Delhi District Court
Rameshwar Dayal Sharma vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union … on 31 July, 2025
In the Court of SCJcumRC, (West District) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma CNR No. DLWT03-002750-2020 RC ARC No: 60/20 Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Sharma (Since Deceased) Through his legal heirs and representatives I) Smt. Sudesh Kaushik W/o Sh. Brahamdutt Kaushik, R/o A-539, Gali No. 1, Nathu Colony, Nathu Pura, Burari, Delhi-110084 II) Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma, R/o 40/572, 1st Floor, New Moti Nagar, Delhi-110015 III) Sh. Umesh Kumar Sharma, R/o B-239, Karampura, Delhi-110015 IV) Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, R/o 27/407, New Moti Nagar, Delhi-110015 V) Sh. Brijesh Kumar Sharma, R/o B-239, Karampura, Delhi-110015 ......Petitioners/Applicants Versus Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.) Trough it's President, Sh. Jagjit Singh B-239, Karampura Delhi-110015. Also At: Sh. Jagjit Singh President of Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.) Son of Late Sh. Pyare Lal, RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 1 / 50 Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:05:56 +0530 R/o RZ-30, South Extension Part-II, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059. .....Respondent/Tenant Date of Filing : 22.12.2020 Date of Judgment : 31.07.2025 JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are, that on 21.12.2020 the petitioner filed
this petition Under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act“) praying to this Court to pass an order for
eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent/Tenant
(hereinafter referred to as ‘respondent’) in respect of the tenanted premises i.e.
Premises consisting of Portion/Room measuring approx. 12′.6 X 16′.6′,
forming part of property no. B-239, Karampura, Delhi.
AVERMENTS BY PETITIONERS IN THE PETITION
2. That the Petitioner is a peace loving Senior citizen of India aged about 83
years, and is residing with his family at his above mentioned address. It is
submitted, that the Petitioner is a retired person having retired from Delhi
Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd., Delhi.
3. That it is further submitted, that the Delhi Administration had got
constructed Janta Flats in Karampura, Delhi which were allotted to
employees/labours working in the private sector, factories/mills of Delhi
Cloth Mill/Swatantra Bharat Mill/Campa Cola etc., and accordingly, the
Petitioner was also allotted one Flat bearing no. B-239, Karampura, Delhi
110015 measuring 33.11 sq. Mtrs. consisting of Two rooms, one kitchen,
one W.C., front courtyard and an outback, vide Allotment Letter dated 1st
Digitally signed by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.31 16:06:07 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 2 / 50
October 1963, issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Rajpur
Road, Delhi. It is further submitted, that in the year 1977, the Delhi
Administration had decided to grant the ownership of the said flats to their
respective allottees upon payment of nominal amount.
4. Accordingly, the Petitioner vide his application dated 2 nd May, 1979 had
also applied for ownership of the said flat, and had paid the requisite
amount as was prescribed by the Labour Department, Delhi Administration
and subsequently, a Lease and Conveyance Deed dated 21st April, 1982 was
executed in favour of the Petitioner by the Delhi Administration, through
the President of India, which was duly registered upon the execution of the
aforesaid Lease and Conveyance Deed dated 21st April, 1982, and pursuant
to that Petitioner became the owner of the said flat.
5. It is further contended, that in the year 1979-80, one of the close friend of
the Petitioner namely, Shri Pyare Lal, who was also working in Swatantra
Bharat Mills, one of the subsidiary of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills
Co., was terminated from his employment and his services and since the
said Shri Pyare Lal had no other source of income to maintain the family of
three sons and one daughter, he desired to run a Labour Union Office from
the tenanted premises and requested the Petitioner to allow him to use the
space available in the outback of his said flat, for the said purpose. Being a
close friend of the Petitioner, the latter out of trust and taking into view the
family condition of the said Shri Pyare Lal, had built a kutcha room
(wooden room) therein, and allowed his trade union, i.e.. the Respondent to
use the said room for running a Union office, purely on compassionate
grounds. Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:06:22 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 3 / 50
6. It is further stated, that after some time, the said Shri Pyare Lal, in the
capacity of the President of the Respondent, requested the Petitioner to
construct a pucca room in place of the wooden room in the said outback of
his flat, and agreed to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 40/- (Rupees Forty only)
as rent for the said pucca room, to which the Petitioner agreed. Accordingly,
the Petitioner with his own funds constructed a pucca room in the outback
attached to his said flat , hereinafter referred to as “the tenanted premises”,
which he thereafter let out to the Respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/-
(Rupees Forty Only). It is further submitted, that the said Shri Pyare Lal at
the time of taking the said room/tenanted premises on rent, assured the
Petitioner, that as and when the Petitioner or his family would need/require
the said portion/tenanted premises, he would vacate the same and shift his
office to some other place.
7. That it is further averred, that the said Shri Pyare Lal passed away sometime
in the year 1990, and after the death of Shri Pyare Lal, his son, Shri Jagjit
Singh, who was working with his father, took over the presidency/reigns of
the Respondent herein, and requested the Petitioner to let him continue to
use the tenanted premises and to continue the said Union office therefrom
on the same monthly rental which was being paid by the Respondent, to
which the Petitioner agreed. The Respondent further assured the Petitioner,
that he would vacate the said tenanted premises as and when requested by
the Petitioner.
8. It is further averred, that the family of the Petitioner consist’s of:-
a. Shri Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, the petitioner himself, aged about 84
years;
b. Smt. Krishan Lata Sharma, the wife Petitioner, aged about 83 years;
RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:06:59 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 4 / 50
c. Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, son of the Petitioner;
d. Smt. Manju Sharma, wife of Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma;
e. Mr. Lakshay Sharma, son of shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 24
years:
f. Ms. Shristi Sharma, daughter of thei Umesh Kumar Sharma, aged about
21 years:
g. Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, son of the Petitioners
h. Smt. Vibha Sharma, Sharma: wife of Shri Brijesh Kumar
i.Mr. Pranshu Sharma, son of Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 21
years:
j. Mr. Aayush Sharma, son of Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 20
years:
k. Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, son of the Petitioner:
l. Smt. Kiran Sharma, wife of Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma:
m. Mr. Shubham Sharma, son of Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, aged about
23 years;
n. Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, son of the Petitioner:
o. Smt. Shobha Sharma, Sharma; wife of Shri Dinesh Kumar
p. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, son of Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 25
years; andq. Mr. Sagar Sharma, son of Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 21
years;
Besides the above, the Petitioner is also having one daughter, namely Smt.
Sudesh Kaushik, wife of Shri Brahamdutt Kaushik, living in Delhi. The said
Smt. Sudesh Kaushik is also having one daughter, Ms. Nisha Kaushik, and one
RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA
SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:07:23
+0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 5 / 50
son, Shri Summet Kaushik, who is also married and having two small children.
The said Smt. Sudesh Kaushik and her family also frequently visit and stay with
the Petitioner at the house of the Petitioner, especially on festivals, birthdays,
functions and holidays etc. The Petitioner in also having an elder brother, who is
living in Barrot, Uttar Pradesh with his family and one sister living in Kithor,
Distt. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh and both of them also keep visiting and staying with
the Petitioner at his aforesaid house.
9. It is submitted by the petitioner, that over the period of time since the
family of the Petitioner has been increasing and his grandchildren were also
growing in age, including a grand-daughter, the Petitioner got constructed one
more room adjoining the tenanted premises.
10. Since the said rooms still did not suffice for the family of the Petitioner, he
also got constructed one room, a small W.C. and a toilet over and above the
terrace of tenanted premises, i.e., Room No. 6. It is submitted, that while Room
no. 3 is being used as a bedroom by the Petitioner and his wife, Room No. 4 is
being used as a drawing-cum-dining room by the family of the Petitioner, Room
no. 1 is being used as Baithak by the Petitioner for meeting his neighbours and
acquaintances, who generally keep coming to inquire about the health of the
Petitioner and well being. Since the said ground floor of the flat of the Petitioner
has only one small kitchen, the Petitioner has been compelled to convert some
part of Room No. 1 into a small kitchen/pantry, by putting a stone slab. It is
further submitted, that the Room no. 2 was initially being used by the son of the
Petitioner, Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma and his wife, as their bedroom and his
growing-up children also used to sleep with them. However, since the said
grandchildren of the Petitioner were growing up, and the Petitioner required
more living space for his family members, the Petitioner got constructed a room
over and above the tenanted premises, i.e., Room no. 6, and after construction of
the said room, the elder son of the Petitioner, Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, shifted
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:07:33 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 6 / 50
to the said Room No. 6, which he has been using as his bedroom, while the said
Room No. 2 is now being used by the children of Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma,
i.e., Mr. Lakshay Sharma, who is aged about 24 years, who besides being
employed in a private job with AECOM, is simultaneously also
pursuing/completing the course of Master of Business Administration through
correspondence, and Ms. Shrishti Sharma, who is pursuing Bachelors of Arts
course from Delhi University.
11. It is also submitted, that besides the fact, that the said Mr. Lakhaya Sharma in
working and hence requires the said room at night to study for his course, the
Petitioner also wishes to see his said grandson married and settled soon during
his lifetime, and thus would requires an individual room for him and his wife.
The fact of the matter in that the granddaughter of the Petitioner, Ms. Shristhi
Sharma, is now also a grown up girl and requires an independent room, but she
has to share the room either with her parents or with her brother.
12. That it is further submitted, that the Room no. 5 is being used as bedroom
by the other son of the Petitioner, Shri Brjiesh Kumar Sharma and his wife. It is
further submitted, that due to severe paucity of space, the said son of the
Petitioner, Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, had to purchase roof of the Flat No. B-
240, Karampura, Delhi (i.e., the flat above the flat of the Petitioner) in the name
of his wife, Smt. Vibha Sharma and got constructed one room set therein, i.e., the
Room no. 7, which room is being used by the two sons of Shri Brijesh Kumar
Sharma, the elder son of Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Pranshu Sharma, is
pursuing Bachelor of Sciences (B.Sc.) course in Food Nutrition and Dietician
from Manav Rachna University, Faridabad, while his younger son, Mr. Aayush
Sharma, is pursuing Bachelor of Science (B.Sc) course in Animation and VEX
from Sharda University, Noida, and thus, both of them also require an individual
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:07:41 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 7 / 50
room for their respective studies.
13. It is further submitted, that the Petitioner is a retired person, while his
sons, Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, is working in a private publication company in
Narela, and Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma as an Under Secretary in the Ministry of
Commerce and Industry, Govt. Of India, and even collectively don’t have the
means or the money to buy a bigger house/property, as they have to bear all the
household expenses as well as the expenses for the study of their children. Due
to lack of space and to avoid constant bickering in the house, the two sons of the
Petitioner, namely, Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma and Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma,
have to live separately from their parents, brothers and family.
14. It is further averred, that since the said two sons of the Petitioner are already
living separately, it is not possible for either of his other two sons namely, Shri
Umesh Kumar Sharma or Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, to move out or live
separately from the Petitioner and his wife, in their old age as both the sons are
also required by the Petitioner to look after him and his needs, as the Petitioner is
suffering from Chronic Lungs and Pulmonary Disease (COPD)/Bronchitis and
other age related ailments, while his wife, Krishan Lata Sharma in suffering from
Kidney related issues, fluctuating Blood Pressure, Hypothyroidism and
Hypertension, and other age related ailments.
15. It is further submitted, that to live a comfortable life and also to provide a
reasonably suitable, comfortable and dignified life to his family, the Petitioner
needs room each for his two sons and their wife, and one room each for his four
grandchildren staying with him, besides a drawing-cum-dining room to meet and
entertain guests, one pooja room, one guest room for when his brother or
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:08:17 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 8 / 50
daughter and their respective families comes and stays with the Petitioner. The
portions/rooms in occupation of the Petitioner are not at all sufficient to meet the
said needs of his family to live in a comfortable manner, and thus the Petitioner
is in need of the tenanted premises to convert the same into a suitable, sufficient,
proper and separate rooms for his family members.
16. The Petitioner and his family members, due to paucity of rooms, are facing
great hardship on daily basis, which have at times also led to quarrels amongst
the family members. Further under such messed up situation, the Petitioner at
times have to refuse his brother and/or his daughter/sons and/or their family
members from staying overnight at his house, which also leads to the Petitioner
facing huge embarrassment in front of his family members. As such the
Petitioner urgently requires tenanted premises measuring 12.6″ x 16.6″ for
converting same into a room after taking out a portion of the wall from Room no.
2 and connecting the same with a door, which would at least satisfy the needs of
Petitioner to certain extent.
17. It is further averred, that the Petitioner is also the owner of one property
bearing no. D-319, Ground Floor, Khasra no. 187, Gali No. 3. Indra Park,
Najafgarh, Delhi 110043, which he has rented out to one Shri Baijnath at a
monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month. It is
pertinent to mention here, that the petitioner has no other income for his day to
day expenses except the rent from above said property. Moreover, the said
property is located far from the house of the Petitioner, besides the same also
being far from the offices, colleges and universities where the sons of the
Petitioner are working and the grandchildren are studying, respectively.
Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.31
16:08:26
+0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 9 / 50
18. It is further averred, that since the Petitioner had been the only bread winner
for his family comprising of his wife, his four sons and a daughter, he had been
requesting the respondent to increase the rent however, the respondent had been
increasing the monthly rent on a nominal basis, and that too not in accordance
with the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the present monthly
rent in respect of the said tenanted premises is Rs.200/-, much below the market
rent which the tenanted premises may fetch, if rented out today.
19. It is further submitted, that the tenanted premises is being used by the
Respondent since 1978 for running it’s Trade Union office, which is also
affiliated to INTUC (Indian National Congress party), and being the President of
the said union, the Respondent and the union leader, have developed good
relations with various leaders of the Congress party, and he has been using his
said connections/relations to influence Police authorities, and has become the
gunda/bad element of the said area. The said Shri Jagjit Singh has also created
relations with the muscle-man of the area.
20. It is averred, that as and when the Petitioner has requested the
Respondent/Shri Jagjit Singh to vacate the tenanted premises, the respondent had
been threatening the Petitioner with dire consequences of harming him and his
family members. Shri Jagjit Singh has also been calling various members of the
Respondent union and other anti-social elements from Karampura, Nangloi,
Uttam Nagar and other nearby areas and creating ruckus in the tenanted
premises.
21. It is further submitted, that the Respondent in collusion and connivance with
local municipal authorities started paying the House Tax in respect of the
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:08:59 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 10 / 50
tenanted premises, allegedly claiming the same to be it’s property in order to
prove the ownership of the tenanted premises. The said Shri Jagjit Singh has also
got an Election/Voter-I card and passport made in his name from the address of
the tenanted premises. When the Petitioner came to know about the same, and
inquired about the same from him, the said Shri Jagjit Singh, through his gunda
friends, especially one Mr. Ashok Kumar Munna, threatened the Petitioner, and
forcefully and under coercion got signed an application for taking a separate
electricity connection in the name of the Respondent. Although since the said
premises was an outback area, the Respondent has also unauthorizedly obtained
a water connection from the Delhi Jal Board line, without any proper
sanction/connection from the Delhi Jal Board.
However, due to the political clout of the Respondent, no action had
been taken even by the Delhi Jal Board, upon the complaint raised by the
Petitioner in this regard. It is further submitted, that the Petitioner has also made
complaint with the Election Officer/Election Commission to strike off the name
of Shri Jagjit Singh from the list of the Voter’s against the address of the
Petitioner, but no action has been taken against this complaint due to his political
and other connections.
22. It is also submitted, that undoubtedly the said Shri Jagjit Singh is a man of
means and is having a property at RZ-30, South Extension, Part-II, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi-110059, entirely in his control and occupation. It is averred, that the
Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.) is a registered trade union however
the Respondent has never conducted any elections thereof and the said Shri Jagjit
Singh has elected himself as the President, his younger son as the Treasurer, who
is working in a private firm, and the said Ashok Kumar Munna as one of the
office bearer thereof, respondent with a view to harass and pressurize the
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:09:18 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 11 / 50
Petitioner, had got installed a CCTV outside the tenanted premises facing the
portion in occupation of the Petitioner and when the Petitioner complained about
the same with the Police Authorities, the local Police Official favored the
Respondent by stating that these camera are necessary for security purposes.
However, when the matter was brought to the notice of the office of DCP
(West), the local police authorities had to stop the Respondent from installing
cameras facing towards the rooms in occupation of the Petitioner. However, the
Respondent has still installed cameras inside the union office. It is further
submitted, that the Respondent had also been making false complaints against
the younger son of the Petitioner, Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, in his office,
merely to coerce the Petitioner so that he does not ask the Respondent to vacate
the tenanted premises. It is further submitted, that considering the various illegal
and unauthorized tactics of the Respondent, the Petitioner has also lodged
various complaints against the Respondent with the Police Authorities.
LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
23. Perusal of the record reveals, that leave to defend was filed by the respondent
on 31.03.2021, and leave to defend was granted by the Ld. Predecessor of this
court vide Order dated 06.12.2021 and the respondent was given opportunity to
file his Written Statement.
AVERMENTS BY RESPONDENT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT
24. Written Statement was filed by the respondent on 07.01.2022, in which he
stated, that the petitioner has became adamant and is trying to disturb and harass
the respondent by causing inconvenience to the respondent. Therefore, a
complaint was lodge by the respondent against the petitioner. It is further
submitted by the respondent, that he is using the premises since 1976 and the
petitioner has got nothing to do with the premise in occupation of the respondent.
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:09:37 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 12 / 50
The only concern is that the premises is just next to the allotted premises of the
petitioner office of a trade union and the visitors are the poor labourers and the
respondent is dealing in the service matters of the said poor labourers in the
competent court of law and that too like a social service for the poor labourers.
No objection was ever raised by the petitioner since the year 1976 till 2017,
when the CCTV camera was installed by the respondent.
25. It is contented, that the respondent is the owner in respect of the premises in
question and thereafter also have repaired, done additions, alterations and even
changes in construction by himself, by means of construction of toilet and
kitchen in the office and had applied for electricity connection, water connection,
telephone connection etc, without obtaining any consent from the petitioner or
from anyone else. The land in question had nothing to do with the property of
the petitioner i.e. B-239, Ground floor, Karampura, New Delhi. The said
property measuring 33.11 sq. Meters i.e. 39.59 Sq. Yards allotted by the DDA to
the petitioner is in occupation of land measuring 124 Sq. Yards, in front of the
allotted property besides that the property of the respondent is entirely different
property, which the respondent came in possession in the year 1976 and the only
connection of the property of the respondent is the neighboring property.
Therefore, the respondent has no relation of landlord and tenant with the
petitioner.
26. As far as the dates of events are concerned, no specific date of creation of
tenancy, construction of office is mentioned by the petitioner, neither any
agreement is there in writing nor any oral agreement was ever entered into. No
rent receipt was issued by the landlord at the time of inception of tenancy, no
record of payment of rent by the respondent to the petitioner is there and also the
rent receipts are only from the year 2017, when the cause of dispute arose
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:09:48 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 13 / 50
between the petitioner and the respondent, i.e. when the respondent had managed
to installed CCTV camera in his office, which was objected to by the petitioner
in the year 2017 and thereafter the dispute arose.
Similarly, the respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner who
was trying to grab a public park in the vicinity of his house but due to the
interruption of respondent, the petitioner failed to grab the park, therefore in
order to teach a lesson to the respondent, the petitioner filed the present petition.
27. The petitioner has filed rent receipts since the year 2017 but it is very strange
that the receipts were issued by the respondent itself, at the printed pads of the
respondent. It seems, that the petitioner had taken away a pad of the booklet of
receipts of the respondent from his office and used the same for treating its pages
as rent receipts. The respondent never paid a single penny as rent to the petitioner
or to any one else.
28. It is averred, that the petitioner has shown a list of 17 persons as the list of
family members of the petitioner but in fact all these persons are not residing in
the premises of the petitioner, only 10 persons are residing in the premises of the
petitioner, the remaining persons are residing at different places, having there
owner properties at various places in Delhi itself.
REPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/TENANT
29. Replication was also filed by the petitioner, denying all the allegations
levelled by the respondent and reiterating and reasserting the same facts as stated
in the petition. Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.31
16:09:56
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 14 / 50
EVIDENCE LED BY PETITIONER
30. The petitioner no.1 Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Sharma examined himself as PW1
to prove his case. PW1 tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit, thereby
placing reliance upon the following documents :-
1. Ex. PW1/1- Copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner (OSR).
2. Ex. PW1/2 – Copy of allotment letter (OSR).
3. Ex.PW1/3 – Lease and conveyance deed(OSR).
4. Ex.PW1/4 – copy of Site plan.
5. Ex. PW1/5 – Site plan which is already Ex.PW1/4, hence,
Ex.PW1/5 is not read.
6. Ex. PW1/6(colly) – Photocopies of the rent receipts are de-
exhibited and marked Mark A.
7. Ex. PW1/7(colly) – Auditors Report (OSR) .
8. Ex. PW1/8 – Show Cause Notice (OSR).
9. Ex. PW1/7 in the affidavit is the copy of the Aadhar Card of the
wife of the petitioner the same is wrongly Ex.PW1/7 and now be
read as Ex.PW1/8A(OSR).
10. Ex. PW1/8 in the affidavit is the copy of the Aadhar Card of
the son of thepetitioner andthe same is wrongly exhibited as
Ex.PW1/8 and now be read as Ex.PW1/8B (OSR).
11.Ex.PW1/9 – Copy of Aadhar Card of daughter inlaw of the
petitioner (OSR).
12. Ex. PW1/10 – Copy of Aadhar Card of grand son Lakshay
Sharma of the petitioner is de-exahibited and Mark B.
13. Ex. PW1/11 – Copy of Aadhar Card of grand daughter Shristi
Sharma of the petitioner (OSR).
14. Ex. PW1/12 – Copy of Aadhar Card of soneof petitioner
Brijesh Kumar Sharma (OSR). Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.31
16:10:13
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 15 / 50
15. Ex.PW1/13 – Copy of Aadhar Card of wife of son of petitioner
Brijesh Kumar Sharma (OSR).
16. Ex.PW1/14 – Copy of Aadhar Card of grand son of petitioner
namely Pranshu Sharma (OSR).
17. Ex.PW1/15 – Copy of Aadhar Card of wife of grand son of
petitioner namely Ayush Sharma (OSR).
18. Ex.PW1/16 – Copy of college ID of Mr. Lakshay Sharma
(OSR).
19. Ex.PW1/17 – Copy of college ID of Ms. Shristi Sharma (OSR).
20. Ex.PW1/18 – Copy of college ID of Mr. Pranshu Sharma
(OSR).
21. Ex.PW1/19 -Copy of college ID of Mr. Pranshu Sharma
(OSR).
22. Ex.PW1/20 – (colly running into 5 pages)Copy of medical
record of petitioner (OSR).
23. Ex.PW1/21 -(colly running into 2 pages)Copy of medical
record wife of petitioner (OSR).
24. Ex.PW1/22 – Copy of rent agreement dated 12.06.2019 (OSR).
25. Ex.PW1/23 – Copy of complaint dated 14.04.2017 (OSR).
26. Ex.PW1/24 – Copy of complaint dated 29.07.2017 (OSR).
27. Ex.PW1/25 – Copy of complaint dated 04.08.2017 (OSR).
28. Ex.PW1/26 – Copy of complaint to DCP (West) dated
06.10.2018, de-exhibited and marked as Mark D.
29. Ex.PW1/27 – Copy of complaint to DCP (West), de-exhibited
and marked as Mark Y.
30. Ex.PW1/28 – Printout of e-mail dated 21.08.2017.
31. Ex.PW1/29 – Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act.
Digitally
32. Ex.PW1/30 -Settlement dated 06.10.2018 (OSR).
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.31
16:10:19
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 16 / 50
The PW-1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the
respondent. Apart from PW-1, PW-2 namely Pushpender, ASO, Labour
Department, 5-Civil Lines, Shamnath Margh, Delhi-54, PW-3 namely Ct.
Vineet, PIS No. 28181787 and PW- 4 namely SI Anoop Singh were also
examined by petitioner as his witnesses to prove his case. It is pertinent to note,
that inadvertently PW Ratnesh Kumar has also been examined as PW-4 however,
PW-4 already stand examined as SI Anoop Singh, therefore testimony of Sh.
Ratnesh Kumar be read as that of PW-5.
Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 04.07.2023.
EVIDENCE LED BY RESPONDENT
31. The respondent no.1 Sh. Jagjit Singh examined himself as RW1 to prove his
case. RW1, tendered evidence by way of his duly sworn in affidavit and relied
upon following several documents :-
1. Ex. RE-1/1 is the telephone bill in the name of deponent
2. Ex. RE-1/2 is the letter from the Deputy Director Horticulture Karol Bach
Delhi.
3. Ex. RE-1/5 is the receipt of house tax dated 10.05.2011
4. Ex. RE-1/6 is the letter of deponent to the director NDMC, dated
03.01.2017
5. Ex. RW-1/9 is the Copy of aadhar card of deponent
6. Ex. RW-1/10 is the Pen card of the deponent
7. Ex. RW-1/13 is the property tax receipt in the name of deponent
8. Ex. RW-1/14 is the house tax receipt dated 10.05.2011(OSR)
9. Ex. RW-1/15 Property tax challan dated 22.08.2013 (OSR)
Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.31
16:10:42 +0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 17 / 50
10. Ex. RW-1/16 (colly) is the affidavit of the deponent before the Assessors
and Collector MCD Rajouri Garden, Delhi dated 02.04.2008 (OSR)
11. Ex. RW-1/18 is the Acknowledgment dated 14.03.2017 by the assistant
director of horticulture
12. Ex. RW-1/19 (colly) is the postal receipts (OSR) 13.Ex. RW-1/20 is the site
plan of the property in question of the deponent and the alloted property of
the petition
14. Documents related to the registration of Rashtriya General Mazdoor
Union, the document is De-exhibited and now is mark A (11pages)
15. Electricity bill dated 28.02.2009 in the name of the father of the deponent
is also de-exhibited and now is mark B
16. Election Card of the deponent is de-exhibited and is mark C
17. Medical prescription of the father of the deponent is de-exhibited and is
mark D
18. Compromise between deponent and Smt. Manju Sharma dated 06.10.2018
is de-exhibited and is mark E.
19. Application of installation of water connection dated 17.11.2014 by the
deponent is de-exhibited and is mark F.
32. RW1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
Thereafter, the respondent’s evidence was closed and the matter was listed for
the final arguments.
33. I have heard detailed arguments advanced by Learned counsels for the parties
and have further gone through the record carefully. My findings are as under :-
Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:10:50 +0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 18 / 50
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
34. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of Section
14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and the same is as under:
“Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction-
(1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or
contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall
be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed
manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or
more of the following grounds only, namely:-
“That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or
for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for
any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such
person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.”
35. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by
the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and
their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation.
The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a). The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself
or for his family member.
b). The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable
accommodation.
36. These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the
provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:11:02 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 19 / 50
ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
37. The following are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act as culled
out from the discussion above :
(i) There should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner
and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself
or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv) Landlord should not have other reasonable suitable accommodation.
(I) OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS (II) EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD
TENANT RELATIONSHIP
38. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008
(153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation as
governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished from the one in title suit. In
the case of M. R. Sawhney Vs. Dories Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was
held that once a tenant always a tenant, unless his status changes by
contract or by operation of law which is not so in the present petition.
39. It is settled law, that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the
Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted
premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The
petitioners have to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C.
Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved
Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word
RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:11:18
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 20 / 50
“Owner”, it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioners
have to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that
he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement
of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to
avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of
the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996
(1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk
Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty
v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002
(97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e)
of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute
owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the
tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
40. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a Bench
of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership
in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had
noted as follows:
“There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in
cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a
plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they
should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the
petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the
owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title
cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not
to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim
the owner of the premises.” RICHA SHARMA
Digitally signed
by RICHASHARMA Date:
2025.07.31
16:11:27 +0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 21 / 50
41. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved
Prabha & Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed :
“That the meaning of term ‘owner’ is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the
owner should be something more than the tenant.”
It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the
tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is
sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than
a tenant.
42. In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court has
specifically held that:-
“It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the
concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court
has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The
only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been
receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of
someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and
not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the
owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be.
The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the
way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C.
Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of
imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too
when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116
of the Evidence Act creates estoppal against such tenant. A tenant
can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the
premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such
a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:11:35 +0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 22 / 50
whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that
there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this
respect”.
43. It is a settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no right
to challenge the ownership of the landlord , neither is the landlord required to
prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppal also bars the
respondent herein from challenging the land lordship of the petitioners. It has
been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs.
Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the
purpose of 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as
absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant. So, what has to
be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said
that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him.
The above view was reiterated by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder
Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
44. Now, in light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts of the case
in hand.
45. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and in his
evidence he relied upon the documents being the conveyance deed and allotment
letter exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/2 respectively. The bare perusal of
these documents reveal, that the said lease and conveyance deed was executed on
21.04.1982, between the Government of India i.e. Delhi Administration being
one of the party and Sh. Rameshwar Dayal i.e. petitioner being the second party,
bearing the address as B-239, Karampura, Delhi.
Further, vide the allotment letter dated 01.10.1963, the petitioner i.e.
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:11:41 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 23 / 50
Rameshwar Dayal was allotted House No.239 of Block-B at Industrial Housing
Colony, (Karam Pura), Najafgarh Road, New Delhi on a monthly license fee of
Rs.16/- under the signature of the then Labour Commissioner of Delhi. It is
material to note, that even RW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted to the
ownership of the petitioner on the premises in question and the relevant excerpts
of his cross-examination of dated 13.05.2024 to this effect are as under: –
“It is correct that the Delhi Administration had built Janta Flats
/ Quarters in Karampura for the workers of Textile Mills,
working in or around Karampura for the welfare of the workers.
It is correct that Quarter No. B-239, Karampura, Delhi, was
allotted to the petitioner and subsequently ownership rights of
the said quarter were also transferred in the name of the
petitioner.”
46. Thus, from the above extracts of cross-examination of RW-1, it categorically
stands admitted, that the petitioner is the owner of Quarter No. B-239
Karampura. However, what is material here is that the respondent though has not
challenged or questioned the ownership of the petitioner with respect to the
premises in question but has challenged the ownership of the petitioner qua the
tenanted premises alleged to be forming a part of the premises owned by the
petitioner, on the premise that the same does not form the part of Quarter No.B-
239 of the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has placed due reliance upon
the show cause notice exhibited as Ex.PW1/8, which was issued by the then
Assistant Housing Commissioner, Karampura, Delhi.
The perusal of this document i.e. Ex.PW1/8 reveals, that the petitioner had
been called upon by the said department to show cause as to why his allotment of
the said quarter be not canceled for using the premises for the purpose other than
using the same for residential purpose that is for running the office for Trade Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:11:50 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 24 / 50
Union. It is vital to note, that the fact that the Trade Union is being run from the
tenanted premises is not questioned or challenged by the respondent but their
defence is, that the said Union office is being run since 1982 but the same is not
run from the premises falling under the ownership of the petitioner but that the
Union office is being run from the property which is adjacent to the property of
the petitioner and the same is not forming the part of the property of the
petitioner. However, the said defence of the respondent does not inspire the
confidence of the Court as had this been the scenario, there was no reason for the
Housing Commissioner to issue a show cause notice with respect to the premises
not forming the part of the premises allotted to the petitioner, thereby asking for
an explanation from the petitioner. If the averment of the respondent had been
plausible, there would not have been any breach of clause 4 of the lease and
conveyance deed i.e. Ex.PW1/3 and further there would have been no reason for
the Housing Commissioner to issue any show cause notice i.e. Ex.PW1/8 upon
the petitioner.
47. Even otherwise it is the admitted case of the respondent, that they have been
in possession of the premises in question since 1964 and admittedly it is
categorically stated by the respondents in their written arguments, that they are
not the owners of the premises in question and are in occupation of the
government land. It is further material to note, that had the tenanted premises not
been forming the part of the said quarter, then the competent authority would
have issued notices of encroachment and not of misuse of the premises for the
purpose its use is not designated. It is further not out of place to mention, that the
respondent has also categorically admitted in his cross-examination dated
13.05.2024, that the portion of the premises in his occupation is bearing the same
address i.e. B-239, as that of property of the petitioner and therefore, it was
incumbent upon the respondent to prove and adduced evidence to the effect, that
Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:12:01 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 25 / 50
if the property/premises in his occupation is not forming a part of the petitioner’s
premises then how and under what circumstances both the premises i.e. that of
the petitioner and the alleged tenanted premises are having same address i.e. B-
239, Karampura, Delhi. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this
effect are reproduced as under : –
“Question : If the portion where the office of the Union is
situated is not a part of the Quarter B-239 allotted to the
petitioner, how the address of the said portion is also
recognized as B-239, Karampura, Delhi?
Answer : Previously the said portion was recognized as Union
Office near Milan Cinema, Karampura, however after some
years, the petitioner asked us to use the address of B-239 for the
said portion as well.”
“The petitioner had asked my father to use the address of the
said portion as B-239, when the aforesaid quarter was allotted
to the petitioner. It is correct that the said portion where the
office of the Union is situated has not been allotted any
specific recognizable address by the Delhi Administration or
the MCD.”
48. At the cost of repetition, it is being stated, that the respondent has not placed
on record any document to explain as to what is his locus qua the property in
question as admittedly he has neither placed on record any ownership documents
nor has he placed on record any other document by virtue which it can be
established, that if he is not the tenant then he is the owner to the premises in
question. It is further pertinent to note, that though by way of written arguments
the respondent is averring himself to be the absolute owner of the property in
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:12:09 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 26 / 50
question but in his cross-examination he himself has admitted, that property in
his occupation is a government land. Thus, the respondent is blowing hot and
cold in the same breath. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination of to this
effect are reproduced as under : –
“It is wrong to suggest that the said portion has not been
recognized with a separate address as the same forms a part
of Quarter No. B-239, allotted to the petitioner. Vol. The
same is Government Land.”
49. It is further material to note, that on one hand the respondent is saying, that
the land under his occupation is government land and on the other hand it is
saying, that respondent union was got registered with respect to the said land in
the year 1982 but this explanation is also devoid of merits as registration of
government land in the name of the respondent union per se is not permissible
within the tenants of law unless conveyance deed or any other legit document
stands duly executed between respondent and government/Delhi Administration
and so is not the case in hand.
50. Another contradistinction between the averments of the respondent that needs
to be highlighted is with regard to the deposition made by the RW-1 in his cross
examination dated 07.08.2024, whereby he stated, that his father simply saw a
vacant plot of land and started using the same for the union office after raising
Jhuggi therein in the year 1976, but it is pertinent to mention, that there is no
document on record to even prima facie establish, that the union is functioning
from the said premises since 1976 as the RW-1 has himself averred in his cross
examination dated 03.05.2024, that the union was got registered in the year 1982.
It is further a candid admission by RW-1 in his cross examination, that no
permission was ever taken by his father to raise any construction from the MCD
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:12:16 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 27 / 50
or any other authority and that since 1976 till date, he is enjoying the government
land without even a single show-cause notice or a letter being issued to him by
the MCD and the Delhi Administration, thereby asking him to explain his locus
qua the property in question. It is material to note, that RW-1 has further
admitted in his cross-examination, that he can not produced any document to
show, that the said alleged construction was raised by his father. The relevants
extracts of his cross examination to this effect are as under :
“My father simply saw vacant plot of land and started using
the same for union office after raising Jhuggi threin in the
year 1976. The said wooden Jhuggi was built by my father.
After couple of years, my father removed said Jhuggi and
raised Pucca construction thereon. No permission was ever
taken by my father to raised any construction from MCD or
any other authority. Since 1976 till date no notice, show cause
notice or any letter has ever been issued by MCD or Delhi
Administration or any other competent authority either in the
name of respondent to show that the said construction was
raised by my father.”
51. It further stands unexplained, as to why till date neither RW-1 nor his father
ever applied to the authority for allotment of any new plot number or address for
the premises in occupation of the RW-1, if the same is not forming a part of the
premises bearing number B-239, Karampura, Delhi i.e. the premises under the
ownership of the petitioner. The relevants extracts of his cross examination to
this effect is as under :
“Neither my father nor me had ever applied to any authority
for allotment of new plot. Number or address for the land
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:12:40 +0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 28 / 50
where the respondents office is situated”
52. It is further pellucid to note, that though RW-1 deposed in his cross
examination, that he had applied for the assessment of the said plot for the
purpose of house tax but admittedly no house tax receipt is filed on record in
support of his averments. It is further deposed by RW1 in his cross examination
dated 19.11.2024, that he had applied for assessment of house tax in respect of
plot in question before the house tax authority and the same was duly done about
10-12 years back but admittedly neither the respondent had filed any document
showing his ownership of the said plot nor any UPIC number that had been
allotted to the premises in question has been filed on record. Infact, he further
deposed, that he cannot even say if any such number had ever been allotted to
him or any other such document was ever provided to him on the basis of which
they have deposited the house tax. RW-1 has merely made bald averments
stating, that they had deposited the house tax till 2023, but not even a single
receipt has been filed on record to substantiate these averments made by him in
his cross examination. The relevant extracts of his cross examination to this
effect are reproduced as under :
“We have applied for the assessment of house tax in respect of
the plot before the House Tax Authority and the same was done
about 10-12 years back. Along with the application, we had filed
documents like registration of the respondent Union, our
aadhar cards, etc. We had not filed any document showing us to
be the owner of the said plot along with the application. The
application of house tax has been allowed. No UPIC number
has been alloted to the suit premises. I can not say as to why the
said number has not been alloted, and no such document was
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:12:48 +0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 29 / 50
provided to us except for one slip which has already been filed
on the record, on the basis of which we have deposited the
house tax. We have deposited the house tax till 2023, however, I
do not have the receipt for the same. I can bring the same. The
house tax is being deposited manually. We only deposit the
house tax and a slip is issued in respect thereof, however we do
not mention any UPIC number at the time of deposit of such
house tax. No challan is generated at the time of depositing of
house tax. We have not got the said plot of land mutated in our
name”.
53. It is further material to note, that RW-1 had further admitted in his cross
examination, that he had neither filed any suit for declaration claiming himself to
be the owner of the said portion of the land on the basis of adverse possession
against the government or any other person nor in any other manner he has
claimed their ownership for the premises in question. The relevant extracts of his
cross examination to this effect are as under :
“I have not filed any suit for declaration claiming to be owner
of the said portion of land on the basis of adverse possession
against the government or any other person. I do not know the
meaning of words Adverse Possession”
54. Therefore, in the light of the above detailed appreciation of evidences, it
safely stands deduced, that in the absence of any ownership document, any
separate document, any separate address with respect to the tenanted premises in
question being different from the premises of the petitioner of which he is the
owner by way of implication it stands deduced, that the tenanted premises
squarely falls within the quarter bearing the address i.e. B-239, Karampura,
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:12:58 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 30 / 50
Delhi.
As far as the aspect of payment of rent to the petitioner is concerned, it is
submitted by the president of the respondent in his affidavit, that the respondent
has never paid rent to anyone, but at this stage Court deems it fit to appreciate
the document exhibited as Ex. PW1/7, which is the Auditor’s Report ending
31.12.2009, and the Auditor’s Report ending 31.12.2010, filed by the petitioner
in order to prove on record the payment of rent. Perusal of the said documents
show, that the respondent has been paying the rent of Rs. 1000/- on the basis of
the information that was provided to his office staff or by the respondent staff. It
is apropos to note, that the factum of the Auditor’s Report i.e. Ex. PW1/7 being
duly signed by RW-1 also stands admitted by him and he further went on to
depose, that he has signed the report after reading and going through the contents
of the same.
Thus, in the light of clear cut admission by the RW-1 to the effect, that
they had not paid the rent and especially that they had no other property qua
which they could have paid the rent, the only reference which can be drawn is
that the respondent has been paying rent in respect of the tenanted premises in
question. The relevant extracts of his cross examination to this effect are as
under:
“The witness is shown his signature at point B,C,D,E,F,G
respectively on exhibit PW1/7 (colly) which he admits, I
had seen the said reports before signing the same. I had
never raised any objections that the auditor reports exhibit
PW 1/7 (colly) is wrong or false. The respondent never
paid any rent to any person and the auditor has shown the
conveyance which was given to an office worker as rent in
the Cash details forming part of his reports Ex. PW1/7
(colly). I have never raised any objection that the
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:13:28 +0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 31 / 50
conveyance was being wrongly shown as rent in his
reports. I also identify the signatures of the petitioner at
all points X and the signatures of Sh. Vipin Nischal at all
points Y on exhibit PW 1/7 (colly). No entry is wrong in
the said reports and no objections was also raised by said
Sh. Vipin Nischal with the auditor about wrong
nomenclature of the entries in the exhibit PW 1/7 (colly)”.
55. Thus, as a corollary to the above discussion, it safely stands deduced, that the
explanation tendered in the above extracts of his deposition by RW-1 with
respect to the inter change of the entries of the conveyance in place of Cash
details is neither plausible nor tenable as the same was signed by the respondent
after admittedly going through the documents and further no objection was ever
raised by the respondent with regard to the said report on account of improper or
wrong entries being made in it.
56. Another interesting aspect that requires appreciation is with regard to the
document Ex.PW1/B i.e. settlement document dated 06.10.2018, whereby RW-1
had agreed to hand over the tenanted premises to the petitioner or his family
members, as and when he would vacate the tenanted premises.
57. RW-1 in his deposition dated 19.11.2024, was shown the document whereby
he duly identified his signature at point A but went on to say, that it was agreed
that as and when the premises would be vacated, the same would be sold to the
petitioner or his family members. However, the same were not the contents of the
said document and once the signature stands duly admitted in the document
PW1/B, there is an embargo of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act,
which requires that no oral evidence can be given with respect to the terms that
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:13:16 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 32 / 50
have been reduced in writing of an agreement or a contract unless the same falls
within the exception to the said section, however, so is not the case.
58. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of
Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same is as under:
“Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that,
“when terms of a contract or of a grant, or of any other
disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a
document, and in all cases in which any matter is required
by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no
evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such
contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such
matter, except the document itself or secondary evidence of
its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is
admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained”.
59. Thus, on the basis of the above codified law, it is explicit that no oral
evidence can be given of any term of an agreement otherwise than explicitly
permitted by law. Therefore, in the light of the written settlement agreement i.e.
Ex. PW1/B , respondent was explicitly barred by provision of Section 91 of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to lead any evidence with respect to the terms
otherwise embodied in documented form unless the same is permitted as per
proviso to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but even to that extent
no evidence has been led by the respondent to enable him to establish his case to
be falling under any of the proviso appended with Section 92 of the Indian
Evidence Act.
60. Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that, “when the terms of
any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required
by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 33 / 50
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:14:01 +0530
the last section (Section 91) no evidence of any oral agreement or statement
shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their
representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to,
or subtracting from, its terms:”
61. Now, once a written document is duly admitted by RW-1 itself, latter cannot
be allowed to rebut or controvert that document by oral evidence and that too
only by leading oral evidence in form of self serving statements. The respondent
never examined any independent witness to prima facie show that the RW-1 had
entered into the settlement deed qua the sale of the property in question to the
petitioner at the time of eviction/vacation of the premises by them. Further, there
is no mention of any such pre requisite condition even on the document itself.
62. At this stage court deems it fit to place reliance on the Judgment of ” Roop
Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani (2003) 6 SCC 595, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
commented on section 91 of the Evidence Act by observing that:-
“13………This section merely forbids proving the contents of
a writing otherwise than by writing itself; it is covered
by the ordinary rule of law of evidence, applicable not
merely to solemn writings of the sort named but to others
known sometimes as the best-evidence rule. It is in reality
declaring a doctrine of the substantive law, namely, in the
case of a written contract, that all proceedings and
contemporaneous oral expressions of the thing are merged
in the writing or displaced by it. (See Thayer’s Preliminary
Law on Evidence, Wigmore’s Evidence, 0.2406)……”
(emphasis supplied) Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.31
16:14:09 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 34 / 50
The court further observed that:-
“16……….. This rule is based upon an assumed intention on
the part of the contracting parties, evidenced by the
existence of the written contract, to place themselves above
the uncertainties of oral evidence and on a disinclination of
the courts to defeat this object. When persons express their
agreements in writing, it is for the express purpose of getting
rid of any indefiniteness and to put their ideas in such shape
that there can be no misunderstanding, which so often
occurs when reliance is placed upon oral statements.
Written contracts presume deliberation on the part of the
contracting parties and it is natural they should be treated
with careful consideration by the courts and with a
disinclination to disturb the conditions of matters as
embodied in them by the act of the parties. (See McKelvey’s
Evidence, p.294) . As observed in Greenlear’s Evidence, p.
563, one of the most common and important of the concrete
rules presumed under the general notion that the best
evidence must be produced and that one with which the
phrase best evidence is now exclusively associated is the
rule that when the contents of a writings are to be proved,
the writing itself must be produced before the court or its
absence accounted for before testimony to its contents is
admitted.
17. It is likewise a general and most inflexible rule that
whenever written instruments are appointed, either by the
requirement of law, or by contract of parties, to be the
repositories and memorials of truth, any other evidence is
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:14:19 +0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 35 / 50
excluded from being used either as a substitute for such
instrument, or to contradict or alter them. This is a matter
both of principle and policy. It is of principle because such
instrument are in their own nature and origin, entitled to a
much higher degree of credit than parol evidence. It is of
policy because it would be attended with great mischief if
those instruments, upon which mens rights depended, were
liable to be impeached by loose collateral evidence”.
63. Therefore, from the above quoted observations made by Hon’ble Supreme
Court and after going through the provisions of section 91 and 92 of Indian
Evidence Act, respondent can not be allowed to retract or deny or controvert a
written documents by leading oral evidence. Thus, it was imperative upon
respondent to have proved by way of documentary evidences that they intended
to propose a sale and nothing otherwise at the time of vacation/eviction of the
premises by them.
64. Even otherwise when RW-1 has himself admitted in the earlier extracts of his
cross-examination, that he is in occupation of a government land and no
ownership document per se has been placed on record by him even to prima facie
establish that he is the owner of the tenanted premises, the question of selling the
same to the petitioner or his family members per se does not arise as a person
cannot sell something of which he himself is not the owner.
65. RW-1 further admitted in his deposition dated 19.11.2024, that no such sale
of plot was agreed between him and the petitioner. The relevant excerpts of his
cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : – Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.31
16:14:28 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 36 / 50
“It is also correct that the said dispute was settled vide
settlement document dated 06.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/30
(OSR). The witness is shown the said documents and he
identify his signature at point A. At the time of execution
of the said settlement Ex.PW1/30, it was agreed that as
and when the premises would be vacated, the same would
be sold to the petitioner or his family members. No
consideration amount was decided for affecting the said
sale. Again said, no such sale of plot was agreed between
me and the petitioner.”
66. It is further admitted by RW-1, that the son of the petitioner had built a room
over and above roof of the tenanted premises and no objection however was
raised by the respondent or any of his office bearers to the same. The basic
reason that can be culled out for raising no objection to the said construction is,
that the respondent was never the owner of the tenanted premises as had he been
the owner, he would have most certainly not permitted the son of the petitioner to
built a room over his premises, without any objection, more specifically when
admittedly since 2017 disputes had arisen between the parties and complaints
and counter complaints were being made by both the parties against each other. It
is further not out of place to mention, that the respondent has not filed any case
challenging the rent receipts filed in the present case as being forged and
fabricated and RW-1 has further admitted to this aspect of not filing of any case
or complaint challenging the rent receipts relied upon by the petitioner. The
relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as
under : –
“I have not filed any case challenging the rent receipts
filed in the present case, as forged and fabricated. I have
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:14:34 +0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 37 / 50
not filed any case or complaint challenging the fact that
the rent receipts have been forged and fabricated by the
petitioner on the slips of the respondent’s union.”
67. It is further crucial to note, that in para 18 of the affidavit of RW-1, he has
categorically admitted, that the petitioner has given an NOC to the electricity
authority for the installation of electricity connection in the office of respondent
and this per se puts a dent into the contentions of the respondent averring himself
to be the owner as had he been the owner there was no requirement for him to
take sanction/consent of the petitioner prior to installation of an electricity
connection in his own premises.
68. In view of the discussion as above and in light of settled law, this Court has
no hesitation in deducing, that the law with regard to the right of the tenant to
challenge the ownership of the landlord is fairly settled as well as limited. In this
context, what appears to be the meaning of term “owner” vis a vis the tenant is
that the “owner” should be something more than the tenant.
69. Therefore, in view thereof, the landlord – tenant relationship between the
petitioner and the respondents stands duly proved for the purposes of Delhi Rent
Control Act and at the same time is also stands established that no material
document is placed on record by the respondent to prove that the premises in
question is not forming a part of the premises that is within the admitted
ownership of the petitioner.
WHETHER THE NEED OF THE PETITIONER IS BONAFIDE &
WHETHER THE ALTERNATE SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION IS
AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER ?
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:14:43 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 38 / 50
70. Before delving into the merits of the bonafide need of the landlord, this
Court deems it fit to discuss the essence of term “bonafide” and the law
settled in this regard.
1. The word “genuine” means “natural: not spurious: real: pure:
sincere”. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean
“good faith, without fraud or deceit”. Thus, the term bonafide refers to a
state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity
contemplated by “requires” is much higher than in mere desire. The
phrase ‘required bonafide’ is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere
desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent
control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an
outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra- distinction with a mere
pretense or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to
occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would
entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Rent Control Legislation
generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the provision for seeking
eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the
landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation,
which treats the landlord with some sympathy.
2. The question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of
facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the
given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the
premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer
were in positive the need is bonafide.
3. The Full Bench of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court
distinguished between the genuine requirement and the reasonable
RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:14:56
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 39 / 50
requirement. It was held in case Damodar Sharma and an- other v.
Nandram Deviram that:-
“It is wrong to say that “genuinely requires” is the same as
“reasonably requires”. There is distinction between the two
phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the
later to an objective standard. “Genuine requirement”
would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual
and the time and circumstances in which he lives and thinks.
Reasonable requirement belong to the “knowledge of the
law” and means reasonable not in the mind of the person
requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to
the actual facts. In my opinion, in this part of Section 4 (g),
the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements
but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely
intends to occupy the premises. His claim would no doubt
fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of
“want” was unreliable and that the landlord did not
genuinely intend to occupy.”
4. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the
landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that,
further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need.
Landlord’s desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be,
has in-inevitably a subjective element in it and that desire, to become a
“requirement” in law must have the objective element of a “need”. It must
also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible
to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances
into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is
not rendered merely “illusory or whittled down”. The words “reasonable
RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:15:02
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 40 / 50
requirement” undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need
as opposed to a mere desire or wish. 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. Mere desire of a landlord/owner
cannot be equated with bonafide need.
5. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words “required bonafide by the
landlord” signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore incorporate
a concept, which is both objective as well as subjective. The statute makes
both the motivations of the owner as indeed the reasonableness of the
desire, justiciable and the law therefore requires not only that the need of
the owner for the premises should be honestly and genuinely entertained
but must also be the need of a reasonable person in the position of the
owner having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as the extent
of the family of the owner, the standard of living to which the family is
used, its social status, the pattern of life relevant to that status, the social
conditions and any peculiar requirement of the family. All these have to
be considered in the wider context of the socioeconomic conditions
obtaining in the country. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the
claim of the landlord is result of honestly entertained need the court
would not weigh the requirement in a fine scale, even while keeping the
landlord confined within reasonable limits having regard to all the
relevant circumstances.
6. It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Indian Insurance Pvt. Ltd., AIR
1999 Supreme Court 100, wherein it was held that :-
“….. the crux of ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section
14 (1) of the Act is that the requirement of landlord for
RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA
SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:15:08
+0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 41 / 50
occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide.
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 primafacie case, it is open to
the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the
requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It is often said by
the 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
deciding the question of bonafides of requirement of the
landlord, it is quite unnecessary to endeavour as to how
else the landlord could have adjusted himself…”
71. On the basis of the law as above, returning to the facts of the case in hands.
The principal averment made by the petitioner via present petition is, that the
petitioner’s family consists of a growing family, thereby comprising of the
petitioner himself, his wife, his four sons, his daughter in laws, his grandsons
and his grand daughter, and beside them, the petitioner also has one daughter,
who though is married and has children but she keeps on visiting the
petitioner on regular basis but, due to the constraint of space in the current
premises, owned and occupied by the petitioner, petitioner has cut a sorry
figure and many a times asked his daughter as well as his other family
members/relatives to not to come to his house for a longer duration or for stay
as the space crunch in his house creates problem in accommodating the
daughter and her children and the other guests on their occasional visits. It is
apposite to note, that the respondent though had averred, that the family
members of the petitioner’s family consists of only 10 members as the
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:15:15 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 42 / 50
remaining family members of the petitioner’s family are residing in different
accommodation of Delhi but the said submission is not tenable as indirectly
even the respondent has admitted in his averments, that 10 family members of
the petitioner are residing with him in the property in question and the
remaining family members though are there but are residing in different
accommodations. The petitioner has very well elaborated in his petition, that
the available rooms in the premises within his possession do not suffice for
the family of the petitioner , thereby detailing the availability of the rooms
and the respective occupants of the same.
72. The contention of the petitioner with regard to providing of a separate room
to his growing grand daughter and to his grand son, who apart from being
employed is also simultaneously completing his masters in business
administration and therefore, requires a quiet and silent space to pursue his
education/ studies is legit. The respondent apart from making evasive and
bald denials to the requirements of the petitioner has not placed on record any
cogent evidence to even prima facie substantiate, that the requirements of the
petitioner are far fetched and fancy, away from reality.
73. It is crucial to note, that Court cannot be unmindful of the fact, that the
petitioner is around 89 year of age and his wife being 88 years of age are in
the twilight zone of their life and if at this age, the parents desire to live with
their entire family under the same roof, the same cannot be treated as
something not falling within the domain of bonafide need of the petitioner.
Moreso, when the petitioner has categorically stated in his petition, that his
two sons namely Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma and Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma
have to live separate from their family members not out of choice but out of
compulsion as it is not possible to accommodate all of them in the same Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:15:20 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 43 / 50
house due to lack of space and further the paucity of space was resulting in
constant bickering in the house, thereby further straining the relation between
the family members. Also, the need of the petitioner while being in the winter
of one’s years to live with his children as well as with his grand children is
most understandable as the same not only provides a sense of fulfillment but
also a sense of security as in the old age, the senior citizens are bound to
suffer from various age related ailments and the same requires constant
medical attention, which can be addressed to in a much better and swift
manner, if the parents are living with their children and grand children.
74. It is further a settled proposition of law, that the daughters, including married
daughters and grand sons not only fall within the category of dependents but
also fall within the ambit of “family members” for the purpose of any petition
filed under the DRC Act, thereby seeking eviction on the grounds of bonafide
need entailed under Seciton 14(1) (e) of DRC Act. The court draws strength
from the judgment of Rishal Singh Vs. Bohar Ram & Ors and Santosh
Kumar Mehra Since Deceased through Lrs Vs. Om Prakash.
In the judgment titled as Rishal Singh Vs. Bohar Ram & Ors., RC. Rev.
No. 495 of 2012, it was held as under :-
“The landlord sought the eviction on the ground that his
grandson required the property to start his own business
and that the landlord had no property, other than the suit
property from where he could run his business.
However, counsel for the respondent relied on another
judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Bajaj v. Chander
Shekhar (2003)1 RCR 332 wherein the Court included sons
family of the landlord in the meaning of dependent. TheRC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 44 / 50
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:15:29 +0530
Court held that the need of any member including the son;
the wife, sons wife and children are to be treated as the need
for the landlord. The impugned order also relied on the
same judicial pronouncement to arrive at a conclusion. This
Court finds such a decision to be more at par with the intent
of the Act that the judicial precedent mentioned by the
counsel for the tenant. The law, on this point, has evolved to
extent where it is accepted position that a grandson is
included in dependents of the landlord.”
Further, in the judgment titled as Santosh Kumar Mehra Since Deceased
through Lrs Vs. Om Prakash, RC. Rev. No. 94/2015 and CM No. 3597/2015
decided on 30.06.2015, it was held as under :-
6. …………Regard has to be taken to the social fabric of the
family and in a joint family all members including the
grandchildren would be dependent on the grandparents.
Reliance is also placed on Puran Chand Aggarwal Vs. Lekh
Raj 2014 (210) DLT 131. Relying on M/s Khem Chand
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Vijay Mehra & Ors. 2014 (10) AD
(Delhi) 558 it is urged that merely because the children are
financially independent would not mean that they are not
family members or that they are not dependent for the
purposes of accommodation on the parents.
……
10. In Joginder Pal (supra) the Supreme Court while
construing who is the member dependent on the landlord
held that keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu
and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:15:35 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 45 / 50
a particular region to which the landlord belongs, it may be
the 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. The tests laid down to be applied are: (i)
whether the requirement pleaded and proved may properly
be regarded as the landlord’s own requirement, and
(ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of a given
case, actual occupation and user by a person other than the
landlord would be deemed by the landlord as “his own”
occupation or user. The answer would, in its turn, depend
on (i) the nature and degree of relationship and/or
dependence between the landlord pleading the requirement
as “his own” and the person who actually would use the
premises; (ii) the circumstances in which the claim arises
and is put forward, and (iii) the intrinsic tenability of the
claim. The Court on being satisfied of the reasonability and
genuineness of the claim, as distinguished from a mere ruse
to get rid of the tenant, will uphold the landlord’s claim.”
75. At this stage, this Court deems it fit to discuss the law laid down vide
plethora of judgments by the Hon’ble Apex Court in determining, that the
landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he is at complete liberty to
take this call. Law is well settled that it is the landlord who has to decide as
to how and in what manner, he should live and that he is the best judge of his
requirement. RICHA
Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:15:41 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 46 / 50
76. In the case of Om Prakash Singhal Vs. Shri Roshan Lal, 1969 RCR 391, it
has been held that as a broad workable rule, the landlord must left to assess
his requirement in the background of his possession, circumstance, status
and life and social and other responsibilities, and other relevant factors.
1. In Parvati Devi Vs. P. V. Krishna, JT 1987 (1) SC 764, it has been held as
under :-
“The landlord is the best judge of his requirement. He has
complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the
courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner
he should live and prescribe for him a standard of their
own. There is no law that deprives the landlord of the
beneficial enjoyment of his property.
2. In Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja, MANU / SC / 0435 / 2014 : (2014) 15 SCC
610, it has been held as under :-
“It would hardly require any reiteration of the settled
principle of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the
landlord as to how the property AIR 1999 SC 100 (1996) 5
SCC 353 (2014) 15 SCC 610, Neutral Citation Number :
2023 : DHC : 3199 belonging to the landlord should be
utilized by him for the purpose of his business.”
3. In Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarhan Kumar, MANU / SC / 0087 / 2021, it has
been held as under :-
“It is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMASHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:16:19 +0530RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 47 / 50
proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the
landlord will be adequate.”
4. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr) MANU / SC / 0432 /
1999: (1999) 6 SCC 222, it has been held as under :-
“Once the Court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for
the premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing
out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his
subjective choice shall be respected by the Court.”
77. Thus, in the light of the factual matrix of the present case and appreciating
the same on the basis of the law reproduce as above, this court finds no
hesitation in deducing, that the petitioner has duly satisfied this court
regarding his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises in question and
further non availability of any alternative suitable accommodation for
satisfaction of his needs entailed in the instant petition.
78. It is well settled that, the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court should place
himself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on
record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be
natural, real, sincere and honest and the concept of bonafide need or genuine
requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
79. Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be whimsical or merely
fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in favour of the
landlord also and the courts should not impose their own wisdom forcibly
upon the landlord/petitioner to arrange his/ her own affairs according to their
Digitally signed by
RICHA RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:17:34 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 48 / 50
perception carried away by the interest or hardship of the tenants and the
inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of eviction.
80. I have placed myself in the place of petitioner to determine whether in the
given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be
said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and I have also applied a practical
approach instructed by the realities of life on the concept of bonafide need or
genuine requirement.
81. In view of testimonies of the witnesses, it is clear, that the petitioner has been
able to satisfy the Court, that no alternate reasonable suitable accommodate is
available with the petitioner for satisfying his bonafide needs as detailed in
the petition. The petitioner has succeeded in proving, that requirement as
alleged by petitioner is bonafide. Further, the petitioner / landlord cannot be
dictated by the tenant to chose a different place for living with his family as at
the cost of brevity it is being stated, that neither the Court nor the respondent
can dictate terms to the petitioner. The respondent has failed to place on
record any document which could show that the petitioner has any suitable
alternate accommodation available with him.
CONCLUSION:-
82. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present
case, material on record, settled position of law and the reasons as discussed
earlier, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to prove all
the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. As such, the present eviction
petition is allowed and an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioner and
against the respondent in respect of the the tenanted premises i.e. Premises
consisting of Portion/Room measuring approx. 12′.6 X 16′.6′, forming part of
property no. B-239, Karampura, Delhi in the site plan Ex. PW-1/4.
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 49 / 50
Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:17:22 +0530
83. However, this judgment shall not be operative before the expiry of six
months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
84. This file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 31.07.2025
(Richa Sharma)
Sr. Civil Judge – Cum – RC
THC / Delhi /31.07.2025
Digitally signed
by RICHA
SHARMA
RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.31
16:17:46
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 50 / 50