In a significant legal ruling by the Delhi High Court, a property dispute case between two parties has been settled. The judgement, which favored the respondent in the case, highlighted the importance of evidence and legal standing in such matters. Dive into the details of this case that involved a family settlement document and ownership rights over the subject premises.
Analysis
- The eviction petitioner is not required to establish absolute title over the subject premises, but a title better than that of the tenant.
- The respondent acquired ownership of the subject premises through a Sale Deed registered in favor of her mother and a memorandum of family settlement.
- The family settlement document (Ex. PW1/6) is accepted as evidence, as it falls under a collateral transaction not requiring a registered instrument.
- The family settlement was a settlement between the mother of the respondent and her children, aimed at avoiding future property disputes.
- The petitioners did not challenge the jural relationship of tenancy between them and the respondent, established by the father’s tenancy and subsequent sale to the respondent’s mother.
- The present petitioners recognized the respondent’s mother as their landlord and paid rent to her, indicating acceptance of her ownership.
- The petitioners did not cross-examine the respondent or present any evidence, leading to the eviction petition being allowed based on the respondent’s evidence.
- The present petitioners, not having standing in the family settlement, cannot challenge the respondent’s title based on that document.
- The present petitioners have failed to provide specific particulars or challenge the respondent’s ownership of properties to run a boutique.
- The pleadings and evidence of the respondent remain unchallenged as the petitioners did not file a written statement or cross-examine the respondent.
- The larger premises in question are owned by the respondent’s mother and brother, not by the respondent herself.
Decision
- Additional Rent Controller found no infirmity in the impugned application
- Impugned application is dismissed
Case Title: SATPAL SHARMA & ANR. Vs. SADHNA ARORA (2024:DHC:4296)
Case Number: RC.REV.-203/2023
