Chandni Chowk Shop Tenant Must Vacate After Delhi HC Upholds Eviction, Citing Rent Receipts And Unsuitable Alternative Shops

The Petitioners challenged the Rent Controller’s order allowing the Respondent’s eviction petition in respect of a ground-floor shop at 2106, Chah Indara, Dr. H.C. Sen Road, Chandni Chowk, and the subsequent rejection of their review petition.

They argued that the Respondent’s ownership was doubtful because he had allegedly claimed to be a tenant in other proceedings, and that alternative suitable accommodation had not been properly considered.

The Rent Controller had relied on rent receipts and the parties’ landlord–tenant relationship, and had found the other premises identified by the Petitioners unsuitable in light of their size, location, and intended use.

The Petitioners also sought impleadment of persons claiming co-ownership; their application was disposed of after the Court noted that the concern about dealings with the property was addressed in a pending appeal.

Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act confers limited revisional and supervisory jurisdiction; it does not permit the High Court to reappreciate the evidence as an appellate court, and interference is warranted for an error apparent, material illegality or irregularity, perversity, or failure to adjudicate a material issue [Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78; Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30].

For an eviction petition, a landlord need not prove absolute ownership; the relevant inquiry is whether the landlord–tenant relationship is established and the landlord has a title superior to the tenant’s.

Under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a tenant who has acknowledged the landlordship of the person receiving rent is estopped from denying that person’s title, subject to the applicable rule of estoppel.

The Court found that the ownership objection had been considered in both the eviction order and the review order. The Rent Controller relied on rent receipts naming the Respondent as owner and the Petitioners as tenants, as well as the admitted payment of rent to the Respondent. The Petitioners’ reliance on the Respondent’s alleged positions in other proceedings did not establish an error warranting revision.

The alternative-accommodation objection had also been examined, including the dimensions and locations of the other shops and the allegation of another shop at Bapu Market. The Court held that the Petitioners had not shown that any material circumstance was overlooked or that the findings on suitability were perverse or illegal; their submissions instead sought a fresh comparison of the premises, beyond the Court’s revisional role.

As to impleadment, the Court considered that the Applicants’ concern was addressed by a restraint order in the related RFA and that impleadment would serve no further purpose.

The impleadment application was disposed of, with the Applicants left at liberty to pursue lawful remedies concerning their claimed shares in rental receipts if they establish co-ownership.

Any rent deposited in Court in the revision was directed to be released to the Respondent by the learned Registrar within four weeks.