In a key ruling on rent control jurisprudence, the Delhi High Court has affirmed that a landlord seeking eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) is not required to establish absolute or indefeasible ownership, but merely a title superior to that of the tenant. Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that a tenant’s unsubstantiated claim that the subject premises is an “enemy property” vesting in the Government of India cannot oust the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction or defeat an eviction petition.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from an eviction petition filed by Mohd. Rafi against tenants Ahsan Ur-Rab and another under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The premises in dispute—comprising portions of the first and third floors with roof rights of property No. 481, Chatta Haji Yusuf, Chitli Gate, Chawri Bazar, Delhi—were originally rented to the tenants’ predecessors by an erstwhile owner, Haji Mohd. Muslim. Over the years, the property changed hands through registered sale deeds, ultimately being purchased by Mohd. Rafi on September 8, 2005.
When Mohd. Rafi filed an eviction petition seeking bona fide necessity, the tenants filed an application seeking leave to defend. They resisted eviction solely on the ground that Haji Mohd. Muslim had migrated to Pakistan, causing the property to acquire the status of an “enemy property” that automatically vested in the Central Government. Consequently, they argued that they had become tenants under the Government of India, no landlord-tenant relationship existed with Mohd. Rafi, and the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the eviction petition.
On May 26, 2026, the ARC-02 (Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi) rejected the tenants’ leave-to-defend application and passed an eviction order, leading the tenants to file a revision petition before the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
Before the Delhi High Court, the petitioners (tenants) confined their challenge exclusively to the question of jurisdiction. Counsel for the petitioners argued that once property vests in the Government of India under the Enemy Property Act, a private individual cannot claim ownership or maintain an eviction petition under the DRC Act.
It was asserted that by operation of law, the petitioners became tenants under the Government of India, rendering the ARC’s eviction order null and void due to lack of jurisdiction.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar commenced the analysis by reiterating the strict and narrow limits of the High Court’s revisional power under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act. Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, the High Court noted:
“The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance. Thus, the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction.”
Addressing the core dispute regarding property ownership and enemy property claims, the High Court highlighted settled legal principles governing rent disputes. The Court noted that under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, an eviction petition does not require determination of absolute title, as held in Jiwan Lal v. Gurdial Kaur, Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi, and Smt. Shanti Sharma v. Smt. Ved Prabha.
The Court observed:
“It is trite that under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord is not required to establish an absolute or indefeasible title but only a title superior to that of the tenant…”
Regarding the tenant’s plea of property vesting in the Custodian of Enemy Property, the High Court held that such a defense cannot defeat an eviction petition or compel the Rent Controller to adjudicate complex title disputes. Referring to the Allahabad High Court decision in Rameshwar Dayal v. Custodian of Enemy Property for India, the Court underscored:
“…even assuming arguendo that such a claim exists, the same does not ipso facto divest the Respondent of his right to maintain the present proceedings before the learned ARC nor does it oust the jurisdiction of the learned ARC to adjudicate an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.”
“As rightly noticed by the learned ARC, if the Custodian of Enemy Property asserts any independent right over the subject premises or seeks to enforce the consequences flowing from the Enemy Property Act, it is always open to the Custodian to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent forum in accordance with law.”
Furthermore, the Court noted that under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 122 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), a tenant who admits being inducted into tenancy by an erstwhile owner is estopped from denying the title of the landlord or asserting a third-party title while remaining in possession.
Final Decision
Finding no jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or perversity in the order of the learned Rent Controller, the High Court held that Mohd. Rafi had successfully established a better title than the tenants based on the registered chain of sale deeds.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition along with pending applications, upholding the eviction order passed against the tenants.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Ahsan Ur-Rab and Anr. v. Mohd Rafi
- Case No.: RC.REV. 267/2026 & CM APPL. 51433/2026
- Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
- Date: 06.08.2026
