The High Court of Delhi has ruled that a tenant who purchases a share of the tenanted premises from one of the co-owners does not become the full owner of the property, and such a purchase does not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship. The Court held that for a tenancy to be determined under the doctrine of merger, the interest of the lessee and the lessor in the whole of the property must vest in the same person at the same time.
Background of the Case
The Respondent/Landlord, Ashok Kumar, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking eviction of the Petitioner/Tenant, Sukhdev @ Sukhdev Raj, from two shops located at Property No. 6165/1, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The landlord pleaded a bona fide requirement for the premises to open a restaurant/Dhaba, stating that no suitable alternative accommodation was available.
The landlord claimed that the property devolved upon him and his sister, Smt. Manju Devi, as joint owners following a Settlement Agreement dated April 24, 2015.
The tenant contested the eviction, primarily arguing that he had become the owner of the subject premises. He claimed to have purchased the property from the landlord’s sister, Smt. Manju Devi, via a registered Sale Deed dated December 15, 2016. Consequently, the tenant argued that the landlord-tenant relationship had ceased to exist, and the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed.
The Learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) rejected the tenant’s defense and passed an eviction order on August 13, 2024. Aggrieved by this, the tenant approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner/Tenant’s Arguments: Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, the tenant argued that:
- Since Smt. Manju Devi (the co-owner) had filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) during the trial, the ARC erred in allowing the eviction petition by disregarding it.
- The tenant held a duly executed Sale Deed for the subject premises, making him the owner. Therefore, the landlord-tenant relationship had ceased to exist.
Respondent/Landlord’s Arguments: Represented by Advocate Mr. Alok Sinha, the landlord argued that:
- The Sale Deed relied upon by the tenant purported to sell the entire premises, whereas Smt. Manju Devi was only a 50% co-owner.
- The execution of the Sale Deed was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens as a civil suit (CS No. 88/2017) regarding the title was pending.
- Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Pramod Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. vs. Bibi Husan Bano & Ors. (2005), the landlord contended that the tenancy does not get determined merely because the tenant purchases a share from a co-owner.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, after examining the records and legal precedents, rejected the tenant’s contentions.
1. Doctrine of Merger and Determination of Lease The Court addressed the core issue of whether the tenant’s purchase of a share from a co-owner extinguished the tenancy. The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Pramod Kumar Jaiswal & Ors. vs. Bibi Husan Bano & Ors., noting that Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act requires a complete merger of interests.
The Court observed:
“It is thus clear that the rights qua tenancy cannot be determined on the assignment of rights/ interest/ title derived only from one of the co-owners. Since as per Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 until and unless the entirety of rights/ interest/ title qua a property is vested at the same time with one person, there is no merger of estate thereof.”
The Court further clarified:
“In other words, unless the entire bundle of rights/ interest of both a tenant and a landlord qua a property converges in a single person simultaneously, in the same legal capacity, the tenancy/ status cannot successfully be ascertained.”
2. Validity of the Sale Deed The Court noted that the tenant was aware that the landlord was a co-owner based on the Settlement Agreement. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in SK. Golam Lalchand vs. Nandu Lal Shaw (2024), the Court held that a co-owner cannot sell the entire property without partition, and the purchaser does not acquire title to the whole.
The Court stated:
“The said Sale Deed cannot come to the aid of the tenant since the same was executed without the consent of the landlord, the subject premises could not have been sold by Smt. Manu Devi to the tenant.”
3. Maintainability of Eviction by Co-Owner Referring to Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla and Mohinder Prasad Jain vs. Manohar Lal Jain, the Court reiterated that an eviction petition filed by one co-owner is maintainable and does not require a ‘No Objection Certificate’ from other co-owners. The Court held that Smt. Manju Devi’s application under Order I Rule 10 CPC did not amount to an objection to the maintainability of the petition.
4. Suspicious Conduct of the Tenant The Court expressed suspicion regarding the tenant’s conduct, noting that the Sale Deed was executed on December 15, 2016, months after the eviction petition was filed on May 26, 2016.
“No prudent person having due knowledge thereof, and who was also a party to the litigation qua the very same property, would proceed with execution of the Sale Deed during the pendency thereof, and that too without apprising the Court. The same itself raises a serious suspicion about the conduct of the tenant.”
Decision
The High Court found no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the learned ARC. The Court held that the tenant failed to make out a case for interference under the limited scope of revision jurisdiction as per Sarla Ahuja vs. Union India Insurance Company Ltd.
Held:
“The tenant is unable to raise any grounds for interference by this Court, the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2024 passed by the learned ARC is upheld.”
The stay granted earlier was vacated, and the tenant was ordered to hand over vacant, peaceful, and physical possession of the two shops to the landlord.
Case Summary Details
- Case Title: Sukhdev @ Sukhdev Raj vs. Ashok Kumar (RC.REV. 311/2024)
- Coram: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
- Date of Pronouncement: November 26, 2025
- Legal Issue: Whether the purchase of an undivided share in the tenanted premises by the tenant from a co-owner determines the lease under Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, thereby rendering an eviction petition based on bona fide requirement non-maintainable.
- Outcome: The Revision Petition filed by the tenant was dismissed. The eviction order passed by the Rent Controller was upheld.
- Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Sachin Puri, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Rehman, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Ms. Mehak Ghaloth, and Mr. Suraj Singh, Advs.
- Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Alok Sinha, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Ms. Divya, and Mr. Aakash Saini, Advs.
