Smt Asha Garg vs Nasir Khan & Anr.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010605262025
+ RC.REV. 252/2025
SMT ASHA GARG .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate
through Video Conferencing.
versus

NASIR KHAN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. S.A. Khan and Mr. Kashif
Ahmad Khan, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of the
1
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , challenging the Judgment and
2
Order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional Rent
3
Controller, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi , in
4
Eviction Petition bearing No. RC ARC No. 143/2018 , titled “Sh.
Asha Garg v. Nasir Khan” .
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner limits his
challenge to the Impugned Order on the sole ground that, in another
eviction petition, being RC ARC 142/2018, relating to the same
property, leave to defend was refused and eviction was directed

1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Order
3
learned ARC
4
Eviction Petition
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:32:45
RC.REV. 252/2025 Page 1 of 6

against the Respondent. However, he candidly submits that, in the said
proceedings, there was a rent agreement executed between the parties.
3. He further submits that, in the present case, the title of the
Petitioner is not in dispute and that the only distinguishing feature
between the said proceedings and the present case is the absence of
any rent agreement executed between the parties.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and has also perused the material on record, including the
Impugned Order and is of the considered opinion that, for adjudication
of an eviction petition under the DRC Act, one of the fundamental
issues requiring consideration is the existence of a relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties.
5. In the present case, the learned ARC has specifically returned a
finding that not a single document, whether in the form of a rent
agreement or even a rent receipt, has been placed on record to
establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It
is on this basis, inter alia , that leave to defend has been granted to the
Respondent. The relevant findings of the learned ARC read as
follows:
“*
15. The nub of the issues as raised by the respondent in the entire
leave to defend application is that he is not the tenant of the
petitioner and that he has an absolute right over the tenanted
premises by virtue of title documents dated 10.09.1985 purportedly
executed by the erstwhile owner Sh. Chiranji Lal.
16. Per contra, it is the case of the petitioner that she has become
the owner of the tenanted premises on the basis of General Power
of Attorney, Agreement-cum-gift both dated 24.06.1986 and Will
dated 05.05.1982 executed by the erstwhile owner Sh. Chiranji Lal.
It is clear on perusal of both the set of title documents of both the
parties that the original owner is admitted to be Sh. Chiranji Lal,
S/o Sh. Murli Dhar. However, the issue is with respect to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:32:45
RC.REV. 252/2025 Page 2 of 6

rightful successor-in-interest of Sh. Chiranji Lal.
17. It is a settled proposition of law that in a proceedings before a
Rent Controller, the requirement to prove the title of the parties is
not necessary as only the proof of jural relationship of landlord and
tenant between the parties is an indispensable requirement of law
coupled with better title in favour of the landlord. To establish such
requirement of law squarely falls on the shoulders of the petitioner/
landlord. In the instant case as observed above, the relationship of
landlord and tenant is vehemently opposed by the respondent on
the grounds that the respondent is the absolute owner of the
tenanted premises. At this stage, it is opportune to note that to
discharge her burden on the jural relationship of the parties,
petitioner has not filed even a single piece of document like a rent
agreement or even a rent receipt so as to establish the relationship
of landlord and tenant between the parties. The relationship of
landlord and tenant if any between the parties further comes into
the realm of doubt as respondent has categorically denied the said
relation. It is not even a case that the respondent admits that he
entered the property as a tenant and later on acquired ownership
rights over it. However, respondent clearly contends that from the
very inception he has acquired rights over the property as an
owner. In such a situation, it was extremely crucial for the
petitioner to set forth clear and unambiguous material to show that
the parties have a relationship of landlord and tenant as
mandatorily required under the provision of Delhi Rent Control
Act. However, petitioner has simply stated neither a rent agreement
was executed nor any any rent receipts were issued to the
respondent. In addition, on the point of payment of rent, petitioner
has not even stated that the manner of payment of rent i.e. in cash,
money order, cheque or through bank transfer. In such a situation,
it cannot be assumed even for a minute that petitioner has been
successful in establishing a relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties.
18. Secondly, coming to the aspect of the title of the parties. The
entire pleadings of the parties primarily hinges around the opposing
ownership title over the tenanted premises. On the one hand,
petitioner claims to be the owner of the property by virtue of
General Power of Attorney, Agreement-cum-Gift and Will Deed
executed in her favour by the original owner Sh. Chiranji Lal. On
the other hand, respondent claims that he entered the property by
virtue of agreement for earnest money executed by Sh. Chiranji Lal
in his favour on account of payment of part consideration
ofRs.90,000/-. On perusal, it is found that both the set of
documents are unregistered and therefore are incapable of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:32:45
RC.REV. 252/2025 Page 3 of 6

conveying any title except for the Will Deed in the favour of the
petitioner.
19.In addition, the objection of the petitioner that at the time, the
agreement for earnest money dated 10.09.1985 was executed the
respondent would have been a minor and therefore incapable of
entering into a contract is also considered. For the purpose of above
arguments, petitioner has relied on the Aadhar Card of the
respondent, as per which the date of birth of the respondent is of
the year 1968 and therefore at the time of execution of the
agreement for earnest money, the respondent could not have been
18 years or above. For the said purpose, the documents filed by the
respondent were thoroughly examined. It is seen that inter alia
respondent has filed his Aadhar Card, Election Identity Card and
Driving Licence. On Aadhar Card only year of birth has been
mentioned which is 1968 whereas on the Election Identity Card his
age as on 01.01.2002 is recorded to be 40 years whereas on his
Driving Licence his date of birth is recorded to be 01.01.1963,
therefore, it is clear that in all the three documents, the year of birth
of the respondent are different i.e. 1968, 1962 and 1963. Therefore,
in such a situation at least at this stage the age of the respondent at
the time of execution of agreement of earnest money cannot be
ascertained and therefore the petitioner's arguments on the aspect
of age of the respondent is found to be meritless. Having observed
as above, as has been held, time and again by superior Courts that
proceedings under DRC Act cannot be akin to a title dispute and a
Rent Controller is primarily required to adjudicate the dispute
between landlord and tenant within the ambit of DRC Act. The
jural relationship of parties as landlord and tenant in proceedings
pertaining to Delhi Rent Control Act is a sin qua non which cannot
be substituted by merely pleading that the petitioner is the owner of
the property, in the light of the fact that the creation and existence
of tenancy itself has become a matter of dispute.
Further, I also find it opprtune to note that the present petition has
been instituted against one "Nasir Khan, S/o Not Known" whereas
one who has entered appearance as respondent and is running his
business from the tenanted premises has contended that his name is
not Nasir Khan but Nafees Ahmed, S/o Zamir Ahmed the name
Nafees Ahmed, S/o Zamir Ahmed consistently appears on the
agreement for earnest money, Aadhar Card, Election Identity Card
and Driving Licence of the respondent. It is the case of the
petitioner that respondent has been inducted as a tenant in the
tenanted premises in the year 1995 and therefore, he is occupying
the property for at least 30 years now. Even then, it is surprising to
note that petitioner does not even know the correct name or
parentage of a tenant from whom, as per her version, she has been
collecting regular rent. On the said aspect, in the reply to leave to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:32:45
RC.REV. 252/2025 Page 4 of 6

defend, petitioner has simply stated that respondent is popularly
known as Nasir Khan. Such explanation is not found to be
appealing as before a court, the real and actual particulars of the
parties are required to be disclosed and the parties cannot merely
rely on the "popular name" of the opposing side to attain relief in
their favour.
20.Having observed as above, in the present case, since the jural
relation itself has become a matter of dispute it cannot be
determined in what capacity the respondent is holding the tenanted
premises, this itself is sufficient to conclude that the respondent has
raised a triable issue as to the determination of factum of tenancy if
any between the parties.
……..”
(emphasis supplied)

6. A perusal of the aforesaid findings would reveal that the learned
ARC has granted leave to defend primarily on the ground that the very
existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties
has been disputed by the Respondent and that the Petitioner has not
placed on record any material, including a rent agreement or rent
receipt, to establish such relationship.
7. The learned ARC has further noticed that the competing claims
of the parties with respect to the title of the premises cannot, at this
stage, substitute the requirement of establishing the jural relationship
of landlord and tenant.

8. It is noted that since the challenge in the present Petition is
confined to the fact that, in another eviction petition concerning the
same property, leave to defend was refused and eviction was directed,
the admitted position that a rent agreement existed in the said
proceedings, whereas no rent agreement or rent receipt has been
placed on record in the present case, assumes significance. This
factual distinction goes to the root of the matter, particularly when the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:32:45
RC.REV. 252/2025 Page 5 of 6

very existence of the tenancy is specifically disputed in the present
proceedings.
9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no infirmity in the
approach adopted by the learned ARC in holding that the Respondent
has raised a triable issue with respect to the existence of the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
10. This Court, while exercising its limited revisional jurisdiction
under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act, does not find any ground
warranting interference with the Impugned Order.
11. Accordingly, the present Petition, being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026/nd/jk

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:32:45
RC.REV. 252/2025 Page 6 of 6