Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Ors vs Ashwani Kumar on 13 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
SHAHDARA
RC ARC E3/2016 555/16
Case Registration no.DLSH03-000047-2016
1. Sh. Anil Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Bholanath,
R/o H.No. 325, Opposite Geeta Bhawan,
Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.
2. Sh. Kailash Chand,
S/o Late Sh. Bholanath,
R/o H.No. 334-335, Chhota Thakur Dwara,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
3. (a) Sh. Manish Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Chamanlal,
R/o H.No. 334-335, Chhota Thakur Dwara,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
3.(b) Sh. Anish Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Chamanlal,
R/o H.No. 334-335, Chhota Thakur Dwara,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ...Petitioners
Vs.
1.Sh. Ashwani Kumar,
S/o Sh. Nand Kishore,
R/o 215, Teliwara,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ...Respondent
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.1/29
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:44:46 +0530
Application under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for short,
“DRC, Act“)
Date of Institution : 05.01.2016
Date of Reserving Judgment : 31.05.2025
Date of Decision : 13.06.2025
Decision : Allowed
Judgment:-
1) Relief sought:- Eviction order for ejectment of the respondent from the
tenanted premises i.e. shop bearing no.321/IV, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, built
up on plot no.10, Delhi-32, shown in red color in the site plan be passed in favour
of the petitioners and against the respondent and possession of the same be
ordered to be delivered from the respondent or any other person found in
possession of the same to the petitioners.
2) Facts of the case: – The facts, as given in the present application, are briefly
stated as follows:-
i. The petitioners are the absolute owners and landlord of the shop bearing
no. 321/IV, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32, (hereinafter also
referred as, “tenanted premises “) as shown in red colour in the annexed
site plan. The tenanted premises was owned by the father of the
petitioners (Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath). It is submitted that after the death of
Sh. Bhola Nath (father of the petitioners), the tenanted premises
devolved upon the petitioners and inherited by them and petitioners
became the owner of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that
respondent was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises in the year
1998 by the petitioners at the monthly rent of Rs.465.85/-.
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.2/29
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:44:52 +0530
ii. By way of this application, the petitioner is seeking eviction of the
respondent on the ground that the tenanted premises is required by the
petitioner no.3 bona fide for his son Sh. Anish Kumar, who is running
an institute namely, M-Xpert from shop no .319, (part of shop no.320
and 332) together constituting the area of around 53 square yards. It is
submitted that the institute is narrow from the front and broad from the
back as front portion is occupied by the respondent and one more
tenant. It is submitted that there are 40 students in the said institute as
on date and the present space is inadequate to run the said institute and
due to which new batches cannot be started. It is submitted that there is
no alternate vacant commercial accommodation.
3) Defence of respondents as per written statement :- (a) That the petition of the
petitioners are liable to be dismissed as they have concealed the facts that they are
already in occupation and possession of vacant shops bearing no.319,322, 325,
327, 330, 331 & 332. It is submitted by respondent that the said shops can be used
by the son of petitioner no.3. (b) That the petitioners are not the owners of the
tenanted premises and they have no right to file the eviction petition. (c) That the
MCD had sent a letter to the respondent on 27.03.2002 with regard to suit property
bearing shop no. 321, D.S Block, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32 which
indicates that the said premises belongs to the MCD by virtue of deed dated
04.01.1978 and registered on 25.03.1998 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi and
the respondent was required to perform the necessary formalities and fill up the
requisite proforma. (d) That the petitioners have not filed any title documents
which shows that their father Sh. Bhola Nath was the owner of the tenanted
premises in question. (e) That the property was initially owned and possessed byRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.3/29Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:44:57 +0530
Ministry of Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi and the same was
declared as evacuee property by the Government and the same was transferred to
the MCD by virtue of the Deed dated 04.01.1978 and registered on 25.03.1998
and now the MCD is the absolute owner of the property in question. (f) Petitioners
have filed the incorrect site plan. (g) That the petitioners have not filed any
document which shows that there has been a steady increase in the numbers of
student and how many teachers have been employed by son of the petitioner no.3
to run the said institute.
4) Replication:- Replication was filed on behalf of the petitioners, denying the
allegations/averments made by the respondent in their written statement.
5) Evidence led on behalf of the petitioner : -In order to substantiate his case, the
petitioner has examined six witnesses as PW-1 Sh. Kailash Chand, PW2 Sh. Anish
Kumar, PW-3 Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Attendant, Govt. of NCT, Department
of Delhi Archives, PW-4 Sh. Naresh Kumar Soni, Civil Nazir, PW-5 Sh. Jagdish
Prasad, Ahlmad and PW6 Sh. Amit Bharadwaj, JA, record room civil.
6) PW-1 Sh. Kailash Chand has tendered his examination-in-chief by way of
affidavit Exhibit PW-1/A and has relied upon and placed on record the following
documents:-
S.no. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of site plan Exhibit PW-1/1,
2. Copy of partition deed registered in Exhibit PW-1/2
favour of father of petitioner in respect (OSR)
of suit property
3. The copy of rent agreement of the suit Exhibit PW-1/3
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.4/29Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:45:04 +0530
property (OSR)
4. Certified copy of judgment in earlier Exhibit PW-1/4
case filed against the respondent by the
petitioner
5. The certified copy of DR petition filed Exhibit PW1/5
by the respondent
6. Rent receipt dated 02.09.2015 Exhibit PW-1/6
7. Original photographs Exhibit PW1/7
(Colly)
8. Copies of the attendance register of Exhibit PW1/8
staff in the said institute (Colly) (OSR)
(objected to
mode of proof)
9. Copies of the attendance register of Exhibit PW1/9
students in the said institute (Colly) (OSR)
(objected to
mode of proof)
10. Copies of fees receipts of the students Exhibit PW1/10
studying in the said institute (Colly) (OSR)
(objected to
mode of proof)PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.5/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:45:10 +0530
7) Next, the petitioner has examined PW2 Sh. Anish Kumar, who has tendered
his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Exhibit PW-2/A and relied upon all
the documents which are already exhibited by PW1. PW2 cross examined by Ld.
Counsel for the respondent.
8) Next, the petitioner has examined PW3 Sh. Rajender Singh, as summoned
witness, who had brought on record the followings documents:-
S.no. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of Registered partition deed (document Exhibit PW3/A
no.14345, book no.1, volume no.636, page (Colly) (OSR)
no.168 to 182) dated 26.10.1966, Sub- (pages 21)
Registrar-II
9) Next, the petitioner has examined PW4 Sh. Naresh Kumar Soni, as summoned
witness, who had brought on record the followings documents:-
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Certified copies of the Exhibit PW4/A (Colly)
application under Section 27 (pages 10)
of DRC Act, its affidavit, and
ordersheets dated 11.01.2016,
11.03.2016 and 22.03.2016PW4 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
10) Next, the petitioner has examined PW5 Sh. Jagdish Prasad, as summoned
witness, who had relied upon the following documents:-
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.6/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:45:16 +0530
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copies of certified copies of the Exhibit PW5/A (Colly)
application/petition under Section 14(1) (pages 1 to 23)
(e) of DRC Act (memo of parties and
first page), two site plans, ordersheet
dated 12.01.2022 and order dated
12.01.2022
11) Next, the petitioner has examined PW6 Sh. Amit Bhardwaj, as summoned
witness, who had relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of certified copy of eviction Exhibit PW-6/1 (Colly)
(OSR) (page no 1 to 14),
petition no.329/2006 titled Kailash
Chand vs. Vivek Bhandari, having
Goshwara no.608/ ARC/ East
2. Copy of certified copy of eviction Exhibit PW-6/2 (Colly)
petition no.327/2006 titled Kailash (OSR) (page no 15 to 28)
Chand vs. Shakuntla Sharma and Ors.,
having Goshwara no.366/RC/2011
3. Copy of certified copy of eviction Exhibit PW-6/3 (Colly)
petition no.328/2006, titled Kailash (OSR) (page no 29 to 38)
Chand vs. Ashwani Kumar, having
Goshwara no.105/RC/2010, East
4. Copy of certified copy of eviction Exhibit PW-6/4(Colly)
petition no.38/2009/1986 titled Kailash (OSR) (page no 39 to 60)
Chand vs. Kapal Dev and Anr., having
Goshwara no.369/RC/ EastRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.7/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:45:23 +0530
12) On completion of petitioner’s evidence, opportunities were given to the
respondent to lead RE, however, Respondent did not lead any evidence and
opportunity of respondent to lead RE was closed on 01.07.2024 and matter was
listed for final arguments.
13) Final Arguments: – Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the petitioner.
Despite opportunity, no arguments were addressed on behalf of the respondent.
14) Having heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and having
thoroughly perused the entire record of the case, it is to be considered by this
Court whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the tenanted
premises/shop on the grounds under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act.
15) Points Of Consideration: Essentials For Deciding The Present Case:- The
present application has been made under clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 14
of Act 59 of 1958, for commercial premises, which after passing of judgment in
Satyawati Sharma’s v. Union of India is to be read as follows: (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 any court or
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
the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following
grounds only, namely:- (e) that the premises are required bona fide 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;
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16 Dated 13.06.2025 Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.8/29 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 16:45:29 +0530
16) In the light of the provisions of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of
Act 59 of 1958 , triable issues stated in the order allowing application for leave to
defend and the pleadings of the parties following points fall for the determination
of this court, namely,
i. Whether the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises?
ii. Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
iii. Whether the premises are required bona fide by the petitioner?
iv. Whether the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation?
17) Arguments already heard and material on record is perused.
18) Whether the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises:-
i. As per the petition, the petitioners are the owners by virtue of inheritance and
partition deed. The tenanted premises was owned by the father of the petitioners
namely, Bhola nath S/o Chandu Nath, who expired on 28.03.1968. Thereafter, the
tenanted premises devolved upon the petitioners. As per the written statement,
petitioners are not the owners. EDMC is the owner of the tenanted premises.
ii. As far as deciding as to who is the owner of the tenanted premises, the law is
settled that cases under DRC do not require proving of absolute ownership by the
landlord. Landlord is only required to show that his legal position on the suit
property is more than that of a tenant. The suit will not get defeated for the
imperfectness of the title. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble
Delhi High Court in PlastiChemicals Company v. Ashit Chadha and Anr 114
(2004) DLT 408, 2004 (76) DRJ 654 . It says that if a landlord is able to show by
producing a document of his ownership on record, landlord is deemed to have
discharged his burden of ownership vis-a-vis the Rent Control Act and such aRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.9/29Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:45:35 +0530
document can at best be challenged by the heirs of the owner and not by the
tenant. Similarly, in the case of Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi cited as 157 (2009)
Delhi Law Times 450 it has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in para no.
7 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 the 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 DRC 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’. It is also well settled preposition of law that ‘for the purpose of Section
14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership
as required under Transfer of Property of Act. He is required to show only that he
is more than a tenant”.Hence, the issue of ownership of the petitioner on the suit
property will be decided in the light of above stated position of law.
iii. Analysis of evidence:-
Petitioner has relied upon following documents to prove his ownership i.e., copy
of site plan Ex.PW1/1, copy of registered partition Deed in favour of father of the
petitioner Ex.PW1/2 (OSR), certified copy of judgment in earlier cases filed by
the petitioner against the respondent Ex. PW1/4, certified copy of DR petition
filed by respondent Ex.PW1/5.
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.10/29
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:45:41 +0530
Ex.PW1/2 is a copy of a partition deed registered in the favour of father of the
petitioners with respect to the suit property. Taqseem Nama i.e., partition deed
executed between Sh. Amarnath, Sh. Bhola Nath, Smt. Ganga Devi, Sh. Ram
Narayan, Sh. Radhey Shyam, Sh. Sita Ram, Smt. Sharda, Smt. Shakuntla.
During final arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that
petitioners has admitted the landlord tenant relationship qua the tenanted premises
in Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5. The petitioners have relied upon the provision of
Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act to show that the respondent is estopped from
questioning the ownership of the petitioners as the respondent has admitted the
tenancy of the petitioner in Ex.PW1/4. Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
is read as: ‘Estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in possession. — No
tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall,
during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of
such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable
property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of
the person in possession there of shall be permitted to deny that such person had a
title to such possession at the time when such licence was given’.
Ex.PW1/4 is perused. Same is a judgment dated 24.02.2010 passed in case
bearing no.E-328/06 which is a case between the petitioners and respondent under
Section 14(1)(a) of DRC. The judgment is passed qua the tenanted premises i.e.,
Shop no.321/IV, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032. It is required to be
assessed whether the aforesaid judgment is admissible in the present case and to
what extent it has bearing on the facts of this case. Section 43 of Indian Evidence
Act talks about the relevance of the judgments in other court proceedings. Section
43: Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, whenRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.11/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
SHARMA
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.13
16:45:47
+0530
relevant. –Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections
40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or
decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provision of this Act. It is
not disputed by the respondent that the present judgment was passed in the case
bearing no.E-328/06 in a case between the petitioner and respondent under Section
14(1)(a) of DRC. Parties in both the cases are same. Both the cases are are under
DRC. Parties and the tenanted premises are also same. In both the cases the
ownership is required to be seen on the basis of who has a better title qua the
tenanted premises. It is also not disputed that this judgment is not challenged till
date in any appeal or revision. In fact, the respondent in compliance of the
aforesaid judgment has deposited the rent in the court by filing a DR petition
which is Ex.PW1/5. Hence, the judgment is final. In the aforesaid judgment as
well as per the facts of the case, the same defence was taken by the respondent that
the ownership of the tenanted premises is transferred in favor of EDMC and
respondent is not the tenant of the petitioners. However, as per the judgment since
relationship of landlord and tenant is proved between the parties and question of
ownership of the premises is immaterial.
Ex.PW1/5 is copy of DR petition under Section 27 of DRC Act filed by the
respondent (Ashwani Kumar Soni) against the petitioners (Anil Kumar, Kailash
Chand and Chaman Lal). This document is not disputed by the respondent. As per
para 1, the tenanted premises for which the rent is sought to be deposited is one
shop municipal no.321(8/13), ground floor, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
As per para 3 of the application, the name and address of landlord is stated “as
mentioned in the array of parties in the title of the case as respondents”.
Respondents in the memo of the parties of Ex.PW1/4 are ((1) Sh. Anil Kumar, S/o
Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath, (2) Sh. Kailash Chand, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath, (3) Sh.
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16 Dated 13.06.2025 Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.12/29 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 16:45:54 +0530
Chaman Lal, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath.). This document is a certified copy of the
court proceedings and therefore admissible in the evidence. Section 79 of Indian
Evidence Act states that a presumption as to genuineness of the certified copy is
drawn.Nothing is brought on record to prove that this application was not filed by
the respondent or not filed by the respondent. By virtue of the contents of this
application, the respondent clearly admits that he is a tenant on the tenanted
premises and his landlords are Sh. Anil Kumar, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath, Sh.
Kailash Chand, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath, Sh. Chaman Lal, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath,
who are also stated to be landlords in the present case. Hence, once the tenant
admits the landlord tenant relationship, the ownership of the landlord cannot be
questioned by the tenant. The respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the
Indian Evidence Act. Reliance is placed upon again in the case of Ramesh Chand
v. Uganti Devi cited as 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 450 it has been held by the
Hon’ble Delhi High Court that ‘………… Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates
estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only
after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying them. In fact, such a
tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying
rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of
learned ARC in this respect. As far as letting purpose is concerned, in view of the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead by LRs. v.
U.O.I, (2008) 5 SCC 287), this ground is not available to the petitioner.’
Considering the document Ex.PW1/4, the judgment clearly states that respondent
is the tenant of the petitioners qua the tenanted premises. Further, in consequent of
the judgment to protect his possession on the tenanted premises, the respondent
has deposited the rent by virtue of Ex.PW1/4 A. This amounts to admission on the
part of respondent qua the landlord tenant relationshop with respect to the tenanted
premises. Hence, the respondent is estopped from challenging the ownership ofRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.13/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:46:00 +0530
the petitioners qua the tenanted premises. Petitioner is able to prove the ownership
by way of a better title and existence of landlord tenant relationship between the
parties.
iv. Analysis of respondent’s evidence:-
Burden of proof is shifted upon the respondent to show that there is no sufficient
admission by virtue of Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5 qua the tenancy on the tenanted
premises. Respondent did not lead any defence evidence. The documents
Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW/14 A are not disputed. Nothing is brought out from the
cross examination of PW1 with respect to the genuiness of the aforesaid
documents. Respondent has only given a suggestion in the cross examination of
PW1 that the respondent never admitted the ownership in the petition filed under
Section 14(1)(a). In the opinion of this Court, even though the respondent did not
admit the ownership in the petition under Section 14(1)(a), separate finding in this
regard is given by the Ld. RC in Ex.PW1/4. Further, to protect the possession,
respondent himself has filed the petition under Section 27 of DRC Act whereby
petitioners are stated to be the landlords, respondent stated to be the tenant qua the
tenanted premises. This amounts to a sufficient admission of landlord tenant
relationship, hence operating as an estoppel upon the respondent to question the
ownership of the petitioners.
v. Findings:- Petitioners are able to prove the ownership qua the tenante premises
under DRC Act.
19) Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties?
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.14/29
NIHARIKA Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:46:06 +0530
i. Petitioners are relied upon the admissions made by the respondent in the written
statement, rent deed Ex.PW1/3 (OSR), petition filed under Section 27 DRC Act
Ex.PW1/4 A and Ex.PW1/6 (rent receipts) to prove the existence of landlord
tenant relationship between the parties.
ii. Admissions made in written statement: As per para 3 (b) of the petition the
name and address of the tenant is Sh. Ashwini Kumar, S/o of Sh. Nand Kishore,
R/o 215, Teliwara, Shahdara, Delhi-32. In the corresponding paragraph of reply
and merits, it is clearly stated ‘3 b the para under 3 b of the petition is admitted’.
Further, as per para 9 of the application it is stated that ‘respondent is the sole
tenant in the premises having being inducted therein by present petitioners w.e.f 1 st
March 1998.’In the corresponding paragraph of reply and merits, it is clearly
stated ‘that para 9. the para under 9 of the petition is admitted’. Hence, by virtue
of the admissions in the written statement, the respondent has admitted the tenancy
on the tenanted premises and admitted petitioners as his landlord.
iii. Rent Deed Ex.PW1/3 (OSR): This Deed is dated 02.03.1998 executed by
Ashwani Kumar referred as tenant in favour of Kailash Chand, Chaman lal and
Anil Kumar referred as landlord with respect to one shop measuring 13X8X10 in
property bearing no.321, main road, Bhola Nath nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. The
document is clearly mentioned in para 14 of the application. In the written
statement, corresponding paragraph no.14 (reply on merits), it is stated that
“paragraph no.14 of the petition is not denied”. The respondent has not led any
independent evidence on this aspect. By virtue of the said admission in the written
statement, the respondent has admitted the rent agreement Ex.PW1/3 executed
between him and the petitioners. By virtue of this admission, the respondent
admits the ownership of the petitioners, date of execution of the rent agreement,
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.15/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:46:12 +0530
landlord tenant relationship and the address of the property qua which the tenancy
is created.
iv. In addition to the above documents, to prove the landlord tenant relationship
between the parties, the petitioner has relied upon Ex.PW1/6. This document is a
rent receipt dated 02.09.2015. The tenant is Ashwini Kumar, S/o Nand Kishore.
The tenanted premises is shop no.321, ward no.4, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara.
No suggestion qua this document is given in the cross examination of PW1. The
document is deemed to be admitted. By virtue of this documents as well the
landlord tenant relationship between the parties is admitted.
v. Ex.PW1/5 (DR petition), already discussed in para 18 (iii) of this judgment. By
virtue of this document as well, the respondent has admitted the landlord tenant
relationship between the parties qua the tenanted premsies.
vi. Finding: landlord tenant relationship qua the tenanted premises exists between
the parties.
20) Bona fide requirement:-
i. In Krishan Lal vs R N Bakshi decided by our own Hon’ble High Court that: ‘8.
It is settled law that it is not for a tenant to dictate the terms to the landlord as to
how and in what manner he should adjust himself, without calling upon the tenant
to vacate a tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of
requirement of landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how
else the landlord could have adjusted. When the landlord shows a prima facie case,
a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide, is available to be
drawn. It is also settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of hisRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.16/29Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:46:18 +0530
requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom
in the matter and it is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and
in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of
their own. The tenant cannot compel a landlord to live in a particular fashion and
method until and unless the requirement shown is totally mala fide or not
genuine’.
ii. As per the application, the younger son of the petitioner no.3, who is dependent
upon him, namely Mr. Anish Kumar aged about 30 years, is running a institute in
the name of “M-Xpert’ from: shop no.319, part of shop no.320 and also from 332
(all of them are of small sizes, together constituting the area of around 53 sq. yards
which are owned by the petitioners). Further, these all are joined together to form
one premises from where the son of petitioner no.3 is running a institute since
2009 which is more appropriately shown in blue colour in the site plan, out of the
said area shop no.319 was joined in October, 2013 by the petitioners. The
condition of the institute is such that it is narrow from the front and broad from the
back as front portion is occupied by the respondent and one more tenant in part of
shop no.320 (against whom eviction petition is also filed). It is further submitted
that the institute run by the son of petitioner no.3 in the name of ‘M-Xpert’ is
imparting education of mobile & computer repairing to the students. There are
around 40 students as on date in the said institute of the son of petitioner no.3. The
present space is miserably inadequate to run the said institute. Further, the new
batches cannot be started due to shortage of space of study rooms with the said son
of petitioner no.3. Due to shortage of space there is no reception, waiting room
and conference room in the said institute. It is further submitted that the petitioners
are in urgent requirement of space abutting to the institute for meeting the urgent
requirement of space for the running of institute effectively and efficiently. ThereRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.17/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:46:24 +0530
is urgent and immediate requirement of space abutting to the institute for making
reception, waiting room and conference room in front of the institute and for
adding more class rooms to the institute. Further, the occupancy of the front
portion of the institute by the respondent has reduced the front portion of the
institute reducing the visibility of the institute to the prospective students from the
road and also resulting in space crunch for the purpose of reception and also for
conference room/waiting room and study room.
iii. In the written statement the respondent has denied that Anish Kumar (younger
son of petitioner no.3) is dependent upon the Petitioner no.3.It is further stated that
Petitioners have sufficient and reasonable commercial accommodation in which
Anish Kumar (younger son of petitioner no.3) can run his business comfortably. It
is further stated that Anish Kumar (younger son of petitioner no.3)can make
reception room, waiting room , study room and conference room in Shop number
319,322,325,327,330,331 and 332 which are already lying vacant and in
occupation and possession of the petitioners. It is further stated that no document
is filed to show that there is a steady increase in the number of student being
enrolled in the said institute in the last few years and it is not stated as to how
many teachers have been employed by Anish Kumar (younger son of petitioner
no.3) to run the institute. The demand of bonafide requirement is not genuine one.
iv. Dependence: As per the written statement, Anish Kumar (younger son of
petitioner no.3) is not dependent on petitioners for his bonafide requirement. The
word dependent cannot be constructed in a narrow and literal manner. The same
have to be interpreted judiciously keeping in mind the intent of the legislators.
Reliance is placed on the case of Anil Kumar Gupta V Deepika Verma,
14.10.2015, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in RC.Rev. 138/2015. It was observed inRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.18/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:46:30 +0530
the said case that “Customarily or in common parlance a dependent would be
defined as any person who is relient 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 legislator 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 but will also include
emotional reliance on another person. Hence it is very clear that dependency is
not required to be analysis in the context of financial dependency about beyond
that. Family members can be dependent for the purpose of availability of the
property . In what situation a family member , in present case Anish kumar( son of
Petitioner no.3) will be considered as a dependent is to be analysed. Reliance is
placed upon the case of Joginder Pal Vs Nawal Kishore, (2002), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 2256. 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 to 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 tenanted premises and such requirement
would be requirement of the landlord. The tests laid down to be applied are :(1)
Whether the requirement pleaded and proved may properly be regarded as
landlord’s own requirement (2) whether on the facts and circumstances of a given
case, actual occupation and user by some other person would be deemed to beRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.19/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:46:36 +0530
landlord’s own requirement. The answer would in turn, depend on (I) the nature or
degree of relationship and or dependence between the landlord pleading the
requirement as his own and the person who would actually 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 reason ability
of the claim, will grant leave to defend. In the present case it is not disputed that
Anish Kumar is younger son of Petitioner number 3. Nothing is brought on record
to show that the relations between the Petitioner no.3 and Anish Kumar are not
cordial. Hence, on the basis of cordial relations and the degree of relations , Anish
Kumar is dependent on Petitioner no.3 for requirement of a property to expand his
existing business.
v. In order to show the bonafide requirement, the petitioners have relied upon a
copy of attendance register of staff Exhibit PW1/8, copies of attendance register of
student in the institute of Anish Kumar Exhibit PW1/9, copies of fee receipts of
the students studying in the said institute Exhibit PW1/10. All the three documents
are objected to the mode of proof. The said documents were produced in original
at the time of examination-in-chief and the same was seen and returned. Hence,
the objection raised to mode of proof is declined. Documents Ex. PW1/8,
Ex.PW1/9 and Ex.PW1/10 are admissible in evidence. Ten photographs of the
training institute an expert are also filed which are Ex. PW1/7. Ex.PW1/8 is
perused. Copy of attendance register from April 2014 to November 2016. From
April 2014 to March 2015 only one staff member is there in the institute. From
April 2015 onwards, the total number of staff members are three. Similarly, as per
Ex.PW1/9, attendance register of the student, the number of student studying in
the institute have increased considerably over the period of time. Ex.PW1/10
(Colly) is the fee receipt issued to the students. Fee receipts are filed. DuringRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.20/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:46:42 +0530
cross examination of the aforesaid documents, suggestion is denied that Ex.PW1/8
to Ex.PW1/10 are forged and fabricated documents. PW1 (Kailash Chand) has
answered the question with respect to the staff member in the institute, fees
charged, amount received by Anish Kumar per student. PW1 denied the
suggestions that 40 students do not study in the institute. Petitioners are also
examined Anish Kumar as PW2. The witness stated that he is running the institute
since 2009. Witness stated that no permission is required for running an institute
from the government. Witness stated that currently there is a practical lab,
software room, classroom and computer room, eight SMD machines to provide
eduction to the enrolled students. Salary of the teachers is also stated in the cross
examination. Witness also stated that he has shown the income in the ITR.
Suggestions were given to the witness is being run without authorization, illegally,
for the purpose of money laundering. The defence raised by the suggestion do not
metiate the fact that a mobile training institute is run by the son of petitioner no,.3
whereby 40 students were persuing the training and three teacher are training
them. This also negates the suggestion that the institute is being run to create a
false ground of bonafide requirement. The documents clearly show that a training
institute is being run. PW2 stated that the institute is being run from property
no.319, part of 320 and 332. Further questions were asked to the witness with
respect to the ownership qua the property which are relevant to the witness. The
witness was also asked the question as to how much space is required to run the
institute properly and the witness denied the suggestion that 53 sq yards is not
sufficient to run the institute. It is a settled law that tenant cannot question the
landlord regarding the minute details and precise nature of the business. Reliance
is placed upon the case of Anil Bajaj and Anr. v. Vinod Ahuja, (2014) 15 SCC 610:
it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property belonging to
the landlord should be utilised 6. In the present case it is clear that while theRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.21/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:46:48 +0530
landlord (Appellant 1) is carrying on his business from a shop premise located in a
narrow lane, the tenant is in occupation of the premises located on the main road
which the landlord considers to be more suitable for his own business. The
materials on record, in fact, disclose that the landlord had offered to the tenant the
premises located in the narrow lane in exchange for the tenanted premises which
offer was declined by the tenant. It is not the tenant’s case that the landlord,
Appellant 1, does not propose to utilise the tenanted premises from which eviction
is sought for the purposes of his business. It is also not the tenant’s case that the
landlord proposes to rent out/keep vacant the tenanted premises after obtaining
possession thereof or to use the same is any way inconsistent with the need of the
landlord. What the tenant contends is that the landlord has several other shop
houses from which he is carrying on different businesses and further that the
landlord has other premises from where the business proposed from the tenanted
premises can be effectively carried out. 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 belonging to the landlord should be utilised by him for the
purpose of his business. Also, the fact that the landlord is doing business from
various other premises cannot foreclose his right to seek eviction from the
tenanted premises so long as he intends to use the said tenanted premises for his
own business’. Further, in another case titled as Raj Kumar Khaitan & Ors. vs.
Bibi Zubaida Khatun & Anr., MANU/SC/0411/1995: AIR 1995 SC 576, it was
observed that ‘It was not necessary for the appellants-landlords to indicate the
precise nature of the business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if
the nature of business would have been indicated nobody would bind the landlords
to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated’.
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.22/29
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:46:54 +0530
vi. Hence, the legal position is quite clear. The landlord need not required to prove
the minute details regarding the proposed the expansion of the business. Further,
tenant will not dictate the landlord as to how the landlord should adjust himself in
his own property without disturbing the tenant.
vii. Respondent has not brought any evidence on record to show that a training
institute is not being run by PW2/ Anish Kumar from property no.319, part of 320
and 332. Nothing contrary to the bonafide requirement is brought out from the
cross examination from the PW1 and PW2. The photographs Ex.PW1/7 clearly
show that one part is used for the entrance of the institute and another part is being
currently used as entrance of office. The institute is on the main road and
expansion by using the tenanted premises will increase the overall visibility of the
institute. The respondent being the tenant cannot dictate that the area in which the
institute is already being run is sufficient and tenanted premises is not required for
expansion for construction of reception, waiting room and conference room. The
expansion is further to have more number of students.
viii. Finding: The petitioner is able to prove that space is required to expand the
current training institute for the construction of reception, waiting room and
conference room.
21) Suitable alternate accommodation:
i. As per the application the occupancy of the front portion of the institute by the
respondent has reduced the front portion of the institute reducing the visibility of
the institute to the prospective students from the road and also resulting in space
crunch for the purpose of reception and also for conference room/waiting room
and study room. It is submitted that there is only the shop in question and otherRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.23/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:47:00 +0530
part of shop no.320 which are abutting to the institute which can be added to meet
the urgent requirement of space for the institute. The back side of the institute
bearing no.333 have old vintage tenant, protected by DRC, Which portion is not in
possession of the petitioners. It is further stated that there is no other alternate
vacant commercial accommodation, which is the premises abutting to the institute
of the said son of the petitioner no.3, available with the petitioners to meet the
urgent bonafide requirement of the said son of petitioner no.3. As the requirement
is of commercial space abutting to the institute, therefore, only shop in question
and part of shop no.320 are only alternate suitable accommodations in the present
case. Further, the shop no.322 is with the petitioners and the petitioners only after
getting the possession of shop in question and part of shop no.320 would also be
joining the said shop with the institute to meet the requirement for the institute.
After joining the said three shops the said urgent bonafide requirement of the said
son of petitioner no.3 can be met. Due to shop in question and part of shop no.320,
the shop no.322 cannot be joined and used for the purpose of institute as the said
shops are coming in between. Further, although as per the fact of the case, there
cannot be any other shop which is situated away from the said institute and is not
abutting to it, as alternate suitable accommodation. But to avoid any unnecessary
objection, it is submitted that there is part of shop no.479-480, Anaj Mandi,
Shahdara, Delhi-32 with the petitioners where the petitioners are running their
business of departmental/kirana store and the same is occupied by them.
ii. In the written statement the respondent has denied that the Petitioners do not
have any other suitable alternate accommodation for the bona fide requirement.
Shop number 319, 322,325,327,330,331 and 332 can be utilised by the Anish
Kumar (younger son of petitioner no.3) for his bona fide requirement. Shop
number 325 measuring about 150b square yards which is adjacent to shop numberRC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.24/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:47:11 +0530
319 and 320 by amalgamating the said shops.Shop no.19 is laying vacant which is
also part of shop number 320.
iii. Anish Kumar (younger son of petitioner no.3) is already running is already
running another shop bearing number 327 which can be adjusted to shop number
319 and 320 (half portion) and 325 and the same can be amalgamated in shop
number 322.
iv. The proposed alternate accommodation and statement of the petitioners
concerning the said accommodation is compared below:
Proposed Statement of the petitioners alternate accommodation Shop no. 319 It is denied that shop no.319 is lying vacant. Shop no. 322 Due to shop i.e. part of 320 and shop no.321, the shop no.322
cannot be joined and use for the purpose of institute as the
said shops are coming in between which can only be used
after eviction of the respondent and other tenant against
whom eviction is filed. The petitioner shall also joined 322 to
meet urgent bonafide requirement once part of 320 and 321
are vacated.
Shop no. 325 It is the residential unit, therefore it is not an alternate
suitable accommodation. It is far away from the institute. It
cannot be joined with the institute as shop no.323 and 324
lies in between which is occupied by tenant Mr. Sushil
Kumar and Suresh respectively.
Shop no. 327 It is denied that Anish Kumar, son of petitioner no.3, is
running shop no.327 or the same can be adjusted to shop
no.319, 320 or with premises bearing no.325 or the same can
be amalgamated to shop no.322.
Shop no.327 is on the other corner of the proeprty which falls
on the other road and is far away from the instute and cannot
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.25/29
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:47:17 +0530
be joined with the institute and therefore it is not a suitable
alternate accommodation.
This shop is used for running a shop of mobil
accessories/recharge by elder son of petitioner no.3, namely,
Manish Kumar.
Shop no. 330 Shop no.330 is on the other corner of the property which falls
on the other road and is far away from the institute and
cannot be joined with the institute and therefore it is not a
suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 331 Shop no.331 is on the other corner of the property which falls
on the other road and is far away from the institute and
cannot be joined with the institute and therefore it is not a
suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 332 It is already used for running the institute by Anish Kumar
Sharma, son of petitioner no.3.
v. The law with respect to the consideration of the reasonable suitable
accommodation is very settled. Landlord is the bese judge of its requirements.
Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by HOn’ble Supreme Court of India
in Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16 whereby it was held that ‘an
alternative accommodation’, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be
‘reasonably suitable’, obviously in comparision with the accommodation
whereform the landlord is seeking eviction. It was further held that the availability
of another accommodation suitable and convenient in all respects as the
accommodation from which the landlord is seeking eviction may have an adverse
bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord, if he unreasonably refuses
to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. It was yet further held
that the bonafides of the need of the landlord for the premises or additional
premises have to be determined by the Court by applying objective standards and
once the Court is satisfied of such bonafide, then in the matter of choosing out of
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.26/29
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:47:23 +0530
more accommodation than one available to the landlord, his subjective choice
shall be respected by the Court. It was yet further held that for the business which
the landlord proposes to start, an accommodation situated on the first floor cannot
be said to be an alternative suitable accommodation in comparison with the shops
situated on the ground floor; a shop on the first floor cannot attract the same
number of customers and earn the same business, as a shop situated on the ground
floor would do’. Further, in another case, titled as Adarsh Electricals and others vs
Dinesh Dayal, MANU/DE/2782/2010, it was held that ‘the concept of alternate
accommodation means that accommodation which is reasonably suitable for the
landlord, and the court would not expect the landlord to sacrifice on his own
comforts and requirements merely on the ground that the premises is with a
tenant . The problem had to be approached from the point of view of a reasonable
man and not that of a whimsical landlord. The court would permit the landlord to
satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels
would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its
own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other
accommodation must e accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need’.
vi. Analysis and finding: On the basis of the discussion above, this Court has
arrived on the following findings with respect to the proposed alternate
accommodation:
Shop no. 319 It is already used for running the institute by Anish Kumar
Sharma, son of petitioner no.3. PW1 admitted in the cross
examination that he has opened this shop in his premises.
During cross examination, suggestion was given that the
premises is lying vacant, however, same is denied and not
independently proved by the respondent. Hence, this is not a
suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 322 This shop do not share any common wall with the training RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16 Dated 13.06.2025 Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.27/29 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 16:47:29 +0530
institute. The tenanted premises is between this shop and the
front portion of the training institute ie., shop nom.320. This
area will not provide a seamless connectivity of a single
institute. During cross examination, suggestion was given that
the premises is lying vacant, however, same is denied and not
independently proved by the respondent. Hence, this is not a
suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 325 As per the site plan, this shop is far away from the existing
training institute, therefore, not a suitable alternate
accommodation. This shop do not share any common wall with
the training institute. During cross examination, suggestion was
given that the premises is lying vacant, however, same is denied
and not independently proved by the respondent. Hence, this is
not a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 327 As per the site plan, this shop is far away from the existing
training institute, therefore, not a suitable alternate
accommodation. During cross examination, suggestion was
given that the premises is lying vacant, however, same is denied
and not independently proved by the respondent. Hence, this is
not a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 330 As per the site plan, this shop is far away ( in the opposite
direction) from the existing training institute, therefore, not a
suitable alternate accommodation. During cross examination,
suggestion was given that the premises is lying vacant, however,
same is denied and not independently proved by the respondent.
Hence, this is not a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 331 As per the site plan, this shop is far away ( in the opposite
direction) from the existing training institute, therefore, not a
suitable alternate accommodation. During cross examination,
suggestion was given that the premises is lying vacant, however,
same is denied and not independently proved by the respondent.
Hence, this is not a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 332 It is already used for running the institute by Anish Kumar
Sharma, son of petitioner no.3, therefore not a suitable alternate
accommodation. During cross examination, suggestion was
given that the premises is lying vacant, however, same is denied
and not independently proved by the respondent. Hence, this is
not a suitable alternate accommodation.
RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16 Dated 13.06.2025 Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.28/29 Digitally signed NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 16:47:35 +0530
22) Final Order: On the basis of discussion able, this court has come to a finding
that the Bona fide need of the landlord is justified, the averments of the respondent
regarding alternative accommodation are vague, the title of the Petitioner cannot
be questioned and landlord tenant relationship exists between the parties. Thus,
having found that the defence set up by the respondent is only a moonshine, the
application filed seeking leave to defend was accordingly rejected.
23) Eviction order is passed in favour of petitioners and against the respondent
thereby directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. i.e. shop
bearing no.321/IV, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, built up on plot no.10, Delhi-32,
shown in red color in the site plan and red lines in the site plan filed by the
petitioner in terms of section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, as
per Section 14 (7) DRC Act, the Petitioner shall not be entitled to obtain
possession thereof before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of this
order. File be consigned to record room. File be consigned to record room after
due compliance. Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Pronounced in Open Court SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
on June 13, 2025 16:47:41 +0530
(NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA)
Senior Civil Judge-cum RC
KKD/SHD/DELHI/13.06.2025RC ARC E3/2016 & 555/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Ashwani Kumar Pg no.29/29