Delhi District Court
Bharat Tyagi vs K.K.Bhatia on 2 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-
CCJ-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Dev Chaudhary, DJS
RC ARC -: 86/2018
Unique Case ID -: DLWT030016112018
In the matter of -
SH. BHARAT TYAGI
S/o- Late Sh. G.C. Tyagi
Through his LRs -
1. Smt. Om Tyagi
W/o Sh. Bharat Tyagi
2. Sh. Rajeev Tyagi
3. Sh. Sanjay Tyagi
Both S/o Sh. Bharat Tyagi
All R/o WZ-119, Basai Darapur, New Delhi-110015
4. Smt. Vandana
W/o Sh. Sandeep Tyagi
R/o P-112, Awas Vikas, near LIC Building,
Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttrakhand
......... Petitioner
VS
SH. K.K. BHATIA
Prop. of M/s Bhatia Opticals
WZ-11, Kailash Park,
Opp. Kirti Nagar, New Delhi 110015
......... Respondent
1. Date of Institution : 12.07.2018
2. Date of Reserving Order : 25.03.2025
3. Date of Decision : 02.04.2025
4. Decision : Dismissed
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 1 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:40
+0530
Argued by -:Sh. Varun Tyagi, Ld. counsel for petitioner.
Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Ld. counsel for respondent.
JUDGEMENT –
HEADING PARA No.
1. Factual Matrix 1
2. Petition 2-2.2
3. Written Statement 3-4
4. Evidence 5-7
5. Arguments 8-10
6. Analysis 11-20
- Scope of leave to defend 14-14.3
- Landlord-Tenant relationship 15-15.2
- Vacant land 16-16.7
- Bonafide Requirement 17-17.9
- Alternate accommodation 18-18.1
7. Conclusion 21-24
FACTUAL MATRIX -
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Sh.
Bharat Tyagi (now being represented by his LRs) against the
respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
1958 (hereinafter, “the Act”) seeking eviction of the respondent-
tenant from the premises i.e. one shop in property bearing no. WZ-11,
Kailash Park, Opposite Kirti Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter,
“tenanted premises”), which was allegedly given on rent to the
respondent by the father of the original petitioner for a monthly rent
of Rs. 300/- excluding electricity and water charges.
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 2 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
PETITION -
2. In the petition, it is mentioned that the tenanted premises
was let out by the deceased father of the petitioner to the respondent
and after the death of his father, the petitioner has become the
landlord/owner of the tenanted premises. It is mentioned that the
tenancy is an old tenancy and there was no written agreement qua the
same. The petition avers that the tenanted premises has been mutated
in the name of the petitioner and the respondent has been paying rent
to the petitioner. However, no rent has been paid after December,
2017. It is mentioned that the family of the petitioner consists of his
three sons and grandchildren. The petitioner has claimed that he
requires the tenanted premises for purposes of running of a business
by one of his grandsons, namely Sh. Bhavaya Tyagi, who is
dependent upon him and intends to start a business of musical
instruments and training.
2.1. The petition further avers that the grandson of the
petitioner has done a diploma and has experience in the relevant field.
It is mentioned that the family members of the petitioner as well as the
petitioner do not have any other suitable accommodation for running
of the said business. Hence, the present petition, which prays that the
respondent be evicted from the tenanted premises.
2.2. Since the present petition was filed under Section 14(1)
(e) of the Act, leave to defend was filed by the respondent and the
same was allowed vide order dated 24.07.2023. Thereafter, written
statement has been filed by the respondent.
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 3 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
WRITTEN STATEMENT -
3. In the written statement, preliminary objections have
been taken that the petition is not maintainable as the shop in question
was an open plot (khaali jameen) and the respondent had constructed
the shop on the same. It is mentioned that the tenanted premises has
been registered in the name of Bhatia Opticals in municipal records
and the electricity connection has also been obtained in the name of
the firm of the respondent. It is claimed that the provisions of the Act
are not attracted to the shop in question.
3.1. It is averred that the deceased petitioner owns several
other properties- (1) property no. WZ-119, Basai Darapur, New Delhi
measuring 200 sq. yds. having several vacant shops, (2) property no.
WZ-3/2, Basai Darapur, New Delhi having vacant shops at upper
floor and basement, (3) property no. WZ-A-3, Basai Darapur, New
Delhi measuring 1500 sq. yds. having 10 vacant shops, (4) property
no. WZ-58, Basai Darapur, New Delhi having 4 vacant shops, (5)
property no. WZ-2/42, measuring 600 sq. yds. having 5 vacant shops.
3.2. It is averred that the petitioner has not mentioned the age
and qualifications of the grandson of the petitioner and no proper site
plan has been filed as there are 3 other shops out of which 2 are
vacant. It is mentioned that the petitioner has evicted other tenants
and has vacant possession of other shops. It is further stated that the
respondent is a joint tenant with his wife, Mrs. Madhu Bhatia, who
has not been made a party. It is stated that the only son of the
respondent is suffering from various ailments and the respondent
shall suffer heavily in case he is evicted from the tenanted premises. It
is mentioned that the petition is not bonafide. Some portions of the
petition are also admitted in the written statement. It is mentioned that
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 4 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
the petitioner used to collect rent and even after filing of the petition,
the rent was given and receipt was demanded, however, the petitioner
did not provide the same on the pretext that the same shall be given
after printed receipts are obtained from the press. As such, it is prayed
that the petition be dismissed.
4. In the replication filed by the petitioner, it is mentioned
that the respondent is adopting different stands as the respondent had
earlier denied ownership of the petitioner and has then admitted the
ownership of the petitioner. It is stated that the respondent has
nowhere stated in the reply to the legal notice sent by him to the
petitioner, about joint tenancy with his wife. It is claimed that the
additional documents were filed later, and these are forged and
fabricated. The replication mentions that no proof has been filed by
the respondent in support of his stand. It is mentioned that apart from
one property, which is owned by the petitioner, the petitioner does not
own the other properties mentioned by the respondent. It is stated that
the property owned by the petitioner is residential property and the
petitioner and his family members reside in the same. The allegations
on merits, made by the respondent, are denied.
EVIDENCE –
5. Both the sides have led evidence in this case to
prove their rival stands. The petitioner has led the following oral
and documentary evidence in order to prove his case –
ORAL EVIDENCE
PW-1 : Sanjay Tyagi
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.PW1/A : Evidence affidavit of PW-1
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 5 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
Ex.PW1/1 : Site plan
Ex.PW1/2 : Khasra Girdawari
(OSR)
Ex.PW1/3 : Legal notice dated 12.04.2018
Ex.PW1/4 : Reply to notice, dated 09.05.2018
Ex. PW1/5 : Rejoinder dated 18.05.2018
Ex.PW1/6 : Diploma certificate of Mr. Bhavya
(OSR) Sarang Tyagi
Ex.PW1/7 : Death certificate of Mr. Bharat Singh
(OSR) Tyagi
Ex.PW1/8 : Power of attorney
Mark A/X : ID card and documents of Mr. Bhavya
Tyagi
6. In order to disprove the case set up against him, the
respondent has led the following oral and documentary evidence
in this case –
ORAL EVIDENCE
RW-1 : K.K. Bhatia
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE
Ex.RW1/A : Evidence affidavit of RW-1
Ex.RW1/1 : Rent receipts
Ex.RW1/2 : Photographs
Mark PX-1 : Photocopy of electricity bill
Mark DX1 : Rent receipts (put to PW1)
Mark B/X : Documents of Bhavya Tyagi (put to PW1)
7. A detailed discussion on the evidence led in this case by
both sides has been done in the latter part of this judgment.
ARGUMENTS –
8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both parties
at length. I have also given my thorough consideration to the material
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 6 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
on record. Written submissions have also been filed, which have also
been considered.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has proved his case by demonstrating that there is bonafide
need of the petitioner and his family for the tenanted premises. It is
argued that the leave to defend was given to the respondent on the
limited ground as to whether the tenanted premises was open land at
the time when the property was let out. On other grounds, the case of
the petitioner was already accepted in the order vide which the leave
to defend was granted to the respondent. It is argued that the
ownership of the petitioner is not in dispute, and the petitioner was not
required to add all the tenants or co-owners in this case. It is argued
that the respondent has failed to substantiate his plea of the property
being vacant land and the plea that the petitioner has other suitable
properties available with him. It is argued that the petitioner is not
obliged to give each and every detail of the business proposed to be
done by his grandson and the evidence qua him having all the
necessary know-how of the business has already been filed in this
case. As such, it is prayed that the petition be allowed.
9.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon
Kanji Manji vs. Trustees of the Port of Bombay
MANU/SC/0337/1962, Inder Pal Khanna vs. Bhupinder Singh Rekhi
MANU/DE/1090/2008, Gulshan Rai Monga vs. Sanjay Malhotra
MANU/DE/1150/2015, Rajkumar Khaitan vs. Bibi Zubeida Khatoon
AIR 1995 SC 576, Gurcharan Lal Kumar vs. Srimati Satyawati 2013
(2) RCT (Rent) 120, Dwarkaprasad vs. Niranjan
MANU/SC/0195/2003, Mehmooda Gulshan vs. Javind Hussain
Mungloo (2017) 5 SCC 683, Sait Nagjee Purushottan vs. Vimalbhai
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 7 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
PrabhulaInd (2005) 8 SCC 252, Hukum Chandra vs. Nemi Chand
(2019) 13 SCC 363, Raj Kumar Khanna vs. Parduman Singh
MANU/DE/3497/2013, Tagore Education Society vs. Kamla Tandon
MANU/DE/0901/2009 and Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 199 in support of his contentions.
10. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has
argued that the petition is liable to be dismissed. It is argued that the
respondent has all the defences available to him, and the order vide
which his application to file additional affidavit was allowed, has
remained unchallenged. It is argued that the petitioner’s case being
that the father of Mr. Bhavya Tyagi being employed, there is no
explanation as to how he is dependent upon his grandfather. It is
argued that the grandson of the petitioner is out of India since many
years, and this fact has been concealed by the petitioner. It is argued
that the bonafide need has been fabricated and the documents of the
grandson clearly show that he is living outside India with the intent to
not return and start a music shop. It is argued that the rent receipts
issued by the petitioner clearly mention that the rent is for an open
land, which makes the case of the petitioner outside the purview of the
Act. He has relied upon Ajit Singh vs. Ram Swaroopi Devi (1995)
ILR 2 Delhi 93 and R.K. Rametra vs. Prakash Chand Kaushik 2016
DHC 5899 in support of his contentions. As such, it is prayed that the
petition be dismissed.
ANALYSIS –
11. The only ground urged in the petition is that under
Section 14(1)(e), which reads as under-
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 8 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
“(e)- that the premises let for residential purposes are required
bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or
for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is 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
residential accommodation.
Explanation- For the purposes of this clause, “premises led for
residential purposes” include any premises which having been let for
use as residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used
incidentally for commercial or other purposes”
The provision under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is an exception to the
regular mode of eviction as prescribed under the Act and the landlord
has to prove the twin conditions of bonafide requirement and
unavailability of alternate suitable accommodation in order to
succeed in such a petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abuid-Ul-
Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua AIR 2022 SC 1778 has observed in this
regard, inter-alia, as under-
“12. Section 14(1)(e) carves out an exception to the regular mode of
eviction. Thus, in a case where a landlord makes an application
seeking possession of the tenanted premises for his bona fide re-
quirement, the learned Rent Controller may dispense with the pro-
tection prescribed under the Act and then grant an order of eviction.
Requirement is the existence of bona fide need, when there is no
other “reasonably suitable accommodation”. Therefore, there has to
be satisfaction on two grounds, namely, (i) the requirement being
bona fide and (ii) the non availability of a reasonably suitable resid-
ential accommodation. Such reasonableness along with suitability is
to be seen from the perspective of the landlord and not the tenant.
When the learned Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that there
exists a bona fide need coupled with the satisfaction that there is no
reasonably suitable residential accommodation, the twin conditions
mandated Under Section 14(1)(e) stand satisfied.”
12. What is meant by a bonafide need has been elucidated by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Mahesh Chand
Gupta 1999 INSC 364 in the following words –
“A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a
sincere, honest desire, in contra-distinction with a mere pretence 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. Looked at from
this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the
Digitally
signed byRC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 9 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully
withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The
Judge of facts should place himself .in the arm chair of the landlord
and then ask the question to himself-whether in the given facts
substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be
said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the
positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord
to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material
brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an
inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was
merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid
of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to
deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied
of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or
additional 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.
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 be accepted by the landlord
to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or
genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by
realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or
pedantic must be guarded against”
13. In order to succeed in the present petition on this ground,
the landlord is mandated to show that he is owner of the property and
that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
Further, the landlord has to show bonafide need of the premises and
the fact that there is no other suitable alternate accommodation
available to him. Once these essential ingredients are proved, the
petition succeeds on the ground of bonafide requirement.
SCOPE OF LEAVE TO DEFEND –
14. At the outset, it is to be seen as to whether this Court is
required to adjudicate only on the aspect of nature of land at the time
of initiation of tenancy or on other aspects as well. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has argued that since the other issues were decided
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 10 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:40
+0530
in favour of the petitioner and the leave to defend was granted only to
lead evidence to show whether or not the tenant was given vacant
land, the Court should restrict its consideration to only evidence qua
that aspect. This has been refuted by the learned counsel for the
respondent by arguing that no such restriction is laid down in the
order.
14.1. In this regard, the order vide which the respondent was
granted leave to defend is to be seen. In the order dated 24.07.2023,
the learned Predecessor Court has highlighted all the grounds raised
by the defence in this case, including the aspect of ownership of
petitioner, availability of other accommodation, qualification of his
grandson, non-joining of co-owner and co-tenant etc. The Court has
dealt with these objections and ultimately, it was observed that
evidence is required to be led to find out whether the tenanted
premises was a vacant land when it was leased out to the respondent.
It was observed that the defence does not appear to be frivolous or
untenable. The learned Court had observed that the facts are disputed
and the correctness or otherwise of the assertions made by each side
are required to be examined.
14.2. In the operative part of the order, the learned Court has
held that leave to defend has been granted to the respondent to contest
the matter. Although it appears that one of the major factors which led
the Court to grant the leave was regarding the applicability of the Act
itself, owing to the fact that there was a claim that the tenancy was of
vacant land, the Court has nowhere restricted the parties to lead
evidence only on this aspect. There is no such restriction in the order.
It has been categorically stated that the facts are disputed and
evidence is required to assess the assertions of both sides. The learned
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 11 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:40
+0530
Court has categorically clarified that the opinion of the Court, as
reflected in the said order, shall not be construed as an opinion on the
merits of the case. After the leave to defend was allowed, the
respondent filed his written statement. Pursuant thereto, parties have
led evidence.
14.3. The petition is to be decided on the basis of evidence led,
and not on the basis of only pleadings, which were the only material
available before the Court at the time when the order on the leave to
defend was passed. Therefore, this objection of the petitioner is liable
to be rejected. This Court has to examine all the issues raised in this
petition.
LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP –
15. In an eviction petition, the petitioner has to show that he
has better title than the respondent. Reference may be made to the
observations of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Satpal Sharma vs.
Sadhna Arora 2024 DHC 4296, wherein it was held, inter-alia, as
under –
“7. It is settled legal position that in the proceedings of the present
nature, the eviction petitioner is not required to establish absolute
title over the subject premises. What is required to be established by
the eviction petitioner is a title better than that of the tenant.”
Similar observations have been made in Rajender Kumar Sharma vs.
Leelawati 155 (2008) DLT 383. In this regard, in the present case, the
petitioner has claimed that his father was the owner of the tenanted
premises, and the same was let out to the respondent by his father.
After death of his father, the petitioner has become owner of the
property.
15.1. In order to prove this fact, the petitioner has tendered
into evidence the Khasra Girdawari of the Village whereby the name
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 12 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
of the petitioner has been reflected as an owner. Although the factum
of ownership of the petitioner was initially challenged by the
respondent in the leave to defend application as well in the reply to the
legal notice sent by him, in the written statement, this fact has not
been disputed.
15.2. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it is
stated that the petitioner had let out a vacant plot to the respondent. In
paragraph no. (a) on the reply to annexure A of the respondent, the
contents of the para no. (a) of the annexure A to the petition, whereby
the petitioner has claimed ownership of the tenanted premises and has
claimed that the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner, have been
admitted. Therefore, the factum of ownership of the petitioner and the
factum of relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties has been
admitted by the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has
also fairly conceded during arguments that this fact stands
established. This ingredient is thus satisfied in this case.
VACANT LAND –
16. The major bone of contention between the parties is the
nature of tenancy. While the tenant has claimed that he was let out a
vacant piece of land, on which construction was raised by him, the
petitioner has claimed that the shop in question was let out to the
tenant.
16.1. The significance of proving or disproving of this fact is
immense in this case. It is settled law that in case what has been let out
is not “premises”, as defined under the Act, the case falls outside the
purview of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Surender
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 13 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
Kumar vs. Hari Singh and Ors. MANU/DE/2949/2015 has held,
inter-alia, as under –
“10. A plain reading of the expression “premises” as defined in
Section 2(i) of the Act shows that for the premises to fall within the
realm of the Act, it is essential that there should be in existence a
“building”. It is only when there is a “building”, that garden, grounds
and outhouses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of the
building could be considered to be “premises” within the meaning of
Section 2(i) of the Act. If there is no “building” in existence at the
time of letting out, the tenancy cannot be said to fall within the realm
of the Act.”
It has been held by the Hon’ble High Court in Ram Prakash Chawla
vs. Amril Kaur 20 (1981) DLT 145 that the Court has to see the nature
of premises from the time when it was let out to the tenant in order to
see as to what the nature of premises at the time when it was let out. If
any subsequent construction is made by the tenant, it is irrelevant.
16.2. In this regard, the petitioner has claimed in the petition
that a shop was let out to the respondent. The case of the petitioner has
remained throughout that the respondent was let out a shop. The
earliest version of the respondent in this case is the reply to the legal
notice sent by the petitioner to him. In the said reply, no plea has been
taken by the respondent regarding the fact that the premises let out to
him was a vacant land. The leave to defend also does not raise any
objections qua this fact. An application under Section 151 CPC was
filed by the respondent prior to the decision on his leave to defend,
and it was contented that this fact came to fore when his counsel was
going through the file. Learned Predecessor Court vide order dated
27.11.2019 allowed this application. Thereafter, this plea has been
taken in the written statement.
16.3. Both the witnesses have been asked qua this bone of
contention during their respective cross examinations. PW1 has been
cross examined by the defence in this regard. He deposed that he was
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 14 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
about 12 years of age when the premises was let out. He denied the
suggestion that the property was a vacant land at the time of letting
out. Certain rent receipts were shown to him, however, he denied the
same and also denied the signatures on these documents to be those of
his father. In fact, he deposed that no rent receipts were given to the
respondent by his father. He deposed that he does not have any
document to show that his grandfather had constructed the shop in
question.
16.4. During defence evidence, the respondent DW1 has
entered into the witness box. He has tendered into evidence the rent
receipts, which are collectively Ex. RW1/1. It is deposed that the
respondent was let out a vacant land and he had raised construction
over the same. It is claimed that the name of the shop of the
respondent is mentioned in municipal records. At this juncture, it is
apposite to note that the onus to prove that the property was a vacant
land was upon the respondent. The respondent also had an
opportunity to narrate the complete facts qua his contentions in his
evidence affidavit.
16.5. However, I find that the respondent has not laid down the
factual foundation in order to support his version. The evidence
affidavit of the respondent, Ex. RW1/A, is bereft of material details.
There are no details as to when the vacant land was let out to him,
when he raised construction, whether he obtained any permissions
qua the same, when was the construction completed, and the nature of
construction etc. The respondent RW1 has been cross examined by
the defence in this regard. He has deposed that he had constructed the
shop in the year 1985. However, he deposed that he did not get any
plan sanctioned from the MCD. He deposed that there was no written
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 15 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
intimation given by him to the petitioner qua the construction done by
him. Further, he admitted that he has not placed on record any bill of
building material regarding the construction. Therefore, the witness
has not given any details whatsoever to corroborate his assertions.
16.6. However, he has filed certain rent receipts to claim that
the same reflect the fact that the premises was a vacant land. Both
parties have placed heavy reliance on these rent receipts, and a close
scrutiny of these is warranted. It is noted at the outset that the
respondent has nowhere mentioned in the evidence affidavit as to
who has issued the rent receipts, who has executed them, and in
whose handwriting the details on the receipts have been mentioned.
In Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal (2003) 8 SCC
745, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that mere production and marking
of a document as exhibit does not amount to due proof of its contents
and the execution is to be proved by admissible evidence. The
respondent has failed to lead evidence of execution of the same in
terms of Section 67 read with Section 47 of the Evidence Act. Thus, it
cannot be said that the receipts have been proved as per law, merely
because they have been produced in original. This is significant since
these receipts were put to the petitioner’s witness PW1 during his
cross-examination and he had denied execution of the same. On this
account alone, the receipts cannot be read into evidence.
16.7. Moving forward, the contents of the receipts itself make
them more doubtful than reliable. The receipts allegedly pertain to the
period from 1995-2017. All the receipts have been written in English,
except for the portion “Kiraya Mahvar, Khali Zameen”, which is
written in Hindi. There is no deposition as to who has written these
words. The receipts mention the “House No.” as WZ-11, Kaliash
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 16 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
Park, and there is no mention in the main portion of the receipts that
they pertain to any vacant land. RW1 has also been cross examined
regarding certain rent receipts, and it appears that the rent receipts
have been issued for the amounts different from the rent of the
tenanted premises in question. No explanation has been offered by the
witness in this regard. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the rent
receipts tendered into evidence by the respondent. Since there is no
other evidence on record to substantiate the plea of the respondent,
the objection of the respondent that the property was vacant land at
the time when it was let out to him, is liable to be rejected. There is
nothing on record to show that the land was a vacant land at the time
of inception of the tenancy, and as such, it is held that the Act is
applicable in this case.
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT –
17. The crux of the petition is the bonafide need of the
landlord to take possession of the premises. In this case, the landlord
has claimed that the premises in question are required for purposes of
opening a musical instrument business by his grandson, who holds a
diploma in the relevant field.
17.1. It is settled that the Court cannot at a drop of a hat order
eviction, and it has to be seen from the material on record that the
requirement of the landlord is indeed genuine and not a ruse to draw
the tenant out of the property. It has to be also kept in mind that the
Court has to not impose its own wisdom upon the landlord, who is the
master of the property and the purpose for which he requires it.
17.2. In this case, on consideration of the evidence before the
Court, I find that the requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide. In
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 17 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
order to prove his case, PW1 has entered into the witness box. The
original petitioner has left for his heavenly journey, and the sole
witness to enter the witness box on behalf of the petitioner is his son.
The grandson, for whom the tenanted premises was required, as well
as his father, have not been examined in this case. Although there is no
requirement to examine the person for whom the premises is required,
in the peculiar facts of this case, I find that the witness who has come
to depose on behalf of the petitioner does not depose about the
requirement in a cogent manner.
17.3. PW1 has entered into the witness box and has tendered
into evidence the diploma certificate of Mr. Bhavya Sarang Tyagi, for
whom the shop in question is required. A perusal of the same reveals
that the grandson of the petitioner, in the year 2014, had passed a
certificate course in popular music performance from one
Rockschool, London. During cross examination, PW1 has admitted
that Mr. Bhavya Tyagi has not attended any of the proceedings in this
case. He deposed that Ms. Bhavya Tyagi is currently pursuing his
PhD from Houston University, USA since the last 2 years. On
directions, the witness produced the documents qua the education of
Sh. Bhavya Tyagi. He deposed that Mr. Bhavya Tyagi is out of India
since the year 2018, and is expected to complete his course in 2028.
He deposed that after completing his bachelors from Amity
University in 2018, his nephew had gone to pursue his masters from
UK in 2018 itself.
17.4. It is an admitted fact that the nephew of the witness has
been living out of the country since 2018. The deposition of the
witness PW1 in his cross examination, which creates a doubt on the
case of the petitioner, is reproduced below –
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 18 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
“It is wrong to suggest that Bhavya Tyagi has not knowledge about
the present matter. He knows about the matter as I have told him
verbally. Recently I told him about the matter, but I cannot tell the
date, however it was the time when we ask for documents from him,
I have never sent the case file to him. I have regular talks regarding
his visit to India and he told me that he will visit/return to India after
completion of his course. The course will be completed in 2028.”
The above deposition of the witness leaves no manner of doubt qua
the bonafide of the petition. The witness has deposed that he had
informed Mr. Bhavya Tyagi about the petition recently, meaning
thereby that he was not aware about the petition being filed for his
requirement earlier. As per the witness, the grandson of the petitioner
was only told about the matter when the documents were required
from him for production before this Court during the cross
examination of the witness. The witness has also not said with
certainty that Mr. Bhavya Tyagi will return to India after finishing his
studies.
17.5. The above narration demonstrates that the grandson of
the original petitioner had done a diploma in music in the year 2014,
i.e. much before the present petition was filed in 2018. He has been
regularly pursuing his studies in physics, and for at least the last 7
years, he has been pursuing his studies to become a theoretical
physicist. The petitioner has concealed these facts in the petition and
only when the cross examination was done, these facts came to fore.
The grandson of the petitioner will be outside India for at least 3 more
years, and it is not the case of the petitioner that he will leave his
studies midway to return to India, or will function via an agent. The
fact that the grandson was not aware about the petition being filed for
his requirement till recently also lends corroboration to the fact that
the requirement is not genuine. It is difficult to digest that a person
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 19 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:38
+0530
who requires a space to start his business is not knowing about a
petition being fought in Court for his requirement.
17.6. On the basis of the above discussion, I find that the
requirement set up by the petitioner in this case does not appear to be
genuine. Further, even though the petitioner can seek the eviction of
premises for future use, in this case, even the witness of the petitioner
has deposed that the grandson of the petitioner may return or visit in
the year 2028. This Court is also cognizant of the fact that the course of
studies being undertaken by the grandson of the petitioner amount to
subsequent events (atleast the PhD), which were not in existence at the
time of the filing of the petition. It is apposite to note at this juncture
that no evidence whatsoever has been led by the petitioner to show that
his grandson was residing in India at the time the present petition was
filed. There is no evidence to show when he commenced his studies.
However, since these subsequent developments are on record, these
also have to be considered. In Nidhi vs. Ram Kripal Sharma AIR 2017
SC 814, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, inter-alia, as under –
“15. Ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallised on the date of
institution of the suit. However, the court has power to take note of
the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly. Power of the
court to take note of subsequent events came up for consideration in a
number of decisions. In Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal
MANU/SC/0035/2002 : (2002) 2 SCC 256, this Court held as under:
11. The ordinary Rule of civil law is that the rights of the parties stand
crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the
decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they
stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power
to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly
subject to the following conditions being satisfied: (i) that the relief,
as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become in-
appropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such sub-
sequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation and
enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that such
subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly and in
accordance with the Rules of procedural law so that the opposite
party is not taken by surprise. In Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 20 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
& General TradersMANU/SC/0415/1975 : (1975) 1 SCC 770 this
Court held that a fact arising after the lis, coming to the notice of the
court and having a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the
manner of moulding it and brought diligently to the notice of the
court cannot be blinked at. The court may in such cases bend the
Rules of procedure if no specific provision of law or Rule of fair play
is violated for it would promote substantial justice provided that there
is absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. The
Court speaking through Krishna Iyer, J. affirmed the proposition that
the court can, so long as the litigation pends, take note of updated
facts to promote substantial justice. However, the Court cautioned:
(i) the event should be one as would stultify or render inept the de-
cretal remedy, (ii) Rules of procedure may be bent if no specific pro-
vision or fair play is violated and there is no other special circum-
stance repelling resort to that course in law or justice, (iii) such cog-
nizance of subsequent events and developments should be cautious,
and (iv) the Rules of fairness to both sides should be scrupulously
obeyed. Om Prakash Gupta‘s case was referred with approval in Ram
Kumar Barnwal v. Ram Lakhan (Dead) MANU/SC/7670/2007 :
(2007) 5 SCC 660.
16. Though the court has the power to take note of the subsequent
events, court has to consider the effect of subsequent development on
the bona fide need of the landlord. For the purpose of coming to the
conclusion on bona fide need of the landlord, comparative hardship
to the parties will have to be taken into consideration.” (emphasis
supplied by me)
As such, even though the petitioner has failed to show the bonafide
requirement on the date of petition, I find that the subsequent events in
this case also disentitle him any relief.
17.7. An argument has also been raised qua the dependency of
the grandson upon the petitioner, given that he is earning well and his
father is also well settled, as per the petitioner himself. However, I
find that the dependency is to be seen not in financial terms but
dependency for residential/commercial needs. The Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in M.M Mehta vs. Chaman Lal Kapoor ILR 1980
Delhi 94, has observed, inter-alia, as under –
“(8) The other submission that the requirement of the married sons is
not the requirement of the landlord and, therefore, could not be made
the basis for eviction, has also no merit. There is a catena of
authorities of this Court that a member of the family, although not
Digitally
signed byRC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 21 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:40
+0530
financially dependent on the landlord but living together with him, is
covered by the word “dependent” used in proviso (e) to sub-section
(1) of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.”
As such, this objection of the respondent is liable to be rejected.
17.8. While coming to the conclusion as narrated above, this
Court is also cautious of the fact that a person is not expected to sit
idle till the time the petition is decided. It is also cautious of the
position of law that the landlord is not required to give any detailed
explanation of the requirement. The citations filed by learned counsel
for the petitioner also highlight this legal position. However, in this
particular case, I find that the studies undertaken by the grandson of
the petitioner do not appear to be of such nature that he was working
somewhere else only till the time the petition is decided. The person
appears to have taken a particular track in life, and the petitioner has
failed to demonstrate that he wishes to come back to India to start a
music business. Further, as highlighted above, even though the
petitioner is not required to state in detail the business proposed to be
set up, it is equally settled that the Court has to put itself in the shoes
of the landlord to see whether the requirement is indeed a real and
sincere requirement.
17.9. I have also gone through the other citations filed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard, however, the same
can be differentiated on facts.
ALTERNATE ACCOMODATION –
18. The last ingredient that is required to be proved by the
petitioner is that of non-availability of any alternate suitable
accommodation. In this regard, in the written statement, the
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 22 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:40
+0530
respondent has claimed that the petitioner has 5 other properties
available with him.
18.1. During evidence, the respondent has not led any
evidence to substantiate his claim. There is no documentary evidence
to show that the five properties are owned by the petitioner. The
respondent has tendered into evidence some photographs, Ex.
RW1/2, that do not mention the name of the petitioner anywhere.
RW1 has admitted that the photographs do not depict ownership of
the petitioner anywhere. During cross examination, he deposed that a
shopkeeper told him that the properties in the photographs are owned
by the petitioner. Thus, the evidence on the respondent on this aspect
is not reliable. The petitioner has claimed that apart from one
property, which is residential, the petitioner does not own any of the
other properties mentioned in the written statement. No cross
examination of PW1 has been done on this aspect. Thus, the petitioner
has been able to prove that there is no other suitable alternate
accommodation available with the petitioner.
19. The other objections of the defence are qua non-joinder
of the co-owner and the joint tenant. In Yashpal v. Chamanlal
Sachdeva, 129 (2006) DLT 200, it was held that a co-owner can
maintain a petition and that the inter se arrangement between owners
is no business of the tenant. Similar observations have been made in
Dharam Veer Goel vs. Renu Jain and Ors. MANU/DE/0089/2023.
20. Similarly, in view of the law laid down in Kanji Manji
supra and Inder Pal Khanna supra, there is no requirement to implead
all the joint tenants and the petition only against one tenant can be
maintained. Even otherwise, the respondent has not led any evidence
to show that his wife was a joint tenant in the tenanted premises.
Digitally
signed by
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 23 of 24
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:41:39
+0530
CONCLUSION -
21. To recapitulate the above discussion, in this petition
under Section 14(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the most
crucial ingredient required to be proved by the petitioner was his
bonafide need. The petitioner in this case had claimed that he requires
the shop in question for use of his grandson, who wishes to set up a
music business. Although the petitioner has been able to show that
there is landlord-tenant relation between the parties and that the
petitioner has no other suitable alternate accommodation, the
petitioner has failed to show that there is bonafide requirement for his
grandson. The circumstances of the grandson himself, who will be out
of India for a decade commencing from 2018, along with the
deposition of the petitioner’s witness leave no manner of doubt that
the petition has been filed under a guise to evict the tenant. The
objection of the tenant that the shop was a vacant property, at the time
when it was let out, thus rendering the case out of purview of the Act,
remains unproved.
22. Resultantly, the petition filed by the petitioner on ground
of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, stands
dismissed.
23. Parties to bear own costs.
24. Ordered accordingly. Digitally
signed by
DEV
DEV CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.04.02
14:42:28
+0530
Announced in Open (DEV CHAUDHARY)
Court.
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST)
This order contains 24 TIS HAZARI COURTS
signed pages. DELHI/ 02.04.2025
RC ARC No. 86/2018 Bharat Tyagi vs. K.K. Bhatia Page No. 24 of 24