Satish Kumar vs Veena Tyagi

$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010065592023
+ RC.REV. 60/2023, CM APPL. 9633/2023 (U/O XLI Rule 5),
CM APPL. 16315/2023 (Additional grounds), CM APPL.
18590/2023 (To plead additional facts), CM APPL. 16207/2025
(Dir.), CM APPL. 16208/2025 (Ex. From filing certified copy
of the annexure), CM APPL. 57680/2025 (Dir.) and CM APPL.
57681/2025 (Ex. From filing certified copy of the annexure)

SATISH KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satyam Thareja, Ms. Ashu
Jain and Mr. Vishwas Chawla,
Advocates.

versus

VEENA TYAGI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Kashif Ahmad Khan,
Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [“ Act ”], seeking to set aside the Order
dated 27.09.2022 [“ Impugned Order ”] passed by the learned Senior
Civil Judge cum RC, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [“ learned
ARC ”], in RC ARC 105/2019.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner confines his submissions to the finding of the learned RC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
16:04:01
RC.REV. 60/2023 Page 1 of 4

regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties. He submits that the learned RC has erroneously recorded that
the Petitioner had admitted the ownership of the subject premises in
favour of the Respondent. In this regard, he submits that, while the
subject property initially belonged to Shri S.L. Kapoor, the
Respondent herein claims to have acquired ownership thereof through
a chain of transactions, whereby the property was first purchased by
Shri Dinesh Singh from Shri Girwar Singh, who had, in turn,
purchased the same from Shri S.L. Kapoor.
3. He further submits that the learned RC has erroneously
recorded that no dispute had been raised with respect to the registered
Sale Deed. In this regard, he seeks to rely upon the averments
contained in paragraphs 5(H) and 5(L) of the Application seeking
leave to defend, which read as follows:
“(H) That the respondent is not aware about the where about of its
original landlord Shri S.L Kapur for last about 16 year and the
associated of petitioner shri Dinesh singh filed the petition bearing
no-E-90/2014 new number 185/16 before the Hon'ble Court -ACJ/
CCJ/ ARC (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi u/s 14 (1) (a)
DRC Act thereby demanded rent of tenanted premise as well
declaring himself as owner/ landlord and in possession of entire
property in question which it is itself create doubt about the present
petition and petitioner who is claiming to be the owner/entailment
of the said property with allegedly proper title documents since 05-
05-2010 hence proper trail required in the present and well case of
perjury and cheating is necessary required to be registered against
the petitioner and his associates namely Sh Girwar Singh and Sh
Dinesh Singh. The copy complete file of petition No E-90/14 new
number E-185/2016 enclosed herewith.
(L) That there is neither landlord tenant relationship with the
petitioner at any point of time nor with his erstwhile alleged
owners as claimed in the present petition with unregistered fake
documents and there after fabricated one registered Sale-deeds on
the record hence there is serious triable issue involve in the present
case, moreover the relation of the landlord tenant is only with the
Shri S L Kapoor accepted the rent till September 2003 and
thereafter respondent made several attempt to search the landlord
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
16:04:01
RC.REV. 60/2023 Page 2 of 4

but all in vain as well filed the application u/s 27 DRC Act and
served though publication but landlord of respondent Sh S L
Kapoor left the entire property abandoned hence property became
Res-nullius and petitioner and his associated wants to grab the
same by getting order from this Hon‟ble Court.”

4. Also, it would be apposite to reproduce the relevant finding
recorded by the learned RC in the Impugned Order, which reads as
follows:
6. However, in leave to defend affidavit, the respondent has not
raised any issue which may require evidence. Respondent has
admitted that the property in question initially belonged to Sh. S.L.
Kapur and the petitioner has become the owner of the property
after having purchased the same from previous owner from Sh.
Dinesh Singh who purchased it from Sh. Girver Singh who in his
turn had purchased the property from Sh. S.L. Kapur. Petitioner has
placed on record the registered Sale Deed and no dispute has been
raised with regard to this document by the respondent. Otherwise,
also there is a presumption that a registered document is a valid
document. Respondent himself has admitted that the original owner
Sh. S.L. Kapur has not received the rent for a long time and his
whereabouts are not known. Had Sh. S.L. Kapur not sold the
property to Sh. Girver Singh, his successors or LRs would have
claimed the same which is also not the case here. The petitioner
being the owner of the tenanted premises is also the landlord. The
term „owner‟ has not been used in the sense of absolute ownership
as far as the DRC Act is concerned. The person claiming the
ownership should have only better title than the tenant.

5. This Court queried learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent as to whether, in view of the specific averments made in
the Application seeking leave to defend, the finding of the learned RC
that the Petitioner had admitted the ownership of the subject premises
in favour of the Respondent accurately reflected the record.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent fairly
submits that the aforesaid finding does not appear to be borne out
from the record.
7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
16:04:01
RC.REV. 60/2023 Page 3 of 4

that the Impugned Order cannot be sustained, insofar as it proceeds on
the premise that the Petitioner had not disputed the registered Sale
Deed and had admitted the Respondent‟s claim of ownership. The
averments extracted hereinabove prima facie indicate that the
Petitioner had questioned the chain of transactions through which the
Respondent claims ownership of the subject premises.
8. Accordingly, the Impugned Order is set aside, and the matter is
remanded to the learned RC for fresh consideration of the issues raised
by the parties, on the basis of the material already available on record
before the learned RC.
9. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the rival claims of the parties, which shall be considered
independently by the learned RC in accordance with law.
10. The parties shall appear before the learned RC on 19.11.2026.
11. The present Petition along with pending applications stands
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J
NOVEMBER 3, 2026 /pd/jk



Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.11.2026
16:04:01
RC.REV. 60/2023 Page 4 of 4