A financially independent heir of a statutory tenant loses Rent Act protection after one year.

Gulnar Begum claimed ownership of Property No. 10496–98, Chowk Hari Chand, Manakpura, Karol Bagh, Delhi, under a registered sale deed dated 25 March 1992.

Late Chander Bhan, predecessor of the appellants, had been inducted as a tenant in one room and one veranda on the ground floor at a monthly rent of Rs.10/-. He allegedly made unauthorised construction of a room, veranda and staircase on the first floor.

The respondent had earlier terminated Chander Bhan’s tenancy by legal notice dated 22 July 1994.

The eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act was dismissed on the ground that bona fide requirement had not been established.

Chander Bhan died on 21 June 2006, according to the judgment. The appellants—his wife Sarita and children Kuldeep and Kiran—continued in possession.

The respondent instituted a civil suit in 2016 for possession, mesne profits/damages of Rs.1,36,800 at Rs.3,800 per month, continuing damages, and permanent injunction.

The Civil Judge decreed the suit, holding that the notice had terminated the contractual tenancy, that Chander Bhan died as a statutory tenant, and that the appellants did not establish Sarita’s financial dependence upon him. The Additional District Judge affirmed the decree on 7 December 2023.

1. Whether the jurisdiction of the civil court was barred under Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

2. Whether the appellants were protected by Explanation II to Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and, consequently, liable to eviction only under the Rent Act?

3. Whether the respondent’s suit for possession was barred by limitation?

The Court applied Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, under which a “tenant” includes a person continuing in possession after termination of tenancy, read with Explanations I and II: upon the death of a statutory tenant, the surviving spouse succeeds first, but a successor who was not financially dependent upon the deceased obtains protection only for one year, after which the right to continue in possession is extinguished.

Section 50 of the Act bars the jurisdiction of civil courts only where the occupant continues to enjoy statutory protection under the Rent Act.

Under Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the legal burden remains on the party asserting the relevant fact, while the evidentiary onus may shift; Section 106 places upon a person the burden of proving facts especially within that person’s knowledge.

The Court relied on Addagada Raghavamma v. Addagada Chenchamma , AIR 1964 SC 136, Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh , (2006) 5 SCC 558, R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami , (2003) 8 SCC 752, Smriti Debbarma v. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma , (2023) 19 SCC 782, and Krishna Prakash v. Shanta Sinha Chenoy , 1980 2 ILR Del 854, on burden and onus of proof and financial dependence.

Section 108(d) of the Transfer of Property Act was applied to hold that an accession made to leased property during the continuance of the lease forms part of the lease and cannot ordinarily be claimed separately by the tenant.

The Court further relied on Mukesh Kumar (deceased) through LRs v. Saini Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. , 156 (2009) DLT 550, for the rule that limitation begins when the statutory successor’s protection expires, not merely upon issuance of a notice.

The Court treated the service of the legal notice dated 22 July 1994 as a concurrent finding of fact supported by the registered acknowledgment card. Consequently, Chander Bhan’s contractual tenancy stood terminated, and he continued only as a statutory tenant under Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.

Upon his death, only his surviving wife Sarita succeeded initially under Explanation I. Since the evidence showed that Chander Bhan had left his employment in 2005, had no proved income at the time of his death in June 2006, and that Sarita herself had pleaded dependence upon her son, the Court held that she failed to prove financial dependence upon her deceased husband.

The respondent’s evidence created a sufficient prima facie probability of non-dependence, shifting the evidentiary onus to Sarita under Sections 102 and 106 of the Evidence Act, which she failed to discharge.

Her statutory protection therefore expired one year after Chander Bhan’s death, making her occupation unauthorised and rendering the civil suit maintainable; Section 50 consequently did not bar the suit.

The adverse-possession claim concerning the first-floor construction also failed because the construction, having been made during the tenancy, constituted an accession to the leased premises under Section 108(d) of the Transfer of Property Act.

Finally, the cause of action for possession arose upon expiry of the one-year statutory protection after Chander Bhan’s death. The 2016 suit was filed within twelve years and was therefore not barred by limitation.

The concurrent judgments of the Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge were upheld.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decrees for possession, mesne profits/damages at Rs.3,800 per month—including Rs.1,36,800 for the preceding three years and continuing damages until delivery of possession—and permanent injunction were maintained.