Eviction Petitioner Has To Prove Better Title Than Tenant; Not Absolute Title: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court observed that an eviction petitioner is only required to establish a better title than the tenant, not absolute title over subject premises.
The Bench dismissed the petition filed by the tenants (petitioners) challenging their eviction from a shop. The challenge was against an eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
A Single Bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia observed, “It is settled legal position that in the proceedings of the present nature, the eviction petitioner is not required to establish absolute title over the subject premises. What is required to be established by the eviction petitioner is a title better than that of the tenant. In the present case, the petitioners are admittedly tenants in the subject premises while the respondent acquired the ownership over the subject premises through a Sale Deed registered in favour of her mother, followed by the memorandum of family settlement.”
Advocate Abhik Kumar represented the petitioners.
The person who claimed ownership (respondent) of the subject shop had filed for eviction of the tenants in order to start a boutique in the said shop. The ownership was claimed based on a family settlement and a registered sale deed through which her mother had purchased the premises.
The tenants contested the eviction arguing that the respondent was neither the owner nor the landlord of the shop and that the family settlement was fake. They also claimed that the respondent had other vacant properties that could be used as a boutique.
The High Court noted that the tenants had not challenged the evidence or the eviction pleadings, despite being given opportunities to file a written statement and cross-examine the respondent. The Court stated that the ownership claim of the respondent was substantiated by the registered sale deed and the family settlement, which, although unregistered, was accepted as evidence of a collateral transaction under the Registration Act.
“In view of proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, even the unregistered memorandum of family settlement can be received in evidence, the present case being a case of collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court upheld the eviction order.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Satpal Sharma & Anr. v. Sadhna Arora (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4296)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Abhik Kumar, Rinku Mathur, Deepak Kumar and Vaishali Sharma
