Tenant Cannot Derail Eviction By Buying Co-Owner’s Share Mid-Proceeding: Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction for Bona Fide Need

“No Merger of Tenancy by Purchase of Co-Owner’s Undivided Share; Eviction Maintainable by Any Co-Owner Without Consent from Others”, In a detailed and firmly reasoned judgment, the Delhi High Court upheld an eviction order against a tenant who had tried to claim ownership of the rented premises during the pendency of eviction proceedings by purchasing the undivided share of the landlord’s sister. The Court dismissed RC.REV. filed by Sukhdev @ Sukhdev Raj, and affirmed the eviction decree passed on 13.08.2024 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, in favour of landlord Ashok Kumar, citing bona fide requirement of the premises for running a Dhaba.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while delivering the verdict, held that a tenant cannot unilaterally extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship by purchasing the undivided share of a co-owner, especially when the eviction petition had already been instituted. The Court also reiterated that any one co-owner is competent to file an eviction petition without requiring the consent or affidavit of other co-owners, unless such co-owners actively oppose the action.

“Sale by co-owner during pending eviction is hit by doctrine of lis pendens; tenant estopped from denying admitted tenancy”

The petitioner-tenant had challenged the eviction primarily on two grounds:

1. That he had purchased the entire premises from the landlord’s sister (Manju Devi), making him the owner and not a tenant;
2. That the landlord had not obtained consent of the co-owner (Manju Devi), and her impleadment application had been ignored.

Rejecting both contentions, the Court held:

“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. Manju Devi alone.”

The Court further ruled that the sale deed, executed on 15.12.2016 during the pendency of the eviction petition (filed on 26.05.2016), was squarely hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act:

“No prudent person having due knowledge thereof… would proceed with execution of the Sale Deed during the pendency thereof… the same raises serious suspicion about the conduct of the tenant.”

“Partial acquisition of landlord’s share does not create merger or extinguish tenancy”

Referring to Section 111(d) of the Transfer of Property Act, the Court made it clear that merger of tenancy can only occur when the entire interest of both the lessor and lessee merges in the same person, which did not happen here. The tenant had merely purchased a 50% undivided share of the property.

Citing the landmark decision in Pramod Kumar Jaiswal v. Bibi Husan Bano [(2005) 5 SCC 492], the Court observed:

“A lessee who has taken assignment of rights of a co-owner lessor, cannot successfully raise the plea of determination of tenancy on the ground of merger… the status of the tenant continues.”

The Court emphasized that until a partition takes place by metes and bounds, ownership remains joint, and thus, the tenant remains a tenant vis-à-vis the co-owner who did not consent to the sale.

“No requirement of NOC or affidavit from other co-owners; mere impleadment application not an objection”

One of the tenant’s major arguments was that the landlord could not have filed the eviction petition without the consent of Manju Devi, who held a 50% undivided share.

Rejecting this argument, the Court clarified the legal position:

“It is settled law that an eviction petition filed by one of the co-owners is maintainable without any affidavit or No Objection Certificate from other co-owners, unless there is a formal objection filed by such co-owner.”

The Court found that Manju Devi had only filed an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment, but did not raise any opposition to the eviction. Moreover, she never appeared despite being summoned as a witness, and did not challenge the dismissal of her impleadment application.

The Court noted:

“Filing of an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC by any of the co-owners in an eviction petition… cannot, ipso facto, be treated as opposition.”

“It does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to plead the case of Smt. Manju Devi… the tenant is a rank outsider… this Court has a suspicion that they were hands in glove with each other to the detriment of the landlord.”

“Estoppel against denial of title: Tenant admitted landlord-tenant relationship in pleadings and cross-examination”

The Court observed that the tenant had admitted the tenancy relationship in his written statement and also during cross-examination. Thus, as per binding precedents like Geeta Kapoor v. Jaipal [2019 SCC OnLine Del 10463], the tenant was estopped from denying the landlord’s title.

“The issue of title/ ownership cannot be decided by the learned ARC either in an eviction proceeding or in a revision petition like the present one.”

The Court found that the rent control authority was only required to determine whether the landlord had a better title than the tenant at the time of filing the eviction petition—which was clearly the case.

High Court affirms ARC’s judgment; interference not warranted under Section 25B(8)

The Court placed reliance on Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua to reiterate the limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act. It noted that no exceptional circumstances were made out by the tenant that would justify interference with the well-reasoned judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC).

“The tenant has merely reargued the very same contentions which have been duly negated by the learned ARC… with which this Court is in concurrence.”

Finding no merit in the tenant’s revision, the Court dismissed the petition, vacated the interim stay on execution of the eviction order, and directed the tenant to hand over vacant possession of the two shops situated at Property No. 6165/1, Basti Regar, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi to the landlord, observing that:

“The benefit of the six months’ period as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act has already lapsed.”

Key Takeaways for Practitioners:

• A tenant cannot claim ownership merely by purchasing a co-owner’s undivided share during eviction proceedings.
• Doctrine of lis pendens applies to bar such transactions.
• One co-owner alone is competent to seek eviction under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, unless others formally object.
• Tenants are estopped from denying landlord’s title if tenancy is admitted.
• The rent controller is not the forum to adjudicate ownership disputes or title suits.

Date of Decision: 26 November 2025