The Delhi High Court has dismissed a Regular First Appeal filed by a tenant’s son, affirming that a successor who was not financially dependent on the deceased tenant at the time of death is entitled to protection under the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act for a limited period of only one year.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, in the judgment pronounced on March 17, 2026, upheld the District Judge’s decree of possession, noting that the appellant had become an “unauthorized occupant” following the expiry of the one-year statutory protection period.
Background of the Case
The respondent/plaintiff, Jyoti Sikka, is the absolute owner of the property Municipal No. V-12, Green Park (Main), New Delhi, purchased via a registered Sale Deed in April 2007. The late Sh. Gopi Ram Goel was the original tenant of the second floor at a monthly rent of ₹450.
In March 2009, the plaintiff terminated the tenancy via legal notice. Sh. Gopi Ram Goel continued as a statutory tenant under the DRC Act until his demise on January 26, 2013. Following his death, his family members, including the appellant Pawan Kumar Goel (son), remained in possession. The plaintiff asserted that under Explanation II to Section 2(l) of the DRC Act, the heirs were entitled to protection for only one year as they were not financially dependent on the deceased.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant, Pawan Kumar Goel, contended in his written statement that he was an “unemployed son” who was “totally dependent” on his father. He further argued that the suit was barred by limitation and the principles of res judicata, citing previous eviction petitions filed by the plaintiff under the DRC Act that had been dismissed.
Conversely, the plaintiff highlighted a Partnership Deed dated November 13, 2012, filed by late Gopi Ram Goel in previous proceedings, which listed the appellant as a partner. This, the plaintiff argued, proved the appellant had an independent source of income and was not financially dependent on his father at the time of the latter’s death.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court focused its analysis on Section 2(l) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, specifically Explanation II, which states:
“If the person, who acquires, by succession, the right to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy, was not financially dependent on the deceased person on the date of his death, such successor shall acquire such right for a limited period of one year; and, on the expiry of that period, or on his death, whichever is earlier, the right of such successor to continue in possession after the termination of the tenancy shall become extinguished.”
The Court observed that the appellant did not deny being a partner in the partnership firm as per the 2012 deed. Justice Krishna noted:
“Being a Partner in the Partnership, clearly reflected that he had his own independent source of income and was not dependent upon the father and, therefore, the protection, if any, extended for a maximum period of one year; therefore, the Defendant cannot seek protection under Delhi Rent Control Act.”
Regarding the dismissal of earlier DRC Act petitions, the Court clarified that those proceedings did not impact the current suit.
“The Petitions under Delhi Rent Control Act may have been dismissed, but this is an independent right which arises under Transfer of Property Act and does not in any way get impacted by the earlier litigation under Delhi Rent Control Act.”
On the issue of limitation, the Court held that since the appellant remained in the premises after the statutory period expired in 2014, it constituted a “continuous cause of action.” The Court remarked that the appellant had been “enjoying the property for the last 12 years” despite having become an unauthorized occupant.
Decision
The High Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the District Judge’s order dated July 14, 2025, which had allowed the application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC for a decree of possession based on admissions.
The Court concluded:
“The Defendant/Appellant had become an unauthorized occupant after the expiry of statutory period and therefore, deposit of rent of Rs. 450/- or its acceptance, is of no consequence nor does it operate as an estoppel or defeat the right of the Plaintiff to claim the possession of the Suit property.”
The appeal and all pending applications were accordingly dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Pawan Kumar Goel vs. Jyoti Sikka
- Case No.: RFA 1161/2025 & CM APPL. 80654/2025, 80656/2025
- Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
- Judgment Date: March 17, 2026
