Delhi High Court
Nazima Alvi & Ors vs Shri Mahendar Pal Sachdeva & Ors on 16 July, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 13th May, 2026
Pronounced on: 16th July, 2026
+ RC.REV. 386/2025, CM APPL. 75811-12/2025, 24085/2026
NAZIMA ALVI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Ashray Chopra and Mr. Rakesh
Talukdar, Advocates.
versus
SHRI MAHENDAR PAL SACHDEVA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Lalit Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Chahar,
Mr. Pradeep Verma, Ms. Akrati
Goswami, Mr. Anmol Ghai and Ms.
Ishita Nautiyal, Advocates for R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 19581, seeks the following prayers: –
“(i) Call for the records of case being RC ARC No.5103 of 2016 titled
Nazima Alvi v. Mahender Pal Sachdeva (deceased through LR’s);
(ii) Set aside the order / judgment dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Ld.
ARC, South-East Saket in RC ARC No.5103 of 2016 titled Nazima Alvi
v. Mahender Pal Sachdeva (deceased through LR’s);
(iii) Pass such other and further orders as are just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case;
1
DRC Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 1 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
(iv) Pending disposal of the petition, stay the operation of the order /
judgment dated 03.07.2025 passed by the Ld. ARC, South-East Saket in
RC ARC No.5103 of 2016 titled Nazima Alvi v. Mahender Pal Sachdeva
(deceased through LR’s);
(v) Award costs to the Petitioners;
Pass any such further orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.”
2. The present petition has been preferred on behalf of the Petitioners,
assailing the judgment dated 03.07.2025 2 passed by the learned ACJ-cum-
CCJ-cum-ARC, South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi3, in RC ARC
No. 5103/20164, whereby the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of
the DRC Act on behalf of the Petitioners against the Respondents was
dismissed by the learned ARC. The eviction petition was filed qua property
bearing Khasra No. 556-B, Ground Floor consisting of one hall, Dargah
Nizamuddin West, Delhi-1100135.
3. It was the case of the Petitioners in the eviction petition that the subject
premises was purchased by late Dr. Alamgir Alvi, i.e., husband of Petitioner
No. 1, and father of Petitioners No. 2 and 3, from its erstwhile owner for a
lawful consideration, by virtue of a registered GPA bearing registration No.
4998, Book No. 4, Vol. No. 2045, pages 74-76, registered with the Sub-
Registrar, Delhi on 12.10.1993, along with an Agreement to Sell, a Receipt
and a Will, all dated 11.10.1993. It was further stated that the subject
premises was let out by late Dr. Alamgir Alvi to late Shri Mahendar Pal
2
Impugned judgment
3
Learned ARC
4
Eviction petition/Eviction proceedings
5
Subject premises
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 2 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
Sachdeva, for commercial purposes at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/-. It was
further stated that the said tenancy was oral and the rent amount was paid by
late Shri Mahendar Pal Sachdeva in cash. It was further stated that late Dr.
Alamgir Alvi expired on 24.07.2013, leaving behind the Petitioners as his
legal heirs, and therefore, the Petitioners have become owners of the subject
premises, by virtue of inheritance. It was further stated that the subject
premises was bona fidely required by the Petitioners, for Petitioner No. 2, in
order to establish the latter’s business/office, as she was facing hardship due
to lack of space for her intended business. It was further stated that no other
alternate suitable accommodation was available with the Petitioners for the
said purpose.
4. Subsequent thereto, a leave to defend application was filed by
Respondent No. 1 and the said application was allowed by the learned ARC
vide order dated 30.06.2015, and thereafter, Respondent No. 1 had filed the
written statement. In the said written statement, it was stated that there existed
no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, as the Petitioners
are not the owners of the subject premises and the Respondents were the real
owners of the subject premises as the same was their ancestral property. It
was further stated by the Respondents that the eviction petition was filed on
the basis of forged and fabricated sale documents executed by late Shri G.R.
Sidduqui in favour of late Dr. Alamgir Alvi, and the said documents were
already rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 24.05.2014 passed
in a suit filed by late Dr. Alamgir Alvi against one Mohd. Shahid. It was
further stated that the said order dated 24.05.2014 was challenged in this
Court, and the same was also dismissed in default vide order dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 3 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
29.04.2014. It was further stated that the documents relied upon by the
Petitioners to demonstrate ownership, were forged and fabricated and the
same were being used mala fide.
5. Thereafter, evidence was led by both the parties and the impugned
judgment came to be passed by the learned ARC, thereby dismissing the
eviction petition.
6. It is pertinent to note that Respondent No. 1, i.e., late Shri Mahendar
Pal Sachdeva expired on 23.09.2015, and thereafter, his legal heirs, i.e., Smt.
Ratkanya Patansethanont, Shri Rattan Deep Singh and Smt. Motia Rani were
impleaded in the eviction petition. Subsequently, Smt. Motia Rani had
expired and her legal heirs, i.e., Smt. Jasbir Kaur and Smt. Harjeet Kaur were
impleaded.
SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS
7. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the
learned ARC had failed to consider the documents filed before the learned
ARC to demonstrate the latter’s ownership over the subject premises, as well
as landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, and the said documents
were duly exhibited as well. It was further submitted that in addition to the
said documents, the Petitioners had also exhibited the site plan of the subject
premises and the post graduate diploma certificate of Petitioner No. 2, in
order to establish the bona fide requirement. It was further submitted that the
learned ARC while rendering the impugned judgment had failed to adjudicate
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 4 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
upon the plea of bona fide requirement, as stated by the Petitioners in the
eviction petition, and had rather went on to determine the ownership of the
subject premises, which could not have been done in proceedings under the
DRC Act.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners had further submitted that late Dr.
Alamgir Alvi had purchased the subject premises in the year 1993 from late
Shri G.R. Siddiqui and had become the owner of the subject premises by
virtue of a registered GPA dated 12.10.1993, a Will dated 11.10.1993 and an
agreement to sell dated 11.10.1993. Learned counsel for the Petitioners had
submitted that late Shri G.R. Siddiqui had become owner of the subject
premises by way of adverse possession.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioners had submitted that the Respondents
have disputed the ownership of the Petitioners over the subject premises by
stating that the same was their ancestral property and had disputed the
documents exhibited by the Petitioners in the eviction proceedings. It was
further submitted by the learned counsel of the Petitioners that the
Respondents failed to exhibit even one document to prove their claim of
ownership over the subject premises, and the Respondents have only
furnished documents to prove its claim of possession over the subject
premises, and thus, the Petitioners have a better title than that of the
Respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the Petitioners had further contended that the
learned ARC, while rendering the impugned judgment, had failed to return
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 5 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
any finding on the issue of the bona fide requirement, as pleaded by the
Petitioners. It was submitted that although the eviction petition had been filed
under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act on the ground of bona fide
requirement, the learned ARC had instead considered the issue relating to
payment of rent, which was irrelevant for adjudication of the eviction petition.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further drew attention of this Court
to the following portion of the impugned judgment to contend that the
documents, as exhibited by the Petitioners in the eviction proceedings, were
sufficient to establish a better title over the subject premises than that of the
Respondents: –
“Petitioners’ Evidence
7. In support of their case, petitioner no.2 Ms. Urooj Alvi got herself
examined as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of affidavit
Ex.PW-1/A and reiterated and reaffirmed the averments stated in the
present petition on oath. Also, she relied upon certain documents which
are as following :-
(i) GPA dated 11.10.1993, executed by Late GR Siddiqui in favour of
Dr. Alamgir Alvi, Ex.PW1/1 (OSR)
(ii) Agreement to Sell dated 11.10.1993, Ex.PW-1/2 (OSR)
(iii) Will dated 28.01.1994, Ex.PW-1/3 (OSR)
(iv) Receipt dated 18.10.1989, Ex.PW-1/4 (OSR)
(v) Receipt dated 02.11.1990, Ex.PW-1/5 (OSR)
(vi) Receipt dated 15.07.1992, Ex.PW-1/6 (OSR)
(vii) Receipt dated 11.10.1993, Ex.PW-1/7 (OSR)
(viii) Receipt dated 23.10.1989, Ex.PW-1/8 (OSR)
(ix) Receipt dated 13.10.1989, Ex.PW-1/9 (OSR)
(x) Site plan, Ex.PW-1/10
(xi) Post Graduate Diploma in Business Management, Ex.PW-1/11
(OSR)
(xii) Certified copy of order sheets in EV No. 19/2015, Ex.PW-1/12
(Colly)
(xiii) Certified copy of order sheets in EV No. 18/2015, Ex.PW-1/13
(Colly)Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 6 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
(xiv) Copy of eviction petition in EV No. 19/2015, Mark A.
(xv) Copy of eviction petition in EV No. 18/2015, Mark B.
(xvi) Certified copy of judgement and decree dated 01.06.2019 in CS no.
148/2016, Ex.PW-1/14.
(xvii) Certified copy of judgement and decree dated 01.06.2019 in CS
no. 50366/2016, Ex.PW-1/15.”
12. Learned counsel for the Petitioners had further submitted that the latter
have earlier succeeded in two eviction petitions filed in respect of the first
floor and basement of the subject property, being Eviction Petitions No. 18
and 19 of 2015. It was further submitted that the eviction orders passed
therein were duly exhibited in the eviction proceedings, to demonstrate the
Petitioners’ status as landlords of the said portions of the property; however,
the learned ARC failed to consider the said fact while passing the impugned
judgment.
13. Learned counsel for the Petitioners had further submitted that the
present Respondents had subsequently instituted two civil suits, i.e., CS No.
52185 of 2016 and CS No. 50366 of 2016, seeking declaration that the
eviction orders passed in Eviction Petitions No. 18 and 19 of 2015, as noted
hereinbefore, were null and void, while also seeking to restrain the Petitioners
from relying upon the documents forming the basis of their claim of
ownership over the subject property. It was submitted that the Respondents
even in the said suits, had asserted that the subject property was their ancestral
property; however, the said plea was rejected by the learned Civil Court and
both the suits came to be dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 7 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
14. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that the aforesaid
grounds were taken by the latter before the learned ARC; however, no
findings were returned in the impugned judgment qua the said grounds.
15. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further drew attention of this Court
to the following portion of the impugned judgment: –
“17. In view of the above-stated authorities, the petitioner is not
required to establish his ownership over the demised premises in
absolute terms however, at the same time, it shall be established by him
that his title is better than that of the respondent and that he has some
right, title or interest over the premises in question.
17.1 The version of the petitioners is that the suit property had been
purchased by their predecessor-in-interest Alamgir Alvi from one G.R.
Siddiqui vide a registered GPA ON 12.10.1993. Further, an Agreement
to Sell, Receipt and Will- all dated 11.10.1993, had also been executed
in favour of Alamgir Alvi. It is further their case that after demise of
Alamgir Alvi, the suit property has devolved upon the petitioners,
being his wife and children, by virtue of inheritance. PW-1 deposed in
her cross examination dated 26.09.2023 that “My father bought this
whole suit property from GR Siddiqui and we are the owner of the
whole khasra and we are living in the same khasra.” On the other hand,
the case of the respondent has been that he is rather the owner of the
suit property, which is his ancestral property and that he has been in
possession of the same much prior to the time when the same had
allegedly been purchased by Alamgir Alvi.
18. The right of G.R. Siddqui and consequent right and title of Alamgir
Alvi over the suit property had been discussed in detail and a finding
had been given by the Learned predecessor of this court vide order
dated 24.05.2013 in case titled “Dr. Alam Gir Alvi Vs. Mohd. Shahid,
bearing CS No. 245/13 (Ex.-DW-1/6). The factual position with
respect to the property in question as discussed in the said order is that
one G.R. Siddiqui had instituted a suit for permanent injunction in the
year 1970, against Delhi Development Authority (DDA) so as to
restrain DDA from forcibly dispossessing him and his family from a
“house” known as “S.B. House” in Nizamuddin area, New Delhi. It wasSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 8 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
held in the said case vide judgment dated 11.08.1978 that G.R.
Siddiqui had been in possession of the property in question for the last
two decades, that the suit premises belonged to Union of India and it
was directed that G.R. Siddiqui shall not be dispossessed from the suit
premises without complying with the requirements of law.
18.1 On basis of the aforesaid judgement and decree, G.R. Siddiqui
made transfer of property comprised in Khasra no. 556, Shama Burj,
Nizamuddin, measuring 5 bigha and 18 biswa (of which the suit
property is a part and the total area of the same had been admitted, as
stated above, by PW-1 in her cross examination dated 26.09.2023) to
Dr. Alam Gir Alvi (who is the predecessor- in-interest of the
petitioners) by way of a registered GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will dated
28.01.1994 and six receipts and for a total consideration of Rs.
4,95,000/-. The very same afore- mentioned documents have been
relied upon by the petitioners in the present matter to prove ownership
of Dr. Alam Gir Alvi over the suit property and the same are Ex. PW-
1/1 to Ex.PW-1/9.
18.2 The aforementioned order dated 24.05.2013 further states that said
Mr. Siddiqui transferred the aforesaid land (i.e., the suit property) on
basis of his claim that he was owner by way of adverse possession,
which has been mentioned in the GPA (Ex.PW-1/1) also. Further, on
basis of the aforementioned documents executed by G.R. Siddiqui, Dr.
Alam Gir Alvi claimed himself to be the owner in the suit. It was
further observed that the judgment dated 11.08.1978 never confirmed
the status of G.R. Siddiqui as owner of aforementioned 5 bigha and 18
biswa by virtue of “adverse possession” nor did it give a finding that he
was in possession of the entire said land. The said judgment was only
in respect of a “house” known as “S.B. House” and the same was never
in respect of entire land of 5 bigha and 18 biswa. Further, vide the said
judgment, it had merely been directed that G.R. Siddiqui be not
dispossessed from the “house” without due process of law and it did
not dwell into the aspect of adverse possession.
18.3 Order dated 24.05.2013 further reads that “Mr. G.R. Siddiqui
has suo moto, proclaimed himself to be the owner by adverse
possession of the government land. Such a course of action is
absolutely unheard of. Furthermore, it is my view that he was never
able to perfect his title to the land covering an area of nearly 6 bigha
by way of adverse possession.” It has been further stated that “I findSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 9 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
that Mr. G.R. Siddiqui was at best only a trespasser in the property.
He was not owner thereof. His claim of adverse possession does not
at all pass the muster. Under the law a person cannot transfer a
better title than he himself has.”
18.4 In this manner, vide order dated 24.05.2013, it was held that the
plaintiff does not have ownership over the land/property comprising
Khasra no. 556, Shama Burj, Nizamuddin, measuring 5 bigha and 18
biswa (of which the suit property is a part) and the said order attained
finality as the proceedings with respect to challenging the same before
the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, had been dismissed in view of
dismissal in default of the suit in question. This state of affairs has not
been disputed on behalf of the petitioners.”
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that perusal of the
aforesaid observations would demonstrate that the judgment dated 11.08.1978
itself recorded that late Shri G.R. Siddiqui had remained in possession of the
subject premises for nearly two decades. It was further contended that, in
view of the aforesaid findings, the plea raised by the Respondents that they
were in possession of the subject premises since 1975 and that the same was
their ancestral property, was wholly unfounded and the same was wrongly
accepted by the learned ARC.
16. Learned counsel for the Petitioners drew attention of this Court to the
following portion of the impugned judgment: –
“21. With respect to relation of landlord and tenant between the
parties, the case of the petitioners has been that the tenancy was oral
and that the respondent used to pay rent in cash to Alam Gir Alvi.
Further, the respondent had been inducted as tenant at suit property by
Alam Gir Alvi during his lifetime.
21.1 It is significant to appreciate that the burden to prove the said
relationship has been upon the petitioners. Sans doubt, there is no
material on record whatsoever, that could establish or even hint at theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 10 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
fact that there ever had been any such relationship between the parties
or their predecessors-in-interest. To begin with, the tenancy was oral
and no date for even namesake has been stated as to when the
respondent had been so inducted in the suit property. Further, there are
no rent receipts and as averred, the rent used to be paid in cash. The
predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners expired on 24.07.2013 and
the entire petition is silent on the point as to till what date, year or
period the rent was being paid by the respondent to Alam Gir Alvi and
as to if any rent amount was ever paid to them after demise of Alam
Gir Alvi.
21.2 The case of the petitioners is not even clear on the point as to by
whom the respondent had been inducted as tenant at the suit property
in view of a prominent contradiction that has come on record. The
original version of the petitioners as stated in the present petition had
been that the respondent had been inducted as tenant at suit property
by Alam Gir Alvi during his lifetime whereas PW-1 deposed in her
cross examination dated 03.10.2023, in reply to Question no. 26 that
“The suit property was given on rent by Lt. Sh. GR Siddiqui to Sh.
Gurucharan Sachdeva (Father of the defendant) and when my father
purchased this property from Lt. Sh. Gr Siddiqui the tenancy came to
us in 1989.” Thus, the petitioners are not even clear and consistent
with respect to the point as to if the suit property had been given on
rent to respondent or his father and as to if the respondent/his father
had been inducted as tenant by Alam Gir Alvi or G R Siddiqui?
Furthermore, how could the tenancy said to have passed onto the
purchaser Alam Gir Alvi in the year 1989 when the petitioners’ own
case is that the suit property had been purchased by Alam Gir Alvi in
the year 1993?
21.3 At this point, version of respondent must also be appreciated and
analyzed. As per the respondent, the suit property is his ancestral
property and that he is possession of the same since the year 1975. It
has been further contended that he had been running his automobile
showroom from the premises in question since 1982. To establish that
respondent had been in possession of the suit property during the
aforestated period, several documents like- Original income tax
assessment order for the year 1991 Ex.DW-1/15, Original tax receipt
with respect to tax paid by Sachdeva motors Ex.DW-1/16, copy of
electricity bill for the month of May 1991 Ex. DW-1/17, Original
telephone bill dated 17.08.1989 Ex.DW-1/18, Original order datedSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 11 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
28.05.1990 of factory licensing department and MCD receipt Ex.DW-
1/19 and likewise, Ex. DW-1/20 to Ex.DW-1/25, have been brought
on record on behalf of the respondent. In this manner, the respondent
by virtue of the aforesaid documents, established that he has been in
possession of the suit property much prior to the time when the same
had allegedly been purchased by the predecessor-in-interest of the
petitioners while, there is no explanation on record on behalf of the
petitioners as to how the respondent had so been in possession. In light
of this discussion, it could not be ignored that no date has been stated
in the present petition as to when the tenancy in question had started.”
Learned counsel for the Petitioners had further submitted that the
learned ARC had failed to appreciate that the eviction petition was filed on
the ground of bona fide requirement and not on the issue of payment/non-
payment of rent. It was further submitted that the tenancy in respect of the
subject premises had commenced during the ownership of late Shri G.R.
Siddiqui, and upon purchase of the subject premises by late Dr. Alamgir Alvi,
the latter became the landlord in respect thereof.
17. Attention of this Court was further drawn to the cross examination of
RW-1, Mr. Anwar Husain Malik, dated 08.08.2024, and particularly on the
following portion: –
“Even though the wife and son of Sh. M.P. Sachdeva are living in
Bangkok I have not secured any Power of Attorney from them as they
don’t come to India. It is correct to suggest that the wife and son of late
Sh. M.P. Sachdeva are Class-I heirs. (Vol:- they have stated that they do
not have anything to do with the suit property). The legal heirs of Sh.
M.P. Sachdeva i.e. wife and son did not tell me personally that they are
not interested in this property. I did not seek Power of Attorney from the
legal heirs of late Sh. M.P. Sachdeva as he executed a Will in favour of
his own mother namely Smt. Motia Rani. I have seen the said Will.”
Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the said witness had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 12 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
not obtained any power of attorney from the legal heirs of late Shri Mahendar
Pal Sachdeva, and had sought to justify his authority solely on the basis of an
alleged Will executed in favour of late Smt. Motia Rani. It was further
contended that the said witness was not competent to depose on behalf of the
legal heirs of late Shri Mahendar Pal Sachdeva, and consequently, his
testimony could not have been relied upon by the learned ARC.
18. Attention of this Court was further drawn to the cross examination of
RW-1, Mr. Anwar Husain Malik, dated 30.08.2024, to contend that the
documents relied upon by the Respondents in the eviction proceedings did not
establish their ownership over the subject premises. It was further contended
that the said witness had no personal knowledge with respect to the ownership
of the subject premises and his testimony was based on information allegedly
furnished to him by late Shri Mahendar Pal Sachdeva and late Shri Gurbachan
Sachdeva. The relevant portion of the said cross examination is reproduced as
under: –
“RW-1: Statement of Mr. Anwar Husain (re-called for further
cross-examination after 08.08.2024).
On S.A.
XXXX by Sh. Ashwin Vaish, Ld. counsel for petitioner.
I have the original Will which Mr. M.P. Sachdeva executed in
favour of his mother.
Court observation: the witness is not clearly able to state. Despite
helping the witness from mircophone his voice is not audible he has
been asked again and again to loudly state his answers.
I met Motiya Rani in the year 2008.
Question: Did Motiya Rani hand over any original documents to you?
Answer: At that time I did not have any concern (lena dena) with
Motiya Rani. The name of the father of M.P. Sachdeva is Gurbachan
Sachdeva. Question: Did MP Sachdeva or Gurbachan Sachdeva giveSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 13 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
any original documents to you?
Answer:- Yes.
Question: Did Gurbachan Sachdeva give any original documents to
you that shows that he was the owner of the suit property?
Answer:- He gave me Will, bills of electricity, water, House Tax,
Factory licence, passport, income tax reports and sale tax reports.
The above said documents were read over to me by my son.
Question: After reading the aforesaid documents did you findout
from whom Sh. Gurbachan Sachdeva purchased the suit property?
Answer:- It was their family property.
I was never told either by MP Sachdeva or Gurbachan
Sachdeya that they are not the owners of the suit property or that they
were the tenants of the Wakf. It is wrong to suggest that MP
Sachdeva was the tenant of the plaintiff who are the owners of the
property. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely on the
basis of facts not within my personal knowledge.”
19. In support of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the Petitioners had
relied upon the following judgments: –
i. Bhoolchand and Anr. v. Kay Pee Cee Investments and Anr6;
ii. Hari Shankar and Ors. v. Rao Girdhari Lal Chowdhary7;
iii. Shanti Sharma and Ors. v. Ved Prabha and Ors.8;
iv. Ram Chander v. Ram Pyari9;
v. Sheela and Ors. v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash10;
vi. Manisha Mahendra Gala and Ors. v. Shalini Bhagwan Avatramani and
others11;
vii. Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr. v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors.12;
viii. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. State of MP and Ors.136
(1991) 1 SCC 343
7
AIR 1963 SC 698
8
1987 (4) SCC 193
9
109 (2004) DLT 388
10
2002 (3) SCC 375
11
(2024) 6 SCC 130
12
2005 (2) SCC 217Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 14 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS
20. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents
submitted that the Petitioners have failed to establish their ownership over the
subject premises, as well as the existence of landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties. It was further submitted that the Petitioners were
claiming ownership over the subject premises solely on the basis of a GPA,
Agreement to Sell and a Will, allegedly executed by late Shri G.R. Siddiqui in
favour of late Dr. Alamgir Alvi.
21. Learned counsel for the Respondents further argued that late Shri G.R.
Siddiqui himself had no ownership rights over the subject premises, and the
latter merely claimed rights over the subject premises by virtue of adverse
possession. It was further submitted that the judgment dated 11.08.1978
passed in Suit No. 591 of 1976 merely protected the possession of late Shri
G.R. Siddiqui over the property titled as “SB House”, and the same did not
declare him to be the owner of the said property. It was further submitted that
the said judgment categorically stated that the Union of India is the owner of
the said “SB House”. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as
under: –
“18. Issues No.6
The ones of proving this issue was also on the defendant and it was
submitted on behalf of the Delhi Wakf Board that the land being a
tomb and grave-yard, comes under the ownership of the Delhi Wakf
Board. However, no evidence has been placed on the record which
could suggest that the land was owned by Union of India. The Plaintiff13
2003 (8) SCC 648Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 15 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
has not challenged the ownership of the land in dispute. The
Defendant has placed reliance on Ex.DW2/1 which is Fard Jambandi
and the Government has been shown as the owner of this land. As the
plaintiff has not disputed the ownership of the land, and the Union of
India has been mentioned as the owner in Fard Jamabandi. It is held
that the disputed land is owned by the Union of India. This issue is
thus decided accordingly.
19. Relief.
In view of my above finding, I hold that the plaintiff has been able to
prove his case and is entitled to the relief as claimed. A decree for
injunction restraining the defendant from dis- possessing the plaintiff
from the suit premises is passed. This order, shall not however, debar
the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit premises
after complying with the statutory requirement of the law. Under the
circumstances of the case, there is no order as to cost. Decree sheet be
prepared and file be consigned to record room.”
22. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
Respondents had further submitted that the maxim nemo dat quod non habet,
i.e., one cannot transfer a better title than what one possesses, is applicable to
the facts of the present case, inasmuch as late Shri G.R. Siddiqui had no
ownership rights over the subject premises, and hence, no title with respect to
the subject property can flow from late Shri G.R. Siddiqui to late Dr. Alamgir
Alvi.
23. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondents that
the aforesaid legal position was reaffirmed by the learned Trial Court in order
dated 24.05.2013 passed in CS No. 245 of 2013 titled as “Dr. Alam Gir Alvi
vs. Mohd. Shahid”. It was submitted that the said suit was filed by late Dr.
Alamgir Alvi qua the subject premises, and in the said suit late Dr. Alamgir
Alvi had been held as a trespasser. Relevant portion of the order dated
24.05.2013 is reproduced as under: –
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 16 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
“Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that Mr. G.R.
Siddique was at best only a trespasser in the property. He was not the
owner thereof. His claim to adverse possession does not at all pass the
muster. Under the law a person cannot transfer a better title than he
himself has. This principal follows the legal maxim “Nemo dat quod
non habet”. A trespasser cannot pass on any title to his successor-in-
interest. This would be despite the fact that the trespass had executed
some documents in favour of his successor-in-interest. On this aspect, I
find that the plaintiff’s case is prima facie devoid of merit.”
24. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents further
submitted that it is the case of the Petitioners that an oral tenancy was created
in favour of late Shri Mahendar Pal Sachdeva by late Dr. Alamgir Alvi, i.e.,
husband of Petitioner No.1, post purchase of the subject premises on
11.10.1993, at a monthly rent of INR 2,500/-, payable in cash; however, the
Petitioners failed to place on record any document like rent agreement/rent
receipts etc. to substantiate the said plea. It was further submitted that the
Petitioners have failed to mention the specific date of commencement of the
alleged tenancy, or for that matter, the date up to which the rent was allegedly
paid to them by the Respondents.
25. Learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that there was
contradiction in the stand of the Petitioners in the eviction petition and the
cross-examination dated 03.10.2023 of PW-1, i.e., Petitioner No. 2 in the
eviction proceedings. It was submitted that the Petitioners have alleged that
the subject premises was given on rent by the husband of Petitioner No. 1,
i.e., late Dr. Alamgir Alvi to late Shri Mahendar Pal Sachdeva; however,
during the cross examination of Petitioner No. 1 dated 03.10.2023, the latter
had stated that the subject premises was given on rent by late Shri G.R.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 17 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
Siddiqui to late Shri Gurucharan Sachdeva, i.e., father of late Shri Mahendar
Pal Sachdeva, and when late Dr. Alamgir Alvi purchased the subject premises
from late Shri G.R. Siddiqui, the tenancy devolved upon the Petitioners in
1989. The relevant portion of the eviction petition and the cross examination
dated 03.10.2023 is reproduced as under: –
“Eviction Petition
“(iii) That the suit property was initially purchased by the husband of
Petitioner No.1 and father of Petitioner No.2 & 3 vide Regd. G.P.A.
having registration No: 4998, Book No.4 · Vol. No:2045 pages 74-76
Regd. With the Sub Registrar, Delhi on 12.10.1993, Agreement to
Sell, Receipt, Will, all dated 11.10.1993 from its erstwhile owner for
lawful consideration, who parted with possession in favour of the
husband of Petitioner No.1.
(iv) That subsequently the suit property was let out to the Respondent
for commercial purposes by the husband of Petitioner No. 1 during his
life time and last paid rent was Rs. 2500/- per month.”
Cross Examination dated 03.10.2023
“QUES 26. Do you remember when was the property in
question/suit property allegedly given on rent to the defendant and
what was the rent?
The suit property was given on rent by Lt. Sh.GR Siddiqui to Sh.
Gurucharan Sachdeva (Father of the defendant) and when my father
purchased this property from Lt. Sh. Gr Siddiqui the tenancy came to
us in 1989. The rent of the above mentioned property was around Rs.
1000-2000/-”
It was further submitted that as per the Petitioners’ own version, the
subject premises was purchased by late Dr. Alamgir Alvi in the year 1993,
and it is highly inconceivable that the tenancy came to late Dr. Alamgir Alvi
in the year 1989, i.e., four years prior to purchase of the same, and hence, theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 18 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
very foundation of the alleged landlord-tenant relationship is not proved.
26. Learned counsel for the Respondents had submitted that the subject
premises is the ancestral property of late Shri Mahendar Pal Sachdeva and he
had been in settled and continuous possession thereof, since the year 1975,
i.e., much prior to the date from which the Petitioners are claiming their title.
In support of the said contention, learned counsel for the Respondents drew
attention of this Court to the following documents: –
i. Assessment order of late Shri Mahendar Pal Sachdeva, passed by the
Income Tax department for the assessment year 1990-1991, wherein
his address is reflected as “556, Nizamuddin West, New Delhi”, i.e.,
Exhibit DW-1/15;
ii. MTNL Telephone Bill of Sachdeva Motor, i.e., the business venture
run by the Respondents, for the period 16.05.1989 to 15.07.1989,
which again noted the address as “556, Nizamuddin Basti, Lodi Hostel
Fly Over, New Delhi-110013”, i.e., Exhibit DW-1/18;
iii. D.E.S.U. Bill for the month of November, 1993, i.e., Exhibit DW-
1/17.
27. Learned counsel for the Respondents further drew attention of this
Court to the following documents: –
i. Will dated 07.01.2019 pertaining to property No. K-556, area
measuring 1000 sq. yds. (basement and ground floor), Nizamuddin
Basti (West), New Delhi, executed by late Smt. Motia Rani, i.e., wife
of late Shri Gurucharan Singh Sachdeva, in favour of Smt. Jasbir Kaur
and Smt. Harjeet Kaur (contesting Respondents)¸ i.e., daughters of lateSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 19 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
Shri Gurcharan Singh Sachdeva;
ii. Registered GPA dated 01.07.2020 executed by Smt. Jasbir Kaur and
Smt. Harjeet Kaur¸ i.e., daughters of late Shri Gurcharan Singh
Sachdeva in favour of Mr. Anwar Hussain Malik with respect to
property No. K-556, area measuring 1000 sq. yds. (basement and
ground floor), Nizamuddin Basti (West), New Delhi.
In view of the said documents, it was submitted by the learned counsel
for the Respondents that the legal heirs of late Shri Gurucharan Singh
Sachdeva have continuously asserted ownership over the subject premises.
28. Learned counsel for the Respondents had further submitted that the
Petitioners, in collusion with the Respondents in Eviction Petitions 18 of 2015
and 19 of 2015, have obtained the eviction orders dated 13.05.2015. The said
eviction petitions were filed qua first floor and basement of property No. 556-
B, Nizamuddin West, Delhi. It was argued by the learned counsel for the
Respondents that the property No. 556-B, Nizamuddin West, Delhi, only
consisted of a basement and a ground floor, and there existed no first floor
and the Petitioners have fraudulently obtained the said eviction order with
respect to the first floor of property No. 556-B, Nizamuddin West, Delhi and
no execution petition was filed by the Petitioners with respect to the said
eviction orders. It was further submitted that the order dated 17.09.2025
passed by the learned Monitoring Committee constituted by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court substantiated the same and it stated that property No. 556-B,
Nizamuddin West, Delhi only consisted of a basement and a ground floor.
The said order is reproduced as under: –
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 20 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
“Case No. 720/2021
Sub: Regarding permanent de-scaling of premises bearing No. K-
556, LGF and UGF, Nizamuddin Basti, New Delhi-110014.
17.09.2025
Present: SPA for applicant alongwith Advocate.
Advocates alongwith Intervener.
Shri P.K. Jindal, AD(Bldg.)/Central Zone (MCD)
On 08.01.2025, on the request of the applicant, matter was adjourned
sine-die with the liberty to revive the same on resolution of dispute
between the parties pending before the Civil Court. The matter has been
revived on the application of the applicant wherein applicant placed on
record judgment dated 03.07.2025 passed by the ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-
ARC (South-East) in EP ND.RC/ARC/20/2015(5103/2016) titled
“Nazima Alvi & Others V/S Mahender Pal Sachdeva (deceased through
LRS)” and Notice issued to the Intervener, MCD and DDA.
Advocate for Intervener requested for time to file reply to the
application of the applicant. The same is denied. However, on query to
the Intervener regarding the stay of the order/judgment dated
03.07.2025, they failed to answer and place on record any document in
this regard. Intervener submitted that legal remedy in this regard has
already been availed but have not obtained any orders from any Court
so far.
2. Perusal of record shows that applicant filed the instant case of
permanent desealing of the impugned premises an 06.10.2021 which
was sealed at the instance of the Monitoring Committee on 31.08.2007
for misuse.
On issuance of Notice, MCD filed Status Report dated 16.12.2021
under the signature of DC(Central Zone). As per Status Report, area of
the plot is 610.50 sqm. The building plan is not available on record. The
property consists of basement and ground floor. The subject property is
having number of shops/shutters and the same was sealed by the
erstwhile MCD during the year 2007 under the directions of the
Monitoring Committee. As per record, neither any regularization nor
completion plan is available with the Department. The property abuts on
non-notified Road. Encroachment/projection on Govt. land could not be
identified as applicant has not supplied any ownership documents,
therefore, the status of ownership/use could not be ascertained. A
penalty of Rs.20,03,150/- has been calculated by the Department.
3. Notice was also issued to DDA and DDA also filed Status Report
dated 21.05.2024 and 29.04.2024. As per Status Report dated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 21 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
21.05.2024 of DDA, encroachment falls in Khasra No.556 Min. of
Revenue Estate Aliganj which is Govt. land which was placed at the
disposal of erstwhile DIT(DDA since 1957) with effect from 1 April,
1937 through the “Nazul Agreement” of March, 1937. After the
Enactment of Delhi-Development Act, 1957, it was placed at the
disposal of Delhi Development Authority. As per revenue record i.e.
Jamabandi for the year 1972-73, the ownership of the land i.e. Khasra
No.556 Aliganj, Is with Government and under the jurisdiction of DDA.
Hence, it is requested that the property under reference may not be
allowed to be de-sealed.
As per Status Report dated 29.07.2024 filed by DDA, the matter of
unauthorized encroachment and occupation on the Govt. land of Khasra
Nos.554 and 556, Revenue Estate Aliganj near Basta Hazarat
Nizammuddin, Delhi discussed in a Meeting held on 08.07.2024 under
the Chairmanship of Vice Chairman(DDA), accordingly to identify the
extent of construction and encroachment on the land of Khasra No.554
and 556, DDA has already requested Survey of India for the Drone
Survey at the earliest and matter is being taken up with the Ministry
(MOHUA) for urgent opinion. However, despite directions of the
Monitoring Committee, no follow-up Report has been filed till date.
4. Vide application dated 11.07.2025, applicant submitted that the
impugned premises is lying sealed for over a decade and the same is in
dilapidated condition that needs urgent repair to make it habitable and to
protect it from the miscreants.
5. The Hon’ble Court in pare 21.3 of the judgment dated 03.07.2025 in
EP No.RC/ARC/20/2015(5103/2016) titled “Nazima Alvi & Others V/s
Mahender Pal Sachdeva (deceased through LRS) categorically observed
that Respondent by virtue of documents established that he has been in
possession of suit property much prior to the time when the same has
allegedly been purchased by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner
while there is no explanation on behalf of the petitioner as to how the
respondent had so been in possession and concluded in para 22 as
under:
“….In view of the above discussion, this Court is of considered
opinion that the petitioners have miserably failed to prove that
they are owners of tenanted premises and that there exist
relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the
respondent. When ownership and landlord-tenant relationship
could not be proved by the petitioners, no discussion is required
with respect to bona fide requirement and rest of the elements of
section 14(1)(e) DRC. Accordingly, the present petition, beingSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 22 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
without merit, stands dismissed.”
6. From the foregoing, it is amply clear that the interveners miserably
failed to prove their ownership/relationship before the trial Court as
mentioned above, whereas applicants established their possession since
1975. As such, application of the interveners dated 11.07.2025 is hereby
dismissed.
Further, application of the applicant before the Monitoring Committee is
regarding desealing of impugned premises sealed at the instance of the
Monitoring Committee for misuse. Therefore, without going into the
aspect of ownership of the impugned premises, the Instant application is
being decided on the basis of possesison. Any dispute interse between
the applicants and interveners are subject matter of civil court, wherein
DDA is also a necessary party.
In view of above, impugned premises bearing No.K-556, LGF and
UGF, Nizamuddin Basti, New Delhi-110014 shall be permanently de-
sealed subject to payment of penalty amounting to Rs.20,03,150/- and
on filing of affidavit before DC/Central Zone (MCD) to the effect that
impugned premises shall be used for residential purposes only after
carrying out necessary repairs to make it habitable. No unauthorized
construction/encroachment shall be carried out, in future. The directions
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of WPC
No.4677/1985 (MC Mehta V/S UOI & Ors.) passed from time to time
shall be complied with and non-compliance of the same would subject
to offence of perjury and contempt. Any subsequent violation, in future,
of above-mentioned conditions and undertaking shall be sufficient to
reseal the subject property without any prior Notice.
DDA is at liberty to take action in terms of their Status Report dated
29.07.2024 in respect of the Govt. land under jurisdiction of DDA in
time-bound manner to its logical end and submit ATR.
The application is disposed of in above terms. File be consigned to
Record Room.
Copy of the order be sent to Vice Chairman (DDA) and DC/Central
Zone (MCD), applicants & Interveners for information. Report be
submitted accordingly.”
REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS
29. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, while refuting the submissions of
the Respondents, had submitted that the Respondents are not the owners of
the subject premises.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 23 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
30. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that RW-1, Shri
Anwar Hussain Malik, was only authorised to depose on behalf of legal heirs
of late Smt. Motia Rani, i.e., Smt. Jasbir Kaur and Smt. Harjeet Kaur and he
had no authority to depose on behalf of the remaining Respondents, and
therefore, his testimony could not have been relied upon by the learned ARC.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
31. The eviction petition filed at the instance of the Petitioners has been
dismissed by the learned ARC primarily on the ground that they had failed to
prove that they were the owners of the subject premises, and as also that there
existed no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP
32. So far as the issue of ownership of the subject premises is concerned, it
is noted that the Petitioners claim ownership of the subject premises through a
registered GPA dated 12.10.1993, an agreement to sell, receipt and Will dated
11.10.1993 executed by late Shri G.R. Siddiqui in favour of their predecessor-
in-interest, i.e., late Dr. Alamgir Alvi. It is the case of the Petitioners that after
demise of late Dr. Alamgir Alvi, the subject premises devolved upon them,
being his wife and children, by virtue of inheritance. In these circumstances,
the chain of title needs to be examined.
33. It is a matter of record that late Shri G.R. Siddiqui, from whom the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 24 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners had purchased the subject premises,
claimed himself to be the owner of the same by way of adverse possession. It
is further pertinent to note that late Shri G.R. Siddiqui had filed a suit bearing
No. 591/76 titled as “Sh. G.R. Siddiqui vs. Delhi Development Authority“,
seeking perpetual injunction against Delhi Development Authority and a
decree of perpetual injunction restraining DDA and its agent and servants and
employees from taking forcible possession of “SB House” Nizamuddin, New
Delhi from the former and his family members. In the said suit, on the basis
of pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed: –
“5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the property known as
S.B. House, D.H. Nizamuddin New Delhi for the last 2 decades,
continuously? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff has himself constructed the disputed
property, if so its effect? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff had vacated the premises end had shifted to
an alternative accommodation in JJ Colony, New Delhi?
4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of Union of India?
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to continue in possession of the
disputed premises?
6. Whether the disputed property is owned by Union of India?
7. Relief.”
34. After examining the witnesses and the documents on record, the
learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 11.08.1978 passed in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 25 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
aforementioned suit, rendered the following findings: –
“7. Issue No. 1
xxx xxx xxx
12. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff is quite convincing and
the plaintiff himself has stated that he had occupied the “Burj” in
question in 1948 has been residing there with his family since then.
This contention of the plaintiff could not be rebutted and no
evidence adduced to rebut this contention of the plaintiff. In fact,
the defendant has not placed any evidence on the record which
could suggest that the “Burj” in question was in actual or
constructive possession of the DDA. This issue is decided in favour
of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
13. Issue No.2
The plaintiff has only stated in the statement that he had got
the premises repaired and has nowhere stated that the premises was
initially constructed by him. Other witnesses examined on behalf of
the plaintiff have stated that the premises was only got repaired by
the plaintiff and no one had stated that the same was constructed by
him. There is a difference between the construction of the building
and getting the same repaired and the plaintiff has also not placed
any evidence on record which could suggest that this premises was
constructed by him. In the absence of any evidence, it cannot be
held that the plaintiff has constructed this building and the fact that
he had only got the same repaired, does not suggest that he had
constructed the same. This issue is thus decided against the
plaintiff.
xxx xxx xxx
16. Issue No. 5
While deciding issues No.1&2, it has been held that the
Plaintiff is in possession of the land in dispute for the last more than
20 years and he had never surrendered the possession of this land.
Under the law of the land; no person can be forcibly evicted and a
due process of law has to be adopted before taking any action for
dispossessing even a trespasser, in this regard, the Ld. Counsel has
relied upon AIR 1971 Assam page 74. It was held by the Hon’ble
High Court that a person who had come to acquire some necessary
interest in the land, may not be evicted by force without any
authority of law. It was also held by the Hon’ble High Court that the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 26 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
Government may not evict the person in possession of government
land even as trespassers by using force except by authority of law.
17. In the instant case, the plaintiff is in possession of the land in
dispute for the last more than 20 years and has come to acquire
certain interest in this land and the Government cannot evict him
without following the due process of law. The plaintiff has a right
to continue in possession in this land till he is evicted in accordance
with the law of the land. This issue is thus decided in favour of the
plaintiff.
xxx xxx xxx
18. Issues No.6
The ones of proving this issue was also on the defendant and
it was submitted on behalf of the Delhi Wakf Board that the land
being a tomb and grave-yard, comes under the ownership of the
Delhi Wakf Board. However, no evidence has been placed on the
record which could suggest that the land was owned by Union of
India. The Plaintiff has not challenged the ownership of the land in
dispute. The Defendant has placed reliance on Ex.DW2/1 which is
Fard Jambandi and the Government has been shown as the owner
of this land. As the plaintiff has not disputed the ownership of the
land, and the Union of India has been mentioned as the owner in
Fard Jamabandi. It is held that the disputed land is owned by the
Union of India. This issue is thus decided accordingly.
19. Relief.
In view of my above finding, I hold that the plaintiff has
been able to prove his case and is entitled to the relief as claimed. A
decree for injunction restraining the defendant from dis- possessing
the plaintiff from the suit premises is passed. This order, shall not
however, debar the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from
the suit premises after complying with the statutory requirement of
the law. Under the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to
cost. Decree sheet be prepared and file be consigned to record
room.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 27 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
35. Interestingly, on the basis of the aforesaid judgment, the predecessor-
in-interest of the Petitioners, i.e., late Dr. Alamgir Alvi, further instituted a
suit bearing No. C.S. No. 245/2013, wherein an application under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC was filed seeking an
ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondents therein from
interfering in peaceful use, occupation, possession and ownership over the
entire first floor of the property bearing No. K-556-Z, at near Baori Gate,
Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi, and further restraining the
Respondents therein not to raise any illegal construction over the suit property
i.e., roof of the ground floor of the property bearing no. K-556-Z, at near
Baori Gate, Dargah Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi. The learned
ACJ/CCJ/ARC-(SE), while dismissing the said application, vide order dated
24.05.2013, gave the following findings: –
“I have heard the arguments at Bar and perused the record.
The plaintiff’s assertion of his ownership of the entire 5
bigha 18 biswa of land is on account of general power of attorney
documents executed in his favour by Mr. G. R. Siddiqui. Mr. G. R.
Siddiqui’s claim was that he had become owner of the entire 5
bigha 18 biswa land on account of him being in adverse possession
for the last 44 years, which was confirmed by the judgment and
decree dt. 11.08.1978. A careful perusal of the judgment dt.
11.08.1978 reveals that it was in respect of only a ‘house’ known
as ‘S. B. House’. It is pertinent to mention that it was the own
contention of Mr. G. R. Siddiqui, the predecessor-in-interest of
the plaintiff herein, that the suit property was a ‘house’.
Judgment was not at all in respect of the entire land of 5 bigha
18 biswa. The judgment nowhere gave a finding that plaintiff
was in possession of the entire land of 5 bigha 18 biswa.
Judgment merely restrained DDA from dispossessing the
plaintiff from the suit premises, which was a ‘house’. It did not
say that Mr. G. R. Siddiqui, the predecessor-in-interest of theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 28 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
plaintiff herein, had come to acquire possession of the vast
stretch of land covering an area of 5 bigha 18 biswa, and that
the DDA was restrained from dispossessing him therefrom.
Secondly, the judgment never confirmed the status of G,
R. Siddiqui as owner by virtue of ‘adverse possession’ either in
respect of the house or in respect of the land covering an area of
close to 6 bigha. It did not at all dwell into the aspect of adverse
possession. What the judgment had merely directed was that G. R.
Siddiqui should not be dispossessed from the house without the due
process of law.
Nevertheless, a person who is held to be in possession of a
house for the last more than two decades cannot, of his own accord,
one fine day, start raising a claim that he has become owner of a
land as big as 5 bigha 18 biswa. By common sense and logic, a
person who is held to be in possession of a ‘house’ can, at the most,
claim to be in adverse possession only in respect of the ‘house’ and
not in respect of a land covering an area of nearly 6 bigha.
Furthermore, it is not for a party to himself start proclaiming
that he has become owner of a government property, or for that
matter any property, by virtue of adverse possession. It is only a
court of competent jurisdiction which can give a finding to this
effect. In order to make out a case of adverse possession certain
pre- conditions are to be fulfilled. A claim for adverse possession
has to be rigorously tested on the touchstone of the basic principles
underlying it. The reason why it has to be rigorously tested is that
the usurper tries to defeat lock, stock and barrel the rights of the
true owner. The common notion amongst the general public is that
mere possession of a property for 12 years or 30 years, as the case
may be, is sufficient to bring a claim within the ambit of adverse
possession. However, legally speaking this is not so. The law is
well settled that mere possession for howsoever length of time does
not result in converting the possession into adverse possession.
What is essential is that there must be intention on the part of
person claiming adverse possession to dispossess the true owner.
The intention needs to be open and hostile enough to bring the
same to the knowledge of true owner and he should have an
opportunity to object. A person who bases his title on adverse
possession must show by clear and unequivocal that possession wasSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 29 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
hostile to the real owner and amounted to a denial claimed. In
deciding whether the acts, alleged by a person, constitute adverse
possession regard must be had to the animus of the person doing
those acts which must be ascertained from the facts and
circumstances of the case. The crux of the matter is that the
possession, must start with a wrongful dispossession of a rightful
owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over
the statutory period. (S. M. Karim vs. Bibi Sakinal, AIR 1964 SC
1254). At the cost of repetition, it must be stated that whether or not
such conditions have been fulfilled is required to be determined by
the court on appreciation of evidence and after giving the true
owner a right of hearing. A person cannot suo moto proclaim
himself to be the owner by adverse possession of any property.
Plaintiff’s contention that his predecessor-in-interest Mr. G.
R. Siddiqui, had perfected his title to the land by way of adverse
possession does not impress me at all. Mr. G. R. Siddiqui has suo
moto, proclaimed himself to be the owner by adverse possession of
the government land. Such a course of action is absolutely unheard
of. Furthermore, it is my view that he was never able to perfect his
title to the land covering an area of nearly 6, bigha by way of
adverse possession. This is for following reasons. The aforesaid
judgment granting the relief of permanent injunction was only
in respect of a ‘house’. It was not in respect of the land
stretching over close to 6 bigha. Next, the possession of G. R.
Siddique over the premises in respect of which he got the
permanent injunction decree, was no longer adverse the
moment the decree was passed in his favour. After the decree
had been passed in his favour, his possession was not at all adverse
or hostile to the true owner. His possession thereafter was on
account of the fact that the court had granted him the necessary
protection. His possession was on account of the fact that the court
had restrained the true owner from dispossessing him from the
premises in question except by the process of law. Having the
perpetual injunction decree of the court in his favour, the
predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiff was legally not capable of
enforcing his claim to adverse possession. Next, an adverse
possession arises when the true owner knowing the factum of
possession of the usurper, acquiesces to such possession. A bare
perusal of the judgment dt. 11.08.1978 reveals that on 15.01.1970
the DDA, as per the own contention of Mr. G. R. Siddique, had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 30 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
tried to oust him from possession. But for the protection of the
court, Mr. G. R. Siddique could have been very well ousted by the
DDA. In other words, the ousting of the trespassers/usurper by the
true owner was put on hold by the court’s order. Therefore, I cannot
persuade myself to believe that the DDA, in view of Mr. G. R.
Siddique’s own contention, had acquiesced to his possession. Next,
the foremost requirement of the plea of adverse possession is to
recognize the title of the person against whom adverse possession is
claimed. An extract out of the judgment reported as Dharmarajan
& Ors. vs. Valliammal & Ors., AIR 2008 SC 850 would be of
much relevance in this context. It is as follows: “Secondly, it has
nowhere come as to against whom was her possession adverse:
Was it adverse against the Government or against the Iyer family?
In order to substantiate the plea of adverse possession, the
possession has to be open and adverse to the owner of the property
in question. The evidence did not show this openness and adverse
nature because it is not even certain as to against whom the
adverse possession was pleaded on the part of Karupayee Ammal”.
Similarly, in the case of T. Anjanappa and Ors.vs. Somalingappa
and Another, (2006)7 SCC 570, it was observed, “If the
defendants are not sure who is the true owner the question of their
being in hostile possession and the question of denying title of the
true owner do not arise,” Similar is the view taken in Ramzan &
Ors. vs. Smt. Gafooran & Ors., AIR 2008 All 37 and P. T.
Munichikkanna Reddy & Ors vs. Revamma and Ors., AIR 2007
SC 1753. In the case at hand, from the judgment dt. 11.08.1978
(para 2 of the judgment) it is clear that it was the own contention of
Mr. G.R. Siddique that the house in question “was not the property
of the government”. Therefore, when Mr. G. R. Siddique was
himself denying the title of the true owner in his own plaint, there
can never arise any question of adverse possession. Next, this issue
can be looked at from another perspective. In the case of
Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and Others
(2004) 10 SCC 779 the law was stated thus:
“Physical fact of exclusive; possession and the animus possidendi to
hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important
factors that are to be accounted in cases, of this nature, Plea of adverse
possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and
law and, therefore as person who claims adverse possession should
show (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the
nature of his possession, (c) whether the factum of possession wasSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 31 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued,
and (e) his possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading
adverse possession has no equities in his favour since he is trying
to defeat the rights of the true owner it is for him to clearly plead
and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession
…….”
Applying the aforesaid law as enunciated in Karnataka
Board of Wakf (supra), I find from the judgment dt. 11.08.1978 that
Mr. G. R. Siddique was himself not sure as to on what specific date
did he come into possession of the property in question. At some
places in the Judgment, it is mentioned that he was in possession
for the last two decades; and a few other places, it is mentioned that
he was in possession for 22-23 years ago. Suffice to say, that the
specific date of his trespass is not mentioned. Still more, his
possession cannot, to my mind, be said to be open and undisturbed.
Mr. G. R. Siddique, as per his own averments, had claimed that
DDA had tried to oust him on 15.01.1970. However, thereafter Mr.
G. R. Siddique approached the court and in view of the decree the
DDA did not try to oust his possession. Thus, it cannot be said that
his possession was open and undisturbed. His possession from the
point of time he got the court’s protection was on account of the
fact that he was armed with the court’s order. As per the judgment
of the Apex Court, the onus was squarely upon Mr. Siddique to
clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his
adverse possession. The mere fact that he was in possession for 44
years would not suffice. And it is not for a trespasser to himself
proclaim that he had perfected his title by adverse possession.
In the case of P. T. Munichikkanna Reddy (supra) the
Apex Court made the following observation, “Therefore it will have
to be kept in mind that the Courts around the world are taking an
unkind view towards statutes of limitation overriding property
rights.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that
Mr. G. R. Siddique was at best only a trespasser in the
property. He was not the owner thereof. His claim to adverse
possession does not at all pass the muster. Under the law a
person cannot transfer a better title than he himself has. This
principal follows the legal madin “Nemo dat quod non haber”,
A trespasser cannot pass on any title to his successor-in-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 32 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
interest. This would be despite the fact that the trespasser had
executed some documents in favour of his successor-in-interest.
On this, aspect, I find that the plaintiff’s case is prima facie
devoid of merit.
In the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf (supra), it has
also been held by the Apex court that there are no equities in favour
of a person whose basis of ownership over a property is founded on
the principals of adverse possession. On this premise, the plaintiff
whose assertion of ownership with respect to land spread over
nearly 6 bigha is founded on the claim of adverse possession of his
predecessor in interest, cannot have any equity. In his favour. This
would be despite the fact that the documents in his favour are
nearly 20 years old. The relief of injunction, it is to be noted, is a
equitable relief. Therefore, a person in whose favour there are no
equities, cannot be granted this equitable relief.
Construction of house – Having dealt with the present case
so far from the point of view. of adverse possession, I shall now
come to another aspect of the present matter and this is regarding
the construction of the so-called tenanted premises in question. The
plaintiff in his own plaint contends that the tenanted premises
bearing no. K-556-Z, was constructed by him from his own savings
and funds’. This contention would in effect mean that when he had
made the purchase from Mr. Siddique in 1993, the tenanted
premises never existed. That is to say, it came into existence only
after the plaintiff raised its construction from his own funds. This
leads to the inference that the ‘house’. In respect of which the
perpetual injunction decree was passed and in which Mr. Siddique
was claiming to be residing for two decades is not the same
property which is stated to be under the tenancy of the defendant.
Therefore, to my mind, when Mr. Siddique was not even claiming
to be residing in a structure which had not been constructed by
then; how can the plaintiff herein, claim any right, title or interest
therein.
Averment regarding relationship of landlord and tenant-
The plaintiff states that the defendant is his tenant and that the
monthly rent is Rs. 15,000/-. The plaintiff, for reasons best known
to him, has not at all disclosed in the plaint as to since when and for
what period the defendant has been his tenant. He also does not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 33 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
state as to what was the rent at the inception of the tenancy. His
averment that the present rent is Rs. 15,000/- per month does not
inspire much confidence. There are no rent receipts to show that the
rent is/was Rs. 15,000/-. There is no lease deed executed between
the parties. The plaintiff’s argument is that the tenancy was an oral
one and that rent receipts were never issued. Even if this argument
is to be accepted at its face value; yet I am not inclined to believe
the plaintiff’s case that the defendant is/was his tenant. If the rent
was Rs. 15,000/-, the plaintiff ought to have surely filed his income
tax return reflecting the annual rental income. No income tax return
has been filed. A mere averment without anything substantiating it,
would not suffice. A self serving ipse dixit on the part of the
plaintiff in this regard will not at all pass the muster.
Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff during the course of his
arguments made a submission which went beyond his pleadings.
He stated that in fact Moinuddin (def. claims to have purchased the
property from Moinuddin) was the tenant of Mr. Siddiqui, his
predecessor-in-interest. And later, when Moinuddin vacated the
premises, the defendant was inducted as a tenant and he attorned to
the plaintiff. Now this argument is absolutely beyond the pleadings
as set up by the plaintiff. It is a settled law that a party cannot travel
beyond his own pleadings and set up an inconsistent case with what
has been already pleaded by him in the pleadings. Pleadings is the
very foundation of a case of a party and one cannot go beyond it.
The party cannot at its own choosing and option argue and lead
evidence beyond the scope of his own pleadings. Reference in this
regard can be made to the decision of Abu Bakar vs. Haran, AIR
1996 SC 112. Furthermore, if Moinuddin was the earlier tenant and
the defendant thereafter continued in the tenancy in the same
property, it ought to have been mentioned in the pleadings.
Furthermore, when the defendant came to acquire the tenancy and
he attorned to him, as alleged, not even a single piece of document
was executed reflecting the existence of landlord and tenant
relationship.
There is another side to this aspect. The plaintiff’s argument
about Moinuddin being a previous tenant in the same property
under Mr. Siddique is actually a self- defeating argument. As
already noted hereinabove, the tenanted property was actually
constructed by the plaintiff out of his savings and funds. Therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 34 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
the tenanted property would have been constructed after the
plaintiff ‘purchased’ it from his predecessor-in-interest. Therefore,
at the time when Mr. Siddique was the ‘owner’ the tenanted
property was not in existence. Thus, when the tenanted property
was not in existence, where is the question of Mr. Siddique
inducting Moinuddin as the tenant.
There is another thing which is required to be taken note of:
The plaintiff’s averment is that the property K-556-Z wherein the
defendant is residing is very close to his house K-556-B where he
himself is residing, Now, the tenant cannot be without electricity
and water connections. The landlord ought to make the necessary
arrangement for electricity supply and water connection, if he is
keeping a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 15,000/-. However, the
plaintiff’s case in this regard is woefully lacking in material
particulars. He does not state as to how the electric and water
connection is being supplied to the tenanted premises in question.
He does not state as to in whose name the electric and the water
supply has been installed. He also does not state as to whether the
monthly rent is exclusive or inclusive of the electric and the water
charges. These factors taken together create a big doubt in the
plaintiff’s case about the alleged tenancy.
In view of the foregoing discussion, the plaintiff’s
application under Order XXXIX Rules1 & 2 read with section
151 CPC stands dismissed. Interim order stands vacated. Copy
of this order be sent to DDA to apprise it of the manner in
which DDA land is being claimed and sold of by individuals as
their own property. Court notice be issued to DDA. Put up on
23.07.2013.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
36. The aforesaid order was challenged by way of CM(M) 632/2013 before
this Court, and as the original suit before the learned Trial Court stood
dismissed in default vide order dated 29.04.2014, the CM(M) 632/2013 also
came to be dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 07.08.2014 passed by
the learned Single Judge of this Court. The aforesaid order dated 24.05.2013,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 35 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
therefore, attained finality. The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
South Eastern Coal Field (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for
the Petitioners, is not applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as,
the issue involved therein pertained to the validity of an interim order passed
in favour of a party, which stood reversed upon the final adjudication of the
matter against the said party, who had succeeded at the interim stage. In the
present case, as noted hereinabove, the interim order was never interfered
with and the suit which was dismissed in default did not change the nature of
the interim order. The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners that
the aforesaid order dated 24.05.2013 was interim in nature, and therefore, it
could not have been looked into by the learned ARC to determine the
ownership of the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners, i.e., late Dr.
Alamgir Alvi is untenable. As noted above, the said order examines in detail
the contention and gave a finding which though was prima facie in nature, but
was never challenged. Even at this stage, the same documents which were
examined in the said suit have been placed on record.
37. It has also been argued that the learned ARC could not have decided
the title in the proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. There is
no doubt that for the purposes of the proceedings under the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958, the landlord in question has to show a better title than that
of the tenants; however, to avail of the benefit of the summary proceedings
under the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, any landlord
approaching thereunder, would have to produce some documents prima facie
demonstrating ownership over the suit property. The said proceedings cannot
be used for the purposes of gaining possession of a land, ownership of which
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 36 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
is otherwise disputed, as is in the present case. As noted hereinbefore, in the
order dated 24.05.2013, it has been categorically held that the predecessor-in-
interest of the Petitioners did not have the ownership over the land/property
bearing Khasra No. 556, Shama Burj, Nizamuddin, admeasuring 5 bigha and
18 biswa (of which the present subject property is a part), and the said order
has attained finality. The very same documents, basis which the said suit was
filed, cannot be relied upon by the Petitioners to claim ownership over the
subject premises in the present proceedings. The title of the property
transferred from late Sh. G.R. Siddiqui to the predecessor-in-interest of the
Petitioners, i.e., late Dr. Alamgir Alvi cannot be better than that of late Sh.
G.R. Siddiqui.
38. Another argument advanced by learned counsel for the Respondent was
that the GPA dated 11.10.1993, relied upon by the Petitioners, pertains to 5
bigha and 18 biswa of land, which approximately comes to 600 sq. yds. The
said property has been described as under: –
“Property bearing No.556, Khasara, Shama Burj, Nizamuddin, New
Delhi, measuring about 5 bigha & 18 Biswa, and the said property
is situated near Booli Gate, Dargah, Nazarat Nizamuddin, New
Delhi-13 and the said property is bounded as under: –
East D.D.A. Park and Barakamba
West D.D.A.; Park and Nizama Nagar
North Road to Lodi Road and Kusro Park
South Grav Yard, and Road to Dargah.”
If the case of the Petitioners is assumed to be true with regard to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 37 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
ownership of the said land, then what is the status of the other portion of the
land, because the suit property forms part of the aforesaid 5 bigha and 18
biswa of land. It was further contended that even in the suit filed on behalf of
late Shri G.R. Siddiqui, the suit premises have been described as “SB House”.
There is further no description of “SB House” with respect to the area, and
nothing has come on record to demonstrate that the said “SB House” and the
property in the said GPA, as relied upon by the Petitioners, includes the
aforesaid “SB House”.
39. However, in the suit filed on behalf of late Shri G.R. Siddiqui, from
whom the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners, i.e., late Dr. Alamgir Alvi
had purchased the subject premises, the suit property in the said suit has been
described as “SB House” Nizamuddin, New Delhi. Thus, it was submitted
that there was a complete discrepancy with regard to the description of the
subject premises in the documents on which reliance has been placed by the
Petitioners. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the
Respondents that nothing has come on record with respect to any clarification
with regard to the same. Thus, the judgment dated 11.08.1978 was only with
respect to the property known as “SB House” and was never in respect of
entire land of 5 bigha and 18 biswa, and even otherwise, the said judgment
merely protected late Shri G.R. Siddiqui from dispossession, without due
process of law from the said property and did not declare him to be the owner
by way of adverse possession.
40. Learned counsel for the Petitioners had further relied upon 2 orders
passed by learned ARC dated 13.05.2015, with respect to certain other tenants
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 38 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
in respect of basement and first floor of the subject premises. Relying upon
the said orders, it was argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that
the ownership of the subject premises stands confirmed, in view of the
eviction order passed by the learned ARC in the said eviction petitions. It is
pertinent to note that both the orders relied upon by the learned counsel for
the Petitioners were ex-parte. The said orders have never been challenged and
the issue of ownership was never raised or decided by the learned ARC in the
said petitions. Therefore, those orders cannot be considered as res-judicata for
the purposes of ownership of the properties concerned.
41. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further contended that the
authorised representative, RW-1, had no authority to depose on behalf of
Respondents at all, and therefore, the same would render the whole evidence
of the Respondents inadmissible, thereby having no value in the eyes of law.
It is pertinent to note that RW-1, was authorised representative of the
daughters of Respondent-late Smt. Motia Rani, in whose favour the will had
been executed by the father of late Shri Mahendar pal Sachdeva, i.e., late Shri
Gurucharan Sachdeva. The aforesaid will has been de-exhibited. Be that as it
may, it is not in dispute that the Petitioners herein had themselves impleaded
the said Respondents in the eviction petition, and it is a matter of record that
Respondents-Smt. Ratkanya Patansethanont and Shri Rattan Deep Singh, i.e.,
widow and son of late Shri Mahendar Pal Sachdeva, did not participate in the
proceedings as they were residing in Thailand. In these circumstances, non-
representation on behalf of the said Respondents would have no
consequences, inasmuch as the issue which has been decided against the
Petitioners with regard to the ownership, is on the basis of their own
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 39 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
documents, which they themselves have produced on record before the
learned ARC.
LANDLORD AND TENANT RELATIONSHIP
42. Relationship of landlord and tenant is again essential for proceedings
under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. As noted by the learned ARC, the
claim of the Petitioners in the eviction petition was that the tenancy was oral
in nature, and that the Respondents used to pay the rent in cash, and their
predecessor-in-interest, i.e., late Dr. Alamgir Alvi, had inducted the
Respondents during his lifetime. However, as noted in the impugned
judgment, PW-1 in her cross-examination dated 03.10.2023 had stated that
the suit property was given on rent by late Shri G.R. Siddiqui to late Shri
Gurucharan Sachdeva (father of late Shri Mahendar Pal Sachdeva-
Respondent) and when the predecessor-in-interest i.e., late Dr. Alamgir Alvi
purchased the subject premises, the tenancy came to the Petitioners in 1989.
Thus, it was correctly observed by the learned ARC that the said statement
was contradictory in itself, inasmuch as the Petitioners’ own case was that the
subject premises had been purchased by their predecessor-in-interest in the
year 1993 and not in 1989.
43. Admittedly, there is no receipt on record with respect to payment of
any rent by the Respondents. On the other hand, the Respondents have relied
upon certain documents establishing their possession over the subject
premises from the year 1989, as noted in the preceding paragraph. Thus, the
documents which have been placed on record, clearly predates the documents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 40 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
by way of which the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners had allegedly
acquired the property in the year 1993. It is pertinent to note that in the
eviction petition, the stand of the Petitioners in para 18 (a) (iii) and (iv), as
reproduced hereinbefore, was that subsequent to purchase of the subject
premises by the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners, the said property
was let out to the Respondents for commercial purposes. Thus, as rightly
observed by the learned ARC, even this prerequisite of landlord tenant
relationship could not be proved by the Petitioners.
44. It is a settled principle of law that the scope of interference by a Court
in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is confined to examining whether the
judgment assailed suffers from illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional
error and the Revisional Court is not expected to substitute its own view for
that of the learned Trial Court, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.14 and Abid-Ul-
Islam v. Inder Sain Dua15.
45. This Court after perusing the record and considering the submissions
advanced on behalf of the parties, is of the considered opinion that the
impugned judgment suffers from no irregularity or illegality warranting
interference. The learned ARC, after duly appreciating the pleadings and
evidence brought on record during the course of trial, had returned findings
which cannot be said to be perverse. Accordingly, no grounds warranting
interference with the impugned judgment are made out.
14
(1998) 8 SCC 119: AIR 1999 SC 100
15
(2022) 6 SCC 30 : (2022) 3 SCC (Civ) 287 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 419
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 41 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
46. In view of the above, the present petition stands dismissed and disposed
of accordingly.
47. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
48. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
JULY 16, 2026/kr/db
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:NEETI
KUMARI SHARMA RC.REV. 386/2025 Page 42 of 42
Signing Date:17.07.2026
15:54:18
