### Inherited Tenancy Rights Prevail Over Subsequent Ownership Transfers Absent Lawful Surrender of Possession

The Plaintiffs/Respondents, heirs of late Mohd. Taqsheel (a tenant of a shop in Sindhora Kalan owned by Defendant No. 3), alleged that after Taqsheel’s death in 2004, they inducted Defendants No. 1 and 2 (cousins) as licensees to run the family meat business, "Taqsheel & Sons," at a fee of Rs. 800 per day.

Defendant No. 3 (landlord) purportedly sold the property to Defendant No. 4 (Om Pal Giri) in 2005, who then claimed to have inducted the Defendants as his own tenants.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the Plaintiffs on 18.09.2025.

The Appellants/Defendants challenged this, claiming the Plaintiffs surrendered tenancy and that they (the Appellants) were lawful tenants under the new owner, Om Pal Giri.

1. Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of possession based on an inherited tenancy and a license agreement with the Defendants.

2. Whether there was a lawful surrender of tenancy by the Plaintiffs to the original or subsequent landlord.

3. Whether the suit was barred by Section 50(1) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The court applied Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding appeals from original decrees.

The court relied on the principle of protectorate tenancy, where tenancy rights devolve upon legal heirs unless lawfully surrendered or terminated through due process.

The court also applied Section 50 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which bars the jurisdiction of civil courts in matters where the rent is below Rs. 3,500 per month, noting that the license fee here (Rs. 800/day) exceeded this threshold.

Furthermore, it affirmed that a purchaser of a property (Defendant No. 4) steps into the shoes of the landlord but cannot unilaterally extinguish an existing protected tenancy without legal grounds.

The Court found that documentary evidence, including MCD licenses, telephone bills, and electricity records, established that late Mohd. Taqsheel was in exclusive possession and that the business continued in his name well after his death in 2004.

The Court rejected the Defendants' claim of vacant possession being handed to Om Pal Giri, noting that electricity and municipal records remained in the name of the deceased or the business "Taqsheel & Sons" during the alleged transfer period.

The Court reasoned that since the Defendants admitted the meat shop was previously run by Taqsheel, and they failed to prove a formal surrender of tenancy by the Plaintiffs, their subsequent "tenancy" agreements with the new owner (Defendant No. 4) were invalid encumbrances on the existing tenancy.

The Court concluded the Defendants were merely permissive occupants/licensees of the Plaintiffs who overstayed their welcome.

It held that the suit was not barred by the Delhi Rent Control Act as the agreed license fee took it outside the statutory limit.

The Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree for possession in favor of the Plaintiffs, finding no merit in the Appellants' claims of independent title or lawful induction by the new landlord.