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
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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.