Disputed Ownership Among Co-owners Regarding Devolution of Title Constitutes a Triable Issue for Leave to Defend

Respondent No. 1 (Manoj Kumar Mittal) filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) against the petitioners/tenants for a shop at 17-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi, claiming a bona fide requirement for his daughter’s business.

He claimed co-ownership through a 1989 partition deed involving his late father, Sunder Lal Mittal.

The petitioners sought leave to defend, challenging the respondent's ownership. They presented a 2016 relinquishment deed and a pending civil suit (CS OS 25/2019) initiated by another brother of the respondent, where a nephew (Mukul Mittal) claimed exclusive ownership of the entire property based on an alleged 1998 Will of Sunder Lal Mittal.

The Ld. ARC dismissed the leave to defend, holding that the nephew only owned a portion (Southern side) and the respondent remained a co-owner entitled to seek eviction.

1. Whether the respondent (landlord) established his status as an owner/co-owner of the demised premises to maintain an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA.

2. Whether the conflicting claims of ownership between the respondent and his nephew (Mukul Mittal) constituted a "triable issue" necessitating the grant of leave to defend.

The court applied Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, regarding eviction for bona fide requirement.

It invoked Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which estops a tenant from denying the landlord's title at the beginning of the tenancy.

It relied on Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, establishing that if a tenant shows a prima facie case with triable issues, leave to defend must be granted.

It further referred to Rajender Kumar Sharma v. Leela Wati, noting that a landlord need only show a better title than the tenant.

It referred to Precision Steel Engineering Works v. Prem Deva, holding that if the tenant's affidavit discloses facts that could disentitle the landlord, the Controller must grant leave.

The High Court found that the Ld. ARC erred in its factual assessment of the property’s title dispute. While the ARC assumed the nephew’s claim was limited to the "Southern side" based on a relinquishment deed, the Court observed that the nephew was actually asserting exclusive ownership of the entire property via a 1998 Will.

The Court noted that a partition suit and an FIR regarding the alleged forgery of said Will were pending, and the respondent’s brother was also challenging the respondent's rights.

Since the demised shop sits adjacent to the portion admittedly possessed by the rival claimant (Mukul Mittal), and the very status of the respondent as a co-owner was under cloud due to the competing claims of absolute ownership by the nephew, the Court reasoned that the ownership requirement was not a mere technicality but a "triable issue".

The Court allowed the revision petitions and set aside the common eviction order dated 29.05.2018. The cases were remanded to the Ld. ARC for trial in accordance with the law.