Mukhtar Ahmed & Anr v. Mohd Farid

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 17, 2026/tk/dj/m

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision : 17.07.2026 + RC.REV. 528/2019, CM APPL. 40136/2019 (Stay), CM APPL. 26316/2025(Addl.Doc) & CM APPL. 37644/2025 (Dir.) MUKHTAR AHMED & ANR .....Petitioners Through: Counsel (Appearance not given). versus MOHD FARID .....Respondent Through: Counsel (Appearance not given). CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (Oral) 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581, challenging the Judgment dated 14.03.20192 passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC3, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Eviction Petition, being E-622/2017, titled "Mohd. Farid v. Sh. Mukhtar Ahmed & Anr.", filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the findings returned by the learned ARC is founded on an opinion expressed in the Communication dated 21.04.20164, addressed to the Joint Secretary (Enemy Property Section), Ministry 1 DRC Act 2 Impugned Judgment 3 learned ARC 4 2016 Communication of Home Affairs by the Custodian of Enemy Property for India. 3. In order to substantiate the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon Paragraph No. 7 of the Impugned Judgment, wherein the learned ARC has referred to 2016 communication and placed reliance upon it. Paragraph No. 7 of the Impugned Judgment reads as under: "7. In the year 1969 Mst. Nazir Begum W/o Noor Ahmad, mother of the respondents made false complaint to the Custodian, Enemy Property for India, Mumbai making false allegation that the owner of property to which suit premises form part was owned by Shri Hamid Hussain, Qadir Hussain both sons of Altaf Hussain and Mst. Rabia Begum W/o Altaf Hussain, all Pakistani Nationals and were residing in Pakistan since 1947. It was also alleged in the letter that Mohd. Yamin had realized rent up to 1964. Mst. Nazir Begum deposited rent with the Custodian, Enemy property for India. The custodian started collecting rent from the tenant without any enquiry and declaration of property as Enemy Property. The petitioner had made a representation dated 10.02.2016 to the Joint Secretary (Enemy Property Section), MHA FFR, NDCC-II Building, Jai Singh Road, New Delhi-110001. Photocopy of representation dated 10.02.2016 is annexed as Annexure - P/6. The Delhi Branch of the office of Custodian of Enemy Property held the properties of said Altaf Hussain not be Enemy Property belonging to an Indian National. Photocopy of letter dated 21.04.2016 is enclosed as Annexure - P/7." 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the 2016 Communication was interlocutory in nature and only conveyed the opinion of the concerned authority and therefore does not constitute a final order determining whether the tenanted premises, i.e., one room measuring about 15'x8' with Verandah/Dallan of about 15'x8' and open courtyard measuring about 15.3'x16' at the ground floor of the property bearing No. 2012, Gali Haji Ismail, Mohalla Qabristan, Turkman Gate, Delhi – 1100065 could be classified as enemy property or not. 5 Suit Property 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it was only vide an Order dated 11.11.20246, passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, that a final determination came to be accorded on the representation made by the Respondent as to whether the suit property was classifiable as enemy property or not. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, submits that since the entire Impugned Judgement is premised on an opinion, based on the 2016 Communication, and was rendered at an interlocutory stage, the Impugned Judgment cannot be sustained and is required to be set- aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that the said opinion, at that point in time, sufficed for the purpose of passing the Impugned Judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that the 2024 Order has since be