Delhi Court: Chaman Lal's Eviction Bid Fails Due to Ownership Doubts

Quick Summary: Chaman Lal's attempt to evict tenants from a Delhi shop was dismissed because he couldn't prove he owned the property or had a landlord-tenant relationship with the tenants.

The Eviction Request

Chaman Lal, who said he was the landlord, asked the court to evict Manish Kumar and others from a shop in Jheel Khurenja, Delhi. He said he owned the shop through papers from his late mother, Smt. Risalo Devi, who had rented the shop to the tenants' father for Rs. 80 per month. However, no rent had been paid since 1991.

"The landlord said he needed the shop for his Kadhi Chawal business instead of using the road."

Tenants' Argument

The tenants said that Chaman Lal's mother never owned the property, which was on government land. They argued that the eviction request should be thrown out because there were no documents showing ownership and the landlord had other places he could use.

Court Proceedings and Decisions

At first, the tenants weren't allowed to defend themselves, but this decision was later changed. The court needed a full trial to check if Chaman Lal really owned the place and if there was a landlord-tenant relationship. On September 12, 2023, the court dismissed the eviction request because Chaman Lal didn't have enough proof.

Ownership Confusion

Chaman Lal showed a Will, a General Power of Attorney, and a Gift Deed, but they were all in the name of "Chaman Singh," not "Chaman Lal." The court found problems with these papers and noted there were no rent receipts or agreements to prove he was the landlord.

"The court stressed the need for clear proof of ownership and the relationship, which Chaman Lal didn't have."

DDA's Testimony

Pradeep Kumar from the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) said the land was government land, leased to someone else, and the lease wasn't renewed after 2007. This made Chaman Lal's claim even weaker.

Summary of Verdict

Justice Saurabh Banerjee agreed with the earlier decision on December 16, 2025, dismissing Chaman Lal's appeal because he lacked proof and there were still questions about who owned the property.

"Without clear proof of ownership and a landlord-tenant relationship, the court couldn't support Chaman Lal's claims."

This case shows how important it is to have clear and proper documents and proof in property arguments.