[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
Surinder Kumar Kalra vs Satbir Singh on 11 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY SINGH PARIHAR
ACJ-CUM-ARC, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI, DELHI
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
CNR No. DLNT030006282015.
Surinder Kumar Kalra
S/o Late Mohan Lal Kalra
R/o H-7/A, First Floor
Model Town III, Delhi
......Petitioner
VERSUS
Dr. Satbir Singh
S/o Late Attar Singh
R/o F-5/3, Model Town II
Delhi-110009
And also available at:
Shop in Property bearing no. H-7/A
Model Town III, Delhi-110009 .....Respondent
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh AJAYPage 1 of 46 by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:50:51 +0530
Date of Institution : 09.04.2015
Date of reserving the order : 09.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 11.06.2025
ORDER
1. The present petitioner seeks the eviction of the respondent
from one shop on ground floor of property bearing no. No.
H-7/A, Model Town III, Delhi, as indicated in red color in the
site plan annexed to the petition (hereinafter referred to as
“suit property”) under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act“),
read with Section 25B of the DRC Act.
2. In essence, the petitioner assert ownership of suit property
vide registered sale deed dated 14.01.1997 executed by Sh.
Mulakh Raj Juneja in his favour. It is averred that respondent
is a tenant in the suit premises and is running a Clinic with
the aid and assistance of his wife Dr. Manpreet Kaur. It is
averred that petitioner’s family consist of himself, his wife
and three daughters out of which one daughter Ms. Jyoti
Kalra has been married. It is averred that eldest daughter of
petitioner namely Ms.Taruna Kalra has done Diploma in
Fashion Designing and has also done Diploma in Aviation
and Hospitality and she has not married and wants to
establish her own business with the aid and assistance of
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY Page 2 of 46by
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:50:57 +0530
petitioner. It is further averred that the younger daughter of
petitioner namely Ms. Neha Kalra has also done a Diploma in
Dietician and Nutrition and she also intends to start her own
business. It is averred that the petitioner and his daughters do
not have any other reasonable or suitable commercial
accommodation available with them for carrying on their
business. It is averred that although Ms. Neha Kalra is owner
of shop bearing no. F-6/2, Model Town, Delhi but the same
has already been let out by her to Khalsa Glass House at a
monthly rent of ₹19,000/- besides other charges and as such,
the said premises are also not available with her for carrying
on her business. It is averred that married daughter of
petitioner Ms. Jyoti Kalra also intends to start her business as
her husband is not having any independent business and had
been assisting his father in his business but there is friction
between them and thus, the petitioner also wish to establish
him independently.
3. It is averred that all three daughters of petitioners are
dependent upon the petitioner for their need of commercial
accommodation and as such, the petitioner requires the suit
shop. It is averred that petitioner has been carrying on
business of property dealer and of Tent House in property no.
H7A, Model Town, Delhi and the said shop has no other
space which can be given for the use and occupation of
petitioner’s daughters and rather petitioner also faces shortage
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 3PARIHAR
of 46
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:51:04
+0530
of space due to non availability of proper godown for Tent
House business run by him and a shop which was previously
occupied by Sh. G D Tuteja has been got vacated pursuant to
order dated 08.07.2015 of Ld. Rent Control Tribunal and the
said portion has been clubbed with the shop of petitioner for
doing his aforesaid business of property dealer and Tent
House. It is averred that neither the petitioner nor his family
members i.e. his daughters have any other sufficient and
alternative accommodation which could enable them for
running the businesses and as such, the tenanted premises are
required by the aforesaid daughters bonafide for carrying out
business.
4. Summons were served upon the respondent who filed leave to
defend application with document(s) alongwith separate
detailed affidavit, however on 29.09.2018 respondent filed
amended leave to defend. The respondent has taken following
grounds inter alia which can be outlined as follows:
5. It is averred that the petitioner has not come to the court with
clean hands. The petitioner has misrepresented and concealed
true facts. It is submitted that for the purpose of making easy
money, petitioner purchases properties and institutes false
litigation against tenants for their ejectment and thereafter,
sells the property at a higher price. It is argued that when the
petitioner purchased the subject property all the four shops
Digitally signed
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir AJAY
by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Singh Page 4 of 46
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:51:10 +0530
were occupied by tenants out of which three shops were got
vacated by the petitioner. It is argued that petitioner wants to
evict the respondent so that he can sell the property at very
higher rate.
6. It is further averred that the petitioner purchased suit property
from Sh. Mulakh Raj Juneja in 1997. Right after the
purchase, the petitioner pressurized respondent to vacate the
subject property. Since respondent did not vacate the subject
property, the petitioner instituted eviction petition against
respondent under section 14(1)(b) of DRC Act. In the said
eviction petition, it was alleged that respondent sublet the
property to Dr. Manpreet Kaur, however the petitioner did not
disclose that Dr. Manpreet Kaur is the wife of the respondent.
The petition was dismissed by the learned Controller on
13.04.2011 and appeal preferred by the petitioner was also
dismissed on 26.04.2014. The second appeal preferred by the
petitioner was also dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi on 29.08.2014. The SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court was also dismissed on 16.03.2015. It is argued that
intention of the petitioner is to harass the respondent by
keeping him entangled in litigation.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has three vacant
shops in the subject property consisting of four shops out of
which one shop is rented out to the respondent. The adjoining
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Page 5 of 46
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:51:19 +0530
shop was under the tenancy of Sh. Tuteja (Chemist). Other
two shops were under the tenancy of Sh. Jain. It is submitted
that said three shops were got vacated by the petitioner
recently and these three shops are lying vacant. The vacancy
of three shops shows that petitioner has no commercial
accommodation need for himself or for his daughters. It is
submitted that the petitioner is not letting out these three
shops as he wants to sell the whole building after getting all
the shops vacated in the building.
8. It is averred that daughters of petitioner namely Ms. Taruna
Kalra, Ms. Jyoti Kalra and Neha Kalra are 37 years, 34 years
and 27 years of age respectively and none of the daughters
have done any business till date. It is submitted that petitioner
has not mentioned the name and type of business which his
daughters wants to start. It is thus argued that the daughters of
the petitioner do not have any requirement of commercial
accommodation, and it is a false story created by the
petitioner to vacate the respondent.
9. It is averred next that the petitioner, his wife and daughters
are the owners of numerous properties. However, the
petitioner has not disclosed all the properties owned,
possessed or rented by him, his wife and daughters. The
petitioner has not disclosed as to which of the properties are
tenanted and did not disclose details of tenants.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir SINGH
Singh PageDate:
6 of 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:51:29 +0530
10.It is averred that Ms. Jyoti Kalra is married in a very rich
family and her husband is the owner of various factories,
including a factory at Maya Puri. It is submitted that Ms.
Jyoti Kalra owns property worth crores of rupees and already
having income of lakhs of rupees. As per income tax return
for the year 2014-15 of Ms. Jyoti Kalra, she has shown her
annual income of about ₹6 lakhs which includes income from
property also.
11.It is further averred that petitioner has falsely alleged that he
is carrying on business of property dealer and of Tent House
from the present property. It is argued that had the
requirement of daughters been genuine then they would have
started their business from recently vacated three shops.
12.It is further averred that the petitioner has misrepresented the
facts. It is submitted that Ms. Jyoti Kalra is married to Sh.
Varun Nagpal and she is living with her in-laws and husband
in Maya Puri. It is argued that she has cordial relations with
her in-laws and that she had a male child 3-4 months back. It
is argued that a housewife who gave birth to a son at the age
of 33 years instead of bringing up the child would not rather
start some new business at this age. It is argued that Ms. Jyoti
Kalra is not dependent on the petitioner.
13.It is further averred that Ms. Neha Kalra, daughter of
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh PagePARIHAR
7 of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:51:38 +0530
petitioner also owns various properties. She has let out one
shop forming part of property bearing no. F-6/2, Model
Town, Delhi to Khalsa Glass House about an year back. It is
argued that had she been in need of any commercial premises
then she could not have let out the said shop. It is also argued
that she is in service and her annual income is already more
than 7 Lacs. and therefore, it can not be imagined that she
will leave service and start some unknown business.
14.It is averred that Ms. Taruna Kalra is also earning more than
5 Lacs per annum and it can not be imagined that she is
dependent on the petitioner.
15.It is thus argued that none of the daughters of the petitioner
are dependent upon him as all the daughters are having
annual income in lakhs of rupees.
16.It is averred that elder daughter of petitioner, Ms. Taruna
Kalra got the degree of BA in 1999 and got her diploma from
Aptima Air Hostess Academy in 2003. She also got the
diploma from Lisa Institute of fashion Private Limited in
1999-2000. It is submitted that she has finished her studies
more than 12 years back. It is further submitted that Ms. Jyoti
Kalra and Ms. Neha Kalra also finished their studies about 10
years and 5 years back respectively. It is thus argued that
daughters could have been accommodated in one of the shopsDigitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 8 of 46
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:51:50
+0530
in the subject property which got recently vacated. It is
argued that this conduct of the petitioner shows that he
concocted false ground of bonafide need after he lost eviction
petition filed on the ground of subletting. It is also submitted
that the petitioner was having vacant shops in property
bearing no. F-14/16 Model Town, Delhi, the petitioner could
have given any shop from the said property to his daughters.
17.It is further averred that petitioner is the owner of property
bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi comprising of four
shops out of which one shop was let out to Guru Kripa
Enterprises a few months back. Second shop was let out to
Divine Petals about two years back. Third shop was let out to
Spice Hotspot about 3-4 years back and fourth shop was let
out to M/s Anytime about four years back. It is therefore
argued that had the petitioner been in need of commercial
property for himself or for his daughters then he could not
have let out these four shops. It is argued that after filing of
affidavit of leave to defend, the shop occupied by Guru Kripa
Enterprises got vacated in August, 2017 which was let out
recently by the petitioner to Sh. Tarun Nagpal who is carrying
out business of readymade garments in the name of ‘Bliss’. It
is argued that one shop on the first floor of property bearing
no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi was also vacant which was
let out to Sh. Pankaj Jindal 2-3 months back.
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
by AJAY SINGH
PagePARIHAR
9 of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:51:56 +0530
18.It is averred that present property i.e., H-7A, Model Town,
Delhi is about 500 sq. Yds. in which on one side there are
four shops and on other side (front side) there are four
commercial rooms which are vacant and lying locked. It is
thus argued that these commercial rooms can be utilized by
petitioner for his needs.
19.It is further averred that petitioner has not filed site plan of
entire building instead petitioner has filed site plan showing
only shop in dispute. It is argued that petitioner has concealed
the fact of other shops by not filing site plan of entire
building.
20.It is next averred that the wife of the petitioner Ms. Rani
Kalra is the owner of commercial property bearing no. H-3,
Model Town, Delhi having area of 450 sq. yds. It is thus
argued that wife of the petitioner is in possession of three
commercial rooms situated on the ground floor which are
lying vacant. It is argued that this fact is also concealed by the
petitioner.
21.It is submitted that present petition is barred by Order 2 rule
2 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (herein after referred as
CPC). It is argued that present ground of bonafide
requirement could have been taken by petitioner in previous
eviction petition filed on the ground of subletting.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 10 of 46 SINGH Date: PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:52:01 +0530
22.It is averred that the petitioner has concealed the fact that his
wife Ms. Rani Kalra had also filed eviction petition against
Sh. Jai Narain in respect of one shop in property bearing no.
H-3, Model Town, Delhi wherein the ground for eviction is
same as in the present petition.
23.It is averred that petitioner is having his office of sale
purchase of properties in bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town,
Delhi, however it is falsely stated by petitioner that he is
carrying out his property dealing business from present
property i.e., H-7A, Model Town, Delhi. It is argued that
whole of the first floor of property bearing no. F-14/16,
Model Town, Delhi is lying vacant and locked.
24.It is lastly averred that Ms. Rani Kalra (wife of petitioner)
sold one commercial property two years back and earned
capital gain of more that ₹2 lakhs. It is argued that had the
petitioner been in need of any commercial property the wife
of petitioner would not have sold the commercial property.
25.The leave to defend is contested by petitioner by filing reply
stating therein that the application for leave to defend moved
by respondent does not make out any triable issue and is an
attempt only to delay the eviction petition and as such,
deserves rejection. The averments made in the leave to defend
have been denied by the petitioner. It is averred that
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
by AJAY SINGH
Page PARIHAR
11 of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:52:06 +0530
unfortunately as the petitioner was not fully aware of facts
when he filed the earlier eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (b) DRC
Act hence could not specifically plead the fact of sub-letting
and assignment by respondent to M/s Herb-e-Hyatt which
was being run by his wife Dr. Manpreet Kaur Ahuja and his
brother Gurbir Singh and due to said reason, petitioner could
not succeed. It is averred that respondent himself is a
government employee being a Doctor in a government
hospital and can not carry on any commercial activity or
practice but he has been doing so, by playing fraud upon the
Government. It is submitted that Ms. Jyoti Kalra and Ms.
Taruna Kalra own a godown at Ghaziabad Border which is let
out to a Transport Company since June 2000 and thus, the
same can also not be used for commercial activity and to
substantiate the same, petitioner has annexed copy of rent
agreement and copy of Income Tax returns. It is reiterated
that petitioner has no other commercial accommodation
available to him except the suit premises. It is stated that
though Ms. Jyoti Kalra has been married to Sh. Varun Nagpal
and is residing at her matrimonial home, she can still be
dependent on petitioner for her need of commercial
accommodation as petitioner has three daughters who have to
succeed to his estate. It is denied that petitioner is owner of
property no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi and it is submitted
that petitioner had purchased only 812 sq feet area in the said
property comprising of one shop, one latrine and one mianiDigitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY by AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
Page SINGH
12 of 46
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:52:14 +0530
constructed above latrine and courtyard with right to use
common passage through sale deed dated 29.10.1997 and said
portion was converted by petitioner into two shops where two
old tenants i.e. Hot Spot Retials Pvt Ltd./ Spice Shop and Sh.
Sanmit Singh of Guru Kripa Enterprises is runing a Samsung
Showroom for last several years. It is further averred that the
shop of Guru Kripa Enterprises was let out more than three
years back. It is stated that shop of M/s Anytime belongs to
his brother Sh. Narender Kalra and shop of M/s Divine Petals
is belonging to the nephew of petitioner Sh. Rahul Kalra and
such, no portion is available to petitioner. It is also submitted
that Ms. Neha Kalra has taken up service at present with a
Gym as she has no commercial space available with her to
start her own venture. It is averred that respondent has failed
to disclose any alternative property available with the
petitioner and his family to meet his current requirement and
thus, no triable issue is raised in the leave to defend.
26.Arguments heard. Record perused.
27.In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under
section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must
establish that:-
i. He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted
premises.
ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 13 of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:52:20 +0530
member of his family dependent upon him.
iii.He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
28.In case of eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act,
the Rent Controller has to see the affidavit filed by the tenant
and the counter affidavit filed by the landlord. The controller
is not required to conduct a full fledged trial and should only
see that if the affidavit of the tenant raise any triable issues.
29.In Precision Steel Engineering Works and Anr. Vs Prem
Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1518″,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held :- “If the averments in the
affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the
satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from
recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon
the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that facts
alleged and disclosed are controverted by the landlord
because the stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly
possible that a tenant may fail to make good the defence
raised by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of
the same are materially different from each other and one
cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when
plausibility has to be shown.”.
30.It was further held :- “Statutory duty is cast on the Controller
to give leave as the legislature uses the expression ‘theDigitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 14 ofby
46 AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:52:33
+0530
Controller shall give’ to the tenant leave to contest if the
affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would
disentitle the landlord for an order for recovery of possession.
The Controller has to look at the affidavit of the tenant
seeking leave to contest. Browsing through the affidavit if
there emerges averment – of facts which on a trial, if believed,
would non-suit the landlord, leave ought to be granted. Let it
be made clear that the statute is not cast in a negative form
by enacting that the Controller shall refuse to give to the
tenant leave to contest the application unless the affidavit
filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the
landlord from obtaining an order etc…. The language of sub-
section 5 of section 25B casts a statutory duty on the
Controller to give to the tenant leave to contest the
application, the only precondition for exercise of jurisdiction
being that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts
as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for
the recovery of 13; possession of the premises on the ground
mentioned in section 14(1) (e).
156/2018 (17th May 2024), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held
that ARC is only required to sift/comb through the application
for leave to defend and to take stand of landlord as genuine. It
was held :- “27. The learned ARC is not required to take a
magnifying glass and minutely scrutinize the averments made
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 15 of 46
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:52:40
+0530
in the Eviction Petition. Once the landlord has stated that he
requires the tenanted property for a particular use, the Courts
are required to believe the statement to be true and genuine,
unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent
material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical. The
learned ARC is further required only to sift/comb through the
averments made in the leave to defend application and see
whether the tenant has established with cogent and material
defence, facts which disentitle the landlord from an Eviction
order. This Court in “Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Prakash“
[2010 SCC OnLine Del 351] has clearly held that:- Praveen
v. Mulak Raj, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7721, “7… The
Controller is required to sift/comb through the application for
leave to defend and the affidavit filed therewith and to see
whether the tenant has given any facts/particulars which
require to be established by evidence and which if established
would disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction. The
test is not of the tenant having controverted/denied the claim
of the landlord and thus disputed questions of fact arising;
the test is to examine the pleas of facts and then to determine
the impact thereof.”.
32.In light of the above guidelines enunciated by Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Hon’ble High court, this court has to see
whether affidavit of leave to defend raises any triable issues.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. SINGHPage 16 ofDate:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:52:46 +0530
Ownership and landlord-tenant relationship
33.In leave to defend affidavit the respondent has not challenged
or denied the ownership or landlord status of petitioner. In
view of the deemed admission of respondent it can be safely
said that there is tenant-landlord relationship between
petitioner and respondent. Hence first ingredient of sec 14(1)
(e) is fulfilled by petitioner.
Bonafide requirement
34.Qua bonafide requirement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999
Supreme Court 100, held :- “…..The crux of the ground
envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the
requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted
premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he
requires his building for his own occupation the Rent
Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the
requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the
clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima
facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a
presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide.
It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate
terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself
without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Page 17by
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh AJAY SINGH
of 46
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:52:53 +0530
deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the
landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to
how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. Facts such
as the cordial relationship between a landlord and her
daughter-in-law or that he is comfortably residing in the
present building are not relevant in judging the bona fides of
the claim of the landlord. Otherwise it would appear that
landlord can think of residing in his or her own residential
building only when cracks develop in the relationship
between him and his other kith and kin”.
35.In Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, it was
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the landlord is the
best judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to
dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he
should live. Bona fide personal need is a question of fact and
should not be normally interfered with.
36.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by
LRs. vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co.observed that the word
`reasonable’, connotes that the requirement or need is not
fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire. The
Word `requirement’ coupled with the word reasonable means
that it must be something more than a mere desire but need
not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. A
reasonable and bona fide requirement is something in
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. SINGH
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 18 of 46
Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:52:59 +0530
between a mere desire or wish on one hand and a compelling
or dire or absolute necessity at the other end. It may be a need
in presenti or within reasonable proximity in the future.
37.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul
Ahad Khan And Ors, 1979 AIR 272, 1979 SCR (2) 1 while
dealing with civil appeal in relation to Jammu & Kashmir
Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 held :- “…The
distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept
in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as
nothing but a desire as the High Court has done in this case.
It seems to us that the connotation of the term ‘need’ or
‘requirement should not be artificially extended nor its
language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it
impossible or extremely difficult for one landlord to get a
decree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very
purpose of the Act which affords the facility of eviction of the
tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds. This
appears to us to be the general scheme of all the Rent Control
Acts, prevalent in other State in the country. This Court has
considered the import of the word requirement and pointed
out that it merely connotes that there should be an element of
need.”
38.In light of above broad guidelines set by Hon’ble Courts, it
has to be seen whether the requirement of petitioner is
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Page 19by
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh AJAY SINGH
of 46
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:53:06 +0530
bonafide or not.
39.It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner
has not come to the court with clean hands; that he has
misrepresented true facts and concealed true facts; for making
easy money, petitioner purchases properties and institute false
litigation against tenants for their ejectment and sells the
property at a high price; that when petitioner purchased the
subject property all four shops were occupied by tenants out
of which three shops were got vacated by petitioner. It is
vehemently argued that petitioner want to evict the
respondent so that he can sell the property at very high rate. It
is argued that petitioner filed another eviction petition against
respondent on the ground of subletting, however petitioner
concealed this fact. It is urged that present petition is barred
by Order 2 rule 2 of CPC and the ground of bonafide
requirement could have been taken by petitioner in previous
eviction petition filed on the ground of subletting.
40.With regard to the argument of the respondent that petitioner
has filed present eviction petition in order to sell the subject
property at higher rate, to my mind, the said contention is
liable to be rejected as the respondent has not mentioned any
earlier incident where the petitioner has done so. Merely
filing of eviction petition does not lead to the conclusion that
the respondent is trying to sell the subject property and the
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. SINGH Page 20Date:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh of 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:53:11 +0530
same merely seems to be an apprehension of the respondent
without any basis.
41.Section 19 of DRC Act provides for restoration of possession
to tenant if the tenanted premises is not used or transferred by
landlord. Section 19 of DRC reads :- “(2) Where a landlord
recovers possession of any premises as aforesaid and the
premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person
for whose benefit the premises are held, within two months of
obtaining such possession, or the premises having been so
occupied are, at any time within three years from the date of
obtaining possession, re-let to any person other than the
evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the
Controller under sub-section (1) or the possession of such
premises is transferred to another person for reasons which
do not appear to the Controller to be bona fide, the
Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf
by such evicted tenant within such time as may be prescribed,
direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the
premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller
thinks fit”.
42.Hence, if the landlord obtains eviction and does not occupy
the premises, let out the same or transfers the possession then
tenant can always apply for restitution under section 19 of the
DRC Act. Therefore, this ground does not raises any triable
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
SINGH Page 21Date:
of 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:53:17 +0530
issue and accordingly stands rejected.
43.As far as earlier eviction petition filed by petitioner is
concerned, the same is a separate cause of action being filed
on the ground of subletting. Each ground mentioned in
section 14 of DRC Act provides for separate ground of
eviction on the basis of different cause of action. The
petitioner has clearly disclosed filing of earlier petition of
subletting in the present petition. Hence, this contention
raised on behlaf of the respondent is meritless.
44.It is next contended on behalf of the respondent that the
present petition is barred by Order 2 rule 2 of CPC. It is
therefore, argued that this relief could have been claimed in
earlier petition filed on the ground of subletting. This
argument is misconceived for two reasons, first, CPC does
not apply to proceedings under Chapter III A of DRC Act
dealing with grounds of eviction enumerated in section 14(1)
(e) and section 14 A, B, C, D of DRC Act and second,
bonafide requirement is different ground of eviction having
separate cause of action. The petitioner may join two cause of
actions, however by itself separate suit filed on the basis of
independent cause of action can not be dismissed due to
operation of bar of Order 2 rule 2 of CPC. It can be
understood by an example :- if a landlord requires a tenanted
house for his bonafide requirement then he can file an
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Page 22 by
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
AJAY SINGH
of 46
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:53:22 +0530
eviction petition on this ground. Suppose the tenant has not
paid rent for last several months then landlord can also file
eviction petition on the ground of non payment of rent. If the
submissions of Ld. Counsel for respondent is taken to be
correct then in this example the landlord has to wait for at
least two months for filing eviction petition for bonafide
requirement as for filing eviction petition on the ground of
non payment of rent landlord has to give notice of two
months for payment of rent. Such interpretation is not only
absurd but also inconsistent with the scheme of section 14 of
DRC Act. Each ground mentioned in section 14 of DRC Act
provides separate cause of action for which a landlord can file
separate eviction petition. In such scenario, the submissions
of Ld. Counsel for respondent in this regard stand rejected.
45.Arguments qua daughters of petitioner.
• Ms. Jyoti Kalra – It is argued that Ms. Jyoti Kalra is
married in a very rich family and her husband is the owner
of various factories, including a factory at Maya Puri; owns
property worth crores; having income of lakhs of rupees;
has shown her annual income of about ₹6 lakhs in her
income tax return inclusive of income from property also;
that she is living with her in-laws and husband in Maya Puri
and having cordial relations with her in-laws and that she
gave birth to a male child 3-4 months back and therefore, it
was contended that housewife who got a son at the age of
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir SinghSINGHPage 23 of 46
Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:53:31 +0530
33 years instead of bringing up the child would not rather
start some business which she has never thought of starting
till the age of 33 as she finished her studies about 10 years
back. Hence, it was argued strenuously that there is no
bonafide need and she is not dependant on the petitioner.
• Ms. Neha Kalra – It is urged that Ms. Neha Kalra also
owns various properties; let out one shop forming part of
property bearing no. F-6/2, Model Town, Delhi to Khalsa
Glass House about an year back and hence, no need of any
commercial premises else she would have let out the shop ;
she also finished her studies about 5 years back and that she
is in service and her annual income is already more than 7
Lacs. It is contended vehemently that it can not be imagined
that she will leave her service and start some new business.
• Ms. Taruna Kalra – It is submitted that elder daughter of
petitioner, Ms. Taruna Kalra got the degree of BA in 1999
and got her diploma from Aptima Air Hostess Academy in
2003 and another diploma from Lisa Institute of fashion
Private Limited in 1999-2000 as well as finished her studies
more than 12 years back. It is argued that Ms. Taruna Kalra
is also earning more than 5 Lacs per annum and she is also
not dependent on petitioner.
46.With regard to dependency of married daughter, the Hon’ble
High Court of Delhi in Swaranjit Singh & Anr. vs Shrimati
Saroj Kapoor RC.REV. 21/2023 held as follows:- “11. This
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 24 of 46
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:53:37
+0530
Court finds that the bona fide requirement of a married
daughter in an Eviction Petition under section 14(1)(e) of the
DRC Act, has been considered and a consistent view has been
taken that the requirement of a married daughter, would be
t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e R e s p o n d e n t / L a n d l a d y.
11.1 In a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Sunder Singh Talwar vs. Kamal Chand Dugar, in which,
while dealing with a similar factual situation, it was held that
it is not a universal rule that a married daughter can never be
dependent upon her parents: “30. The Supreme Court
in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397:
AIR 2002 SC 2256, held as follows: “”24. We are of the
opinion that the expression “for his own use” as occurring
in Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act cannot be narrowly
construed. The expressions must be assigned a wider, liberal
and practical meaning. The requirement is not the
requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the
landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to
fulfill the requirement he must himself physically occupy the
premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a
person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is
dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the
requirement of the landlord for his own use. In the several
decided cases referred to hereinabove we have found the pari
materia provisions being interpreted so as to include the
requirement of the wife, husband, sister, children includingDigitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
SINGH Page 25Date:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh of 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:53:43 +0530
son, daughter, a widowed daughter and her son, nephew,
coparceners, members of family and dependents and kith and
kin in the requirement of landlord as “his” or “his own”
requirement and user. Keeping in view the social or socio-
religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular
section of society or a particular 2018 SCC Online Del
8376 region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be
obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected
with him to make him economically independent so as to
support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such
obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and
such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If
the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person
other than the landlord himself the Court shall with
circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such
person can be considered to be the requirement of the
landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or
identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to
satisfy the requirement of the first query……………” 32.
Hence, it is not a universal rule that married daughter cannot
be dependent upon her father. Even otherwise in my opinion,
in the present day and age it would be futile to argue that
once the daughter is married she ceases to be responsibility
of her father. A daughter has equal rights in the estate of the
parents in case of intestate death. There can be no reason as
to why the father would not like to settle his daughter inDigitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
by AJAY SINGH
Page 26 of 46
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:53:50 +0530
business or profession in the same way as he would like to
settle his son. The plea to the contrary in the present facts is
completely misplaced. It may also be noted that in the present
case there is a clear and categorical averment that the
daughter does not own any other property in Delhi and is
dependent on the father to be settled. 11.2 This Court is in
agreement with this interpretation. In keeping with the times,
a married daughter is certainly a member of the family of the
Respondent/Landlady and her requirement could be
considered as the requirement of the Respondent/Landlady.”.
47.Similarly, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Anil Kumar Gupta
vs Deepika Verma RC. REV. 138/2015 held “12.
Customarily or in common parlance a dependent would be
defined as any person who is reliant on another either for
financial or physical support for sustenance of life. It is
pertinent to note that the word dependent or as to what
constitutes a family has nowhere been defined in the Delhi
Rent Control Act. Rather, the legislators consciously and
deliberately have used the words “any member of family
dependent on the landlord” instead of defining a clear degree
of relations so as to construe a wider meaning to the
aforesaid words as man is a social creature and part of a
complex societal system involving myriad of relations from
which he cannot be isolated. It is significant to understand
that the dependency is not restricted to financial or physical
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 27 PARIHAR
of 46
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:53:55
+0530
but will also include emotional reliance on another person.
Reliance in this regard is placed on the findings of this court
in M/S. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs B.K. Soni; AIR 1994
Delhi 167, wherein the court observed that the social set up of
our society is such where a married daughter continues to
enjoy a place of pride in her maternal home and therefore
while considering the requirement of the landlord her married
daughter and her expected visits cannot be lost sight of.
Similarly in Sain Dass v. Madan Lal; 1972 Ren CJ (SN) 8
(Delhi), this Court has acknowledged that the word “himself”
has to be construed to mean “himself” as cohabiting with his
family members with whom he is normally accustomed to live.
Therefore, contrary to the submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioner financial or physical incapacitation cannot
be the sole premises for determining dependency on
another.”.
48.Thus, dependency is not only physical or financial but
emotional too. Ms. Jyoti Kalra may be physically and
financially dependent on her husband, however she seems to
be dependent emotionally on the petitioner i.e., her father. In
Indian social structure, married daughters continue to be part
of their parents family, in fact, often look upto their parents
for the purpose of settling not only in their marriage but also
for their employment in order to lead a financially
independent life. It is argued on behalf of respondent that
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 28 of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:54:00 +0530
since she is married and living with her husband who is very
rich having sufficient means, therefore she can not be said to
be dependent on petitioner. However, the respondent has not
averred or shown how many properties are owned by Sh.
Varun Nagpal as well as their details and location and
whether such property is suitable for her to start a new
business. Merely alleging that her husband is rich and has
factory is not suffice. Respondent has specifically averred that
her husband owns a factory at Maya puri without giving
further details. This court fails to understand, as to how a
business can be started in a factory. How it can be suitable for
any other business. The accommodation should not only be
available but has to be suitable too. The petitioner can not be
faulted for his desire to settle her daughter though married as
would be done by any respectful father. In such circumstances
it can be safely said that Ms. Jyoti Kalra is dependent on her
father for her need of commercial space for starting new
business.
49.It is next submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that
relation between Ms. Jyoti Kalra and her husband are not
cordial whereas it is argued on behalf of respondent that their
relation is cordial and they were recently blessed with a child.
The said contention is devoid of any merit as to my mind, a
women should not be left at the mercy of her husband or in-
laws. If a father wants to support her daughter to establish her
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
Page 29 of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:54:05 +0530
business instead of her husband then the same can not be
taken as ground to treat his need on that score as concocted
and fanciful. The husband of the daughter of the petitioner
may be rich, he may be having factories but that does not
mean that she has to depend only on her husband to establish
her own business. The contention on behalf of the respondent
that Ms. Jyoti Kalra can not be expected to start a new
business instead of child rearing completely illogical and
misconceived. A woman can do a job or start a business and
at the same time can look after her child. Expecting a woman
to leave a job or not to start a business for her child is a
regressive thinking which needs to be done away with. Such
chauvinistic arguments are required to be rejected. This
argument has travelled well beyond safeguarding tenancy
thus turning into disrespect to the ambition of women. Ex
facie, this argument is not justified in any sense and hence
stands rejected.
50.It is also contended that all three daughters have completed
their studies many years back and therefore the desire to now
start their business seems to be fanciful. This argument is also
devoid of merits as a person may start a business at his
pleasing and at any stage of life. It is not uncommon that
people often leave their jobs and start some startup. In the
present case, it can not be expected from daughter to first
leave their job/service and then start business.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. SINGH Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 30 of 46 Date: PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:54:10 +0530
51.At the cost of repetition it is to be reiterated that the
obligation of the petitioner being a father to settle her married
daughter to make her economically independent cannot be
thrown away merely for the reason that her husband is very
rich and owns factory vis a vis the fact that the respondent has
failed to show any suitable accommodation available with
husband of Ms. Jyoti Kalra. Further, merely for the reason
that the proposed business intended to be started is not
disclosed by petitioner is not sufficient to dispute the bonafide
need of the petitioner. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that
all daughters are well qualified and their qualifications have
already been disclosed in petition. It is argued that the nature
of business will be pertaining to their qualifications. It has
been disclosed that Ms. Taruna Kalra has diploma in fashion
designing and aviation, and Ms. Neha Kalra has diploma in
dietician and nutrition. The contention that daughters of
petitioner namely Ms. Taruna Kalra, Ms. Jyoti Kalra and
Neha Kalra are 37 years, 34 years and 27 years of age
respectively and none of the daughters have done any
business till date is ex facie meritless as merely lack of
experience can not stand in the way to start a new business.
52.In Ram Babu Agarwal vs Jay Kishan Das Civil Appeal No.
1388 of 2003, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a person
can start new business even if he has no experience. It was
held as follows “6. However, as regards the question
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY Page 31by
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:54:16 +0530
of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting
the landlord’s petition for eviction was that in the petition the
landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son
Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises
in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has
no experience in the footwear business and was only helping
his father in the cloth business, hence there was
no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can
start a new business even if he has no experience in the new
business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the
new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false
claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not
have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are
successful in the new business also.” In view of the court,
absence of experience can not by itself create triable issue.
53.It is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent that all three
daughters are earning having income in lacs hence they are
not dependent on petitioner. This argument is also without
merits for a simple reason that a person can not be expected
to sit idle at home in the hope that he/she will start business
as an when a premises is available for starting business. Any
self respecting person will not be unemployed despite having
qualifications. Since all daughters are doing some job they
would be earning, however due to this earning it can not be
said that they are not dependent on petitioner for their
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
SINGH
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 32Date:
of 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:54:22 +0530
commercial need.
54.The deposition by the respondent does not raises any terrible
issues so far as bonafide requirement is concerned. The facts
in hand show that the petitioner genuinely requires the
tenanted shop and therefore, the bonafide need stands duly
established by the petitioner. Once it is proved to the
satisfaction of the court that need is really bonafide then
adverse inference cannot be drawn. Hence, this court is of the
view that need of the petitioner is bonafide and a real one
rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated and
same is duly proved on record.
Availability of alternate reasonable suitable
accommodation
55.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md.
Ehshan & Ors. 2025 INSC 271, recently reiterated that tenant
cannot dictate landlord to get another property vacated for
bona fide need. It was held :- “10. The law with regard to
eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of
bona fide need of the landlord is well settled. The need has to
be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises
vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his
property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need.
The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 33 of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:54:54
+0530
landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit
for eviction.
56.Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Shri Om Prakash Bajaj vs
Shri Chander Shekhar 2003IAD(DELHI)669,
102(2003)DLT746, 2003(67)DRJ674 observed “11. …
Suitability of the alternative premises cannot be determined
by mere counting the rooms. But it has to be determined
keeping in view the totality of the facts, the nature of need
pleaded by the landlord, his and his family’s standard and
style of life and the purpose to which the landlord wants to
actually put it after coming it into possession. The landlord
has right to choose which of the accommodation is required
by him for himself and the members of his family…”.
57.It is further observed “14. A landlord, who did not want his
tenant to occupy the premises may terminate the tenancy or
upon efflux of time stipulated in the lease ask the tenant to
quit in accordance with the provision of Transfer of Property
Act. The Rent Acts have put a clog on this right. The landlord
cannot now evict the tenant on his whims and fancy. He has
to satisfy the Controller about existence of one or more of the
ground of eviction specified in Section 14(1) of the Act. Right
of landlord is not absolute but curtailed by various provisions
of Rent Acts. Crux of the ground of eviction under clause (e)
on which eviction of the petitioner is sought is that the
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 34 of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:55:01 +0530
requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenant
premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he
requires the suit premises for her own residence the Rent
Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the
requirement is not bonafide. Once the bonafide of the
requirement of the premises for occupation is established by
the landlord the tenant cannot ask the landlord how else he
adjust without disturbing his own possession in the suit
premises. Therefore, it will be unnecessary to try to ascertain
as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself at
another place…”.
58.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh &
Anr. v. Sudarshan Kumar & Anr. in case bearing Civil Appeal
Nos. 231-232 of 2021 observed that it is not for the tenant to
dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business
venture or to suggest that the available space with the
landlord will be adequate. It has been further observed that
the genuine need of the appellant to secure vacant possession
of the premises for the proposed business is found to be
established. The adequacy or otherwise of the space available
with the landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant
to dictate.
59.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh
Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 case held that for a petition
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 35 of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:55:08 +0530
for eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act to
succeed, the concept of bonafide need is required to be
looked at practically in view of realities of life, neither a too
liberal nor a too conservative approach must be taken. If the
alternate accommodation available does not satisfy the need
of the landlord or the convenience or safety of the landlord
and their family members, the same cannot be held to be
reasonable suitable accommodation. It was further held that
the Court must consider the profession/vocation of the
landlord and its family members, their style of living, habits,
and their background.
60.In Nirmala Kumari & Ors vs Girish Kakkar & Anr RC.REV.
156/2018 (17th May 2024), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held
that the Court is not to sit in the armchair of the landlord. It
was held :- “29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has
repeatedly held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the
landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is
to be best utilized by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his
property and is the best person to decide which property is to be utilized
in what way. The respondent cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to
utilize his property. If the respondents/landlord states that the alternate
premises are unsuitable to meet his/her needs, the Court is to believe the
same. The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific
requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard.”.
61.In light of above pronouncements it has to be seen whether
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
AJAY Page 36 of 46by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:55:15 +0530
respondent has been able to raise any triable issues so far as
alternate accommodation is concerned.
62.It is contented on behalf of the respondent that three shops
were got vacated by the petitioner recently and the same are
lying vacant and that the daughters could have started their
business from recently vacated three shops. In reply to leave
to defend, the petitioner has averred that petitioner is carrying
on his business of tent house and property dealer from the
present property which comprises tenanted premises. It is
submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that after the vacation
of three shops, the petitioner has removed partition wall and
is using the space as one shop for his business of ten house
and property dealer. Ld. Counsel for respondent has argued
that petitioner is doing his business from property bearing no.
F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi.
63.The respondent has neither filed any rejoinder to the reply/
counter affidavit of petitioner nor has filed any documentary
proof with his leave to defend. Merely making bald allegation
that 3 shops are lying vacant is not sufficient when petitioner
has categorically stated in reply/counter affidavit that these
shops are being used by him for his tent and property dealer
business and his is not carrying on his business from property
bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi. The respondent
chose not to file any rejoinder to controvert the reply/counter
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 37 of 46
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:55:22
+0530
affidavit of petitioner for the reasons best known to him. To
my mind, these contentions are liable to be rejected as there is
is nothing on record to substantiate the same i.e any visiting
card containing the details of the work being carried on by the
petitioner from the property bearing no. F-14/16, Model
Town, Delhi or photograph of any hoarding or banner
displaying the same.
64.In such circumstances it can not be said that 3 shops are lying
vacant in subject property. Even otherwise there is nothing on
record to substantiate if the said shops are suitable for the
requirement of the petitioner. It is well settled now that it is
the petitioner himself or herself who is the best person to
explain as to what is his/ her necessity and tenant can not
dictate landlord as to how he may fulfill his needs.
65.It is argued on behalf of the respondent that petitioner is the
owner of property bearing number F-14/16, Model Town,
Delhi. In this property, there are four shops. One of the shop
was let out to Guru Kripa Enterprises a few months back.
Second shop was let out to Divine Petals about two years
back. Third shop was let out to Spice Hotspot about 3-4 years
back and forth shop was let out to M/s Anytime about four
years back. It is argued that had the petitioner been in need of
commercial property for himself or for his daughters then he
could not have let out these four shops.
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh PagePARIHAR
38 of 46
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:55:27
+0530
66.It is next contended on behalf of the respondent that after
filing of affidavit of leave to defend, the shop occupied by
Guru Kripa Enterprises got vacated in August 2017 which
was let out recently by the petitioner to Sh. Tarun Nagpal who
is carrying out business of readymade garments in the name
and style of ‘Bliss’. It is argued that these shops should not
have been let out by petitioner if he wanted to settle his
daughters.
67.In reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that
there is no vacant shop in property bearing no. F-14/16,
Model Town, Delhi. It is deposed that he purchased only 812
sq. Feet of this property which was converted into two shops.
It is deposed that one shop was let out to Hot Spot Retails
Pvt. Ltd./Spice Shop and another shop let out to Guru Kirpa
Enterprises, both shops were let out more then 3 years back
from filing of present petition. It is also deposed that Guru
Kripa Enterprises vacated the shop and the same was let out
to Sh. Tarun Nagpal who is carrying on business in the name
of ‘Bliss’ at a monthly rent of ₹1,27,700/-. Petitioner has also
filed rent agreement. It is also deposed that other two shops
namely Divine Petals and M/s Anytime do not belong to
petitioner. It is deposed that shop with Devine Petal is owned
by his nephew Sh. Rahul Kalra and shop with M/s Anytime is
owned by his brother Sh. Narender Kalra. It is also deposed
that Devine Petal has vacated the shop and same has been let
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh by39AJAY
Page of 46 SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:55:38 +0530
out to M/s Lechero. Perusal of rent agreement reveals that
two shops on ground floor in this property are owned and let
out by Sh. Narender Kalra and Sh. Rahul Kalra. The
respondent has not controverted this fact by way of any
rejoinder, hence both rent agreement sufficiently prove that
two shops on ground floor of this property are not owned by
petitioner. Other two shops owned by petitioner are already
let out. Landlord can not be expected to forego additional
income by way of rent to start a business when he has his
own property. Moreover, the petitioner being landlord is best
person to decide which property is to be utilized in what way,
the controller shall not sit in the armchair of the landlord and
dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to
be best utilized by him.
68.It is also argued that one shop on the first floor of property
bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi was also vacant
which was let out to Sh. Pankaj Jindal 2-3 months back. In
reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that he has
not concern with other the floor in this property. Petitioner
has filed rent agreement qua first floor, perusal of which
shows that Sh. Tapin Kalra is owner of first floor and he has
let out first floor to My Exotic Holidays. This document
makes it clear that petitioner do not own the first floor, hence
the argument of Ld. Counsel for respondent is again
meritless.
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
PARIHAR
Page 40 of 46
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:55:45
+0530
69.The next contention is that present property i.e., H-7A,
Model Town, Delhi is about 500 sq. Yds. in which on one
side there are four shops and on other side (front side) there
are four commercial rooms which are vacant and lying
locked. It is argued that these commercial rooms can be
utilized by petitioner for his needs. In reply/counter affidavit
the petitioner has deposed that the area of this property is 435
sq.yards and there are only four shops. Other area of this
property is used for residential purpose. It is also deposed that
there is no other commercial rooms in this property. The said
contention is also liable to be rejected as respondent did not
controvert the above fact by way of rejoinder and as whether
the four commercial rooms are vacant or not is not
substantiated. There is complete lack of details as to when the
same were got vacated; no photograph has been annexed in
order to show whether the same are lying locked ; there is no
mention regarding the dimensions of the rooms in order to
assess the suitability thereof. Accordingly, there is no merit in
the argument in this regard raised on behalf of the respondent.
70.It is next argued that the wife of the petitioner Ms. Rani
Kalra is the owner of commercial property bearing number
H-3, Model Town, Delhi measuring 450 sq. yds. and is in
possession of three commercial rooms situated on the ground
floor which are lying vacant. It is urged that the petitioner has
concealed the fact that his wife Ms. Rani Kalra had also filed
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh PagePARIHAR
41 of 46
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:55:51
+0530
eviction petition against Sh. Jai Narain in respect of one shop
in property bearing no. H-3, Model Town, Delhi wherein the
ground for eviction is same as in the present petition. Again,
the said contentions are unsubstantiated and lack sufficient
details as to the dimensions of the commercial rooms and as
to when the same got vacated and as to who were the tenants
therein. Merely for the fact that there was an eviction petition
filed by the wife on the basis of same ground cannot come in
the way of the present petition if the said shops are not
available and suitable for the purpose of the petitioner. In
reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that there is
no commercial space available in this property. It is deposed
that the property is required to settle three daughters hence
another eviction petition filed by wife of petitioner was
required to be filed. Another eviction petition is subjudice and
in such circumstances it can not be said that the shop in this
property is available. The requirement of present ground of
eviction is that alternative property should be available, since
there is tenant in this shop for which eviction petition is being
contested same can not be said to be ‘available’ with in the
meaning of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. Hence, the
pendency of another eviction petition is of no consequence.
The arguments raised on behalf of the respondent will not
suffice to overthrow the genuine need of the petitioner only
on the basis of bald averments and assertions.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
SINGHPage 42 ofDate:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:56:01 +0530
71.Next it is submitted that Ms. Rani Kalra (wife of petitioner)
sold one commercial property two years back and earned
capital gain of more that ₹2 lakhs. It is argued that had the
petitioner been in need of any commercial property the wife
of petitioner could not have sold the commercial property. In
reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that his wife
has not sold any property. The respondent has not provided
details as to which property has been sold by Ms. Rani Kalra.
The said contention is meritless due to lack of details with
regard to sale and non availability thereof.
72.It is also submitted that the petitioner, his wife and daughters
are the owners of numerous properties. However, the
petitioner has not disclosed all the properties owned,
possessed or rented by him, his wife and daughters. The
petitioner has not disclosed as to which of the properties are
with tenants and did not disclose details of tenants.
73.In reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that Ms.
Neha Kalra is the owner of a shop bearing no. F-6/2, Model
Town, Delhi which has already been disclosed in petition. It
is further deposed that she has let out the shop to Khalsa
Glass House in the year 2009. It is also deposed that Ms. Jyoti
Kalra and Ms. Taruna Kalra owns godown in Gaziabad, UP
which is let out to transport company since June 2000. It is
clear that petitioner has disclosed other property of his
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
SINGH Page 43Date:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh of 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:56:07 +0530
daughters, however these properties are already let out and
same can not be said to be available for staring business by
any of them. The respondent has not provided details as to
what other properties are owned and possessed by petitioner,
his wife and daughters. This contentions also hold no merit as
it was for the tenant to substantiate the availability of other
numerous properties and details thereof in his application for
leave to defend and not for the landlord to disclose the names
of all the tenants in the properties, if not vacant. The burden
cannot be conveniently shifted by the tenant on the landlord
and thus, same cannot be treated as a triable issue.
74.It is contended that petitioner has not filed site plan of entire
building instead petitioner has filed site plan showing only
shop in dispute. It is argued that petitioner has concealed the
fact of other shops by not filing site plan of entire building.
This contention is also meritless as the respondent has not
placed on record any counter site plan in order to contradict
the site plan filed on behalf of the petitioner. Even otherwise
the purpose of site plan is to outline and demarcate the
property in question hence merely not showing other property
in site plan will not raise any triable issue.
75.In written submission it is argued Ld. Counsel for respondent
that petitioner have also one another property bearing no.
102, Tagore Park Extension, Model Town, Delhi. This
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh SINGH
Page 44 of 46 Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:56:38
+0530
argument can not be dealt with as controller has to limit the
findings on the grounds taken in leave to defend affidavit.
Since this ground has not been taken in leave to defend same
does not deserve to be dealt with.
76.Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh,
has specified that the Leave to Defend to a tenant cannot be
granted on mere asking or in a routine manner as it will defeat
the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter
III-A of the Act and what has to be seen while granting leave
to defend is that there is a strong prima facie case against the
landlord who is seeking eviction. In the matter at hand, no
ground is made out to grant leave to defend.
77.The said contentions raised questioning the non availability
of alternative accommodation of petitioner are also devoid of
any merit being unsubstantiated and on the contrary, makes it
manifest that the said shops/space are not available to the
petitioner for his needs and thus cannot be considered as
alternative accommodation by any stretch of imagination.
78.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the
considered opinion that respondent has failed to raise any
triable issue vide his leave to defend application. The
application for leave to defend is hereby dismissed.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. SINGHPage 45 Date:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh of 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:56:44 +0530
79.Consequently, petitioner has proved all the ingredients of
section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, hence petitioner is entitled for
an eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing
the respondent to vacate the suit property one shop on ground
floor of property bearing no. No. H-7/A, Model Town III,
Delhi, as indicated in red color in the site plan annexed to the
petition filed with the eviction petition, in terms of Section
14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The
petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to obtain possession
thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from
the date of this order.
80.No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:56:50
+0530
Announced in Open Court (Ajay Singh Parihar)
on 11.06.2025. ACJ-cum-ARC-North
Rohini Court/ Delhi
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 46 of 46
[ad_2]
Source link