

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:BABLOO SHAH

Signing Date:23.12.2025

03:39:20

##PAGE2##

need of it for her residential purposes with her family members.

2. Briefly put, it was the case of the landlady therein that she became

the owner of the subject premises by virtue of a Sale Deed dated

24.06.2003 executed between the landlady and Sh. Dhanna Lal Jain and Sh.

Surinder Kumar Jain, when, the tenant was already in possession of the

subject premises. The landlady was residing with her husband, two

children, father-in-law, and mother-in-law at nearby property bearing

No.2769, second floor, Chhattar Pratap Singh, Kinari Bazar, Delhi-110

006, a house comprising of only three rooms. As per her, she required

additional accommodation due to the ongoing differences with her in-laws

and the inadequate space in her current dwelling. She, specifically, sought

two rooms for her growing children, one room for her personal use, one

room for guests, one room for pooja, as well as a drawing room and a

dining room, in addition to a servant room and terrace for her children’s

use. Lastly, as per the landlady, she had no other suitable alternative

accommodation available with her apart from the subject premises to cater

to her bona fide requirement.

3. Upon being served, the tenant filed application under Section 25B(4)

of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend, which was allowed vide order

dated 07.03.2015. Thereafter, the tenant filed his written statement

primarily submitting that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the

Eviction Petition since she was neither the owner nor the landlady of the

subject premises as the same was owned by a Trust and that the respondent

had been inducted as a tenant by the Trust and had been tendering rent only

to the Trust. It was also his case that the landlady was claiming ownership

of the subject premises on the basis of a Sale Deed dated 24.06.2003,

RC.REV. 246/2019 Page 2 of 8

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:BABLOO SHAH

Signing Date:23.12.2025

03:39:20

##PAGE3##

wherein Late Smt. Kesar Devi, widow of Shri Babu Mal @ Amirchand Ji,

was shown as the owner of the property, however, according to a Will

dated 12.11.1951, Late Smt. Kesar Devi had categorically stated therein

that she was not the owner of the subject premises and that one Late Lala

Hazari Mal was the owner thereof, who had, by virtue of a registered Will

dated 17.05.1945, created a Trust in respect of the property. He submitted

that the alleged Sale Deed dated 24.06.2003 was a sham and fabricated

document, as the purported vendors therein had no title, right, or interest in

the subject premises and, in any event, the execution of the said Sale Deed

was contrary to the terms and conditions of the Trust Deed. Lastly, it was

contended that the landlady was in possession of sufficient alternative

accommodations being property bearing nos.2378 and 2735

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top