Delhi District Court
Krishan Lal Kathuria vs Rudesh Kumar on 29 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Sh. Richa Sharma
RC ARC No: 101/19
CNR No. DLWT-03-002676-2019
SH. KRISHAN LAL KATHURIA
S/O LATE SH. RAM LAL
R/O H-4 A, KIRTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110015 ....Petitioner
VERSUS
SH. RUDESH KUMAR
SON OF LATE SH. RAMESH CHANDER,
C/O KASHYAP CYCLE,
H-4/A, KIRTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110015. ....Respondent
Date of Filing : 24.09.2019
Date of Judgment : 29.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read
with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter
referred to as “DRC Act“) praying for passing an order for eviction in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the
disputed shop consisting one room on the ground floor measuring
approximately 8′ X 10′ with front open verandah of the same size of
the property bearing no.H-4/A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 as
shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the
“tenanted premises or shop” or “suit property”).
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.1 of 38
AVERMENTS BY PETITIONERS IN PETITION
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioner, that he is the owner/landlord
of the tenanted premises, having acquired vide gift deed registered as
document no.6445, additional book No.1, Volume No.1935, at page
125 to 130 dated 17.09.1999. The tenancy of the tenanted premises
was created in the name of the father of the respondent Sh. Ramesh
Chander. After the death of Sh. Ramesh Chander, his son Sh. Rudesh
Kumar, the respondent continued to use the said tenanted premises
for the purpose of cycle repair work as legal heir of the original
tenant. The current monthly rent of the shop is Rs.143/- excluding all
other charges.
3. It has been averred, that disputed shop is bonafidely required for the
use by daughter i.e. Smt. Sangeeta Gulati W/o Sh. Bharat Gulati, of
the petitioner. The daughter of the petitioner decided to start business
of sale of ladies suit from the shop in dispute and except the tenanted
premises she does not have any other suitable property/shop available
to her in Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. It has been averred, that the
daughter of the petitioner is married and has two grown up children.
Both, the son and daughter of Smt. Sangeeta Gulati are married and
well settled in life. The son and daughter-in-law of the daughter of
the petitioner are employed with MNC based at Gurgaon and for
convenience sake they have taken a residence at Gurgaon as the
present family house of the daughter of the petitioner has been under
redevelopment and the daughter of the petitioner had to shift to a
small tenanted residential accommodation at N-13, Kirti Nagar, New
Delhi-110015.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.2 of 38
4. It has been averred, that the son-in-law of the petitioner is in the
wholesale trade of sale and supply of ladies suits and dresses and he
is running his business from the commercial wholesale market of
721, Katra Hardayal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. The said shop
is situated in the whole sale market of Delhi, which is frequented
mostly by outstationed traders and whole sellers. After the respective
marriages and settlement of the children of the daughter of the
petitioner, the petitioner’s daughter decided to utilize her talent and
time for gainful avocation, to augment family income and thus
decided to start the business of ladies suits and dresses as a full time
business. It has been averred, that since the entire family of the
petitioner, his sons, grand daughters are in the trade of designing and
sale and supply of ladies suit and dresses, the daughter of the
petitioner too has got encouragement from the petitioner and other
family members.
5. It has been averred, that the daughter of the petitioner is presently
residing at N-13, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi in a rented accommodation.
She was earlier residing at N-30, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015,
which is the family house of the son-in-law of the petitioner. The said
house was occupied by the son-in-law of the petitioner and his elder
brother and his family of grown up children. Both the brothers
decided to get the same rebuilt in collaboration upto third floor so that
the members of the family could be accommodated conveniently and
to overcome the severe paucity of residential accommodation. The
said property has been completely demolished and it will take at least
three years to complete the construction and make the same habitable.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.3 of 38
6. It has been further averred, that the petitioner and his daughter live in
the same locality and the house of the daughter of the petitioner is at a
walking distance from the house of the petitioner. The daughter of the
petitioner does not have any space to start regular business of ladies
suits. It has been averred, that daughter of the petitioner has requested
to the petitioner to help her and the petitioner also felt that it is his
bounden duty to help and support his daughter. The petitioner has
already provided a shop on the ground floor of his residence to his
elder grand daughter (daughter of his elder son) and has already got
eviction order against the second tenant for the shop to be given to his
younger grand daughter (daughter of his younger son). Likewise the
petitioner has decided to give one shop in his property to his daughter
as well. The petitioner requires the shop in dispute for the need of his
daughter, who is dependent on the petitioner for the purpose of
accommodation.
7. It has been averred, that the petitioner has requested the respondent to
vacate the disputed shop to enable the petitioner to provide the same
to his daughter and help her start her business of ready made ladies
suits and dresses but the respondent has simply turned down the
request of the petitioner without appreciating the difficulty of the
petitioner and his daughter, who urgently need a shop
/accommodation in the market to start the business as decided by her.
8. The Members of the family of the petitioner who are dependent on
him for the purpose of accommodation for commercial space/ shop
consists of :-
a) Petitioner himself and his wife, (both very senior citizen)
b) Petitioner’s elder son Sh. Rajiv Kathuria, his wife Smt. Simmi
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.4 of 38
Kathuria and their two daughters aged 29 years and 24 years
respectively, the elder daughter, Ms. Sanchi Kathuria had suffered
marital discord with her husband hence she is living with the
petitioner.
c) Petitioner’s younger son Sh. Sanjeev Kathuria, his wife and Ms.
Monika Kathuria and three children. Elder daughter, Ms. Urvashi
Kathuria aged 22 years and twins younger son and daughter both
aged 17 years.
d) Petitioner’s daughter Smt. Sangeeta Gulati Wo. Sh. Bharat
Bhushan Gulati, who is married and have two married grown up
children and she is permanent resident of property bearing no. N-30,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. However, she has shifted to rented
accommodation at ground floor of the property no. N-13, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi as the family house/permanent residence has been
demolished to redevelop the same.
9. It has been averred, that the petitioner and his wife are about 80 years
of age and both have their independent residence on the ground floor
of the property behind the disputed shop. It is further averred, that the
petitioner and his wife have long back settled on the ground floor to
avoid climbing the stairs and the wife of the petitioner had to get her
total knee joint transplant. It is further averred, that the petitioner has
one bed room for him and his wife, one room being used as puja
room and the third room is used as drawing room for the guests,
relatives and visitors. It is further averred, that the petitioner has no
guest room in the ground floor and there is no room on the ground
floor with the petitioner which can be spared for use as shop by his
daughter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.5 of 38
10. It has been averred, that the property of the petitioner has three shops
on the ground floor and out of the three shops, the two shops have an
enclosed verandah/front setback in the same shop. It is further
averred, that the shop at point ‘A’ on the ground floor is occupied by
the tenant, Sh. Mata Fer, who lost the eviction petitioner filed against
him by the petitioner and he had to surrender the possession by 27th
January 2020, after which this shop is to be occupied by Ms. Urvashi
Kathuria i.e. the grand daughter of the petitioner, for whose need the
eviction was sought. It is further averred, that the shop at point ‘B’ on
the ground floor was under the occupation of the Ms. Sanchi Kathuria
and third shop is the disputed shop under the occupation of the
respondent. It is averred, that the besides this there are two small
triangular stores carved out in the corners which are being used as
garage to keep the scooter and cycles of the children, as they are of
no other use because of their shape and small size.
11. It has been averred, that the petitioner has small basement which is
being used by the entire family for storing the discarded and other
non-usable goods of the household and the same cannot be used for
any other purpose. It is further averred, that the entrance to the
basement is from inside of the property on ground floor and it has no
opening from outside and the same is being used for domestic
storage. It is further averred, that the basement is not permissible for
commercial/non-domestic use under the Municipal laws and the same
is being used only for domestic storage.
12. It has been averred, that the elder son of the petitioner is in
occupation of the second floor and the younger son of the petitioner is
in occupation of the first floor of the property in question. It is further
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.6 of 38
averred, that this arrangement has been done mutually as the children
of both the sons of the petitioner have grown up and the requirement
of accommodation for their families has also increased.
13. It has been averred, that the shop in dispute shall otherwise also be
most suitable to daughter of the petitioner as the same is situated in
her parent’s residential house and she can use the facilities of toilet
etc. It is further averred, that the shop in dispute is also suitable as the
same is in the main market in Kirti Nagar and is visited by good
number of people of the locality know to the petitioner and his family
members and above all the daughter of the petitioner will not be
burdened with sky rocketing rent of the accommodation/shop as the
petitioner has decided to give it to her out of love and affection as he
has done in the case of granddaughters.
14. It has been averred, that the petitioner is a self made person and
throughout his life he has not been dependent on anybody and he has
rather settled his sons and son-in-law in independent businesses at
Chandni Chowk, Delhi while he retained his independent business to
himself. It is further averred, that the petitioner has settled and
provided accommodation/shops to his granddaughters and he has
likewise decided to provide accommodation/space to his daughter as
well, in order to help her start the business of ladies suits.
15. It has been averred, that the respondent was requested to vacate the
shop and he was duly informed about the need of petitioner’s
daughter by the petitioner but the respondent has not shown any
inclination to vacate the shop. It is further averred, that the
respondent has illegally and with malafide intentions and motives
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.7 of 38
dwelled over the demised property and he has raised the demand of
huge amount as premium to vacate the disputed shop, taking undue
advantage of the urgent and dire need of the petitioner. It is further
averred, that the petitioner neither has surplus money not does he
want to pay premium to the respondent as the demand of the
respondent is illegal and unresonable.
16. It has been further averred, that the petitioner can meet with his
requirements, if the petitioner gets the possession of the disputed
premises. It is further averred, that the petitioner being the owner of
the property in question has preferential rights over property in
dispute considering his need of space to accommodate his daughter as
compared to the respondent. It is further averred, that the respondent
is under a legal obligation to vacate the property in dispute and permit
the petitioner to have beneficial use of the same for accommodation
for his family members.
17. It has been further averred, that it is needless to mention, that the
property falls in the residential colony of Kirti Nagar and as per law
the petitioner can use only the ground floor for specific trades and the
number and size of the shops have also been specified in the Master
Plan of Delhi 2021. The property of the petitioner has three floors
only and all the three shops are in occupancy as mentioned above.
18. It has been averred, that in the above circumstances the only solution
for the petitioner is to get the property in dispute vacated from the
respondent and accommodate his daughter Smt. Sangeeta Gulati in
the same for the business of sale of ladies suits and dresses from the
disputed shop.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.8 of 38
19. It has been averred, that the need of the petitioner’s dependent family
member for the shop is most bonafide, acute and genuine. The
petitioner shall face hardship in case he is not able to get the
possession of the demised shop immediately. It has been further
averred, that the demised property/shop is bonafidely required by the
petitioner for use for his business of his daughter. To implement the
decision of the petitioner is dependent on the availability of space/
demised/shop as even the daughter and son-in-law of the petitioner
have no other alternative/commercial space to accommodate the
daughter of the petitioner for her business need.
LEAVE TO DEFEND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
20. After service of the summons, leave to defend was filed by the
respondent. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.07.2020, Learned
Predecessor of this Court allowed the application of the respondent
for leave to defend and the respondent was given liberty to file the
written statement.
AVERMENTS BY RESPONDENT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT
21. In the written statement, the respondent has inter-alia submitted, that
the petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground, that the
petitioner has not come with clean hands. He has intentionally and
deliberately suppressed the material facts from this Court and as such
the petitioner is not entitled to equitable relief as prayed. It is further
contended, that the petitioner concealed the material facts from this
Court as he has not disclosed all the properties owned/in occupation
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.9 of 38
of all the members of the family. The petition is liable to be dismissed
with heavy cost.
22. It is further contended, that the petitioner concealed the fact that the
application of the respondent for leave to contest was allowed by the
Court of Sh. Amit Kumar SCJ/RC West on dated 30.04.2011 vide
eviction petition No.E-31/10 and therefore, the eviction petition is
liable to be dismissed on this sole ground, that the petitioner has
concealed this fact, that the respondent has filed a suit for permanent
injunction against the petitioner vide suit no.415/04 titled as Radhesh
Kumar Vs. Krishan Lal Kathuria, which was decreed in favour of the
respondent and thereafter, the eviction petition is liable to be
dismissed on this sole ground. It is further averred, that the
respondent also concealed this fact that the co-tenant late Sh. Rajesh
Kumar has filed a suit against the respondent and the petitioner vide
suit No.CS 364/14, which was decreed on dated 20.10.2014 by the
Court of Sh. Abhinav Jain Civil Judge-05 THC.
23. It is further contended, that the petitioner has also concealed this fact,
that the legal heirs of late Rajesh Kumar got possession of the half
shop through bailiff as per order dated 06.12.2018 and that petitioner
was also party in that suit. It is further contended, that the petitioner
concealed this fact from the Court, that he and his sons have five
shops of whole sale sarees vide Shop No.730, 649, 733, 726 situated
in Katra Hardyal Chowk Chandani Chowk and one shop at Katra
Hira Lal Chandani Chowk. In reply to application, the petitioner
admitted about the above said facts. It is settled law, that in a petition
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.10 of 38
of bonafide requirement, the landlord is required to disclose each and
every accommodation available to him as on the date of the petition
but the petitioner has not disclosed. The suppression of material facts
within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing it but
intentionally were not placed before the Court in the first instance to
obtained the order of eviction. Hence, eviction petition is liable to be
dismissed.
REPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT/TENANT
24. The petitioner has specifically denied all the preliminary objections
raised by the respondent in the WS and has reiterated the facts
mentioned in the petition.
EVIDENCE LED BY PETITIONER
25. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1
and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW1/A. The
petitioner relied upon documents Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/11. PW1
was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
26. Thereafter, the petitioner’s evidence was closed vide order dated
01.05.2023.
EVIDENCE LED BY RESPONDENT
27. The respondent examined himself as RW-1 and tendered his affidavit
as Ex.RW1/A. The respondent relied upon documents Ex.RW-1/2 &
Ex.RW1/7 to Ex.RW1/10. He also relied upon the document Mark A
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.11 of 38
to Mark C.
28. He also examined RW-2 Sh. Ashwani, JJA, Record Room Civil,
THC, who exhibited document Ex.RW2/A (Colly.) and
Ex.RW2/B(Colly.).
29. He further examined RW-3 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, JJA, Record Room
Civil, THC, who exhibited the document Ex.RW3/A (Colly.).
30. RW1 to RW3 were cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for
the petitioner.
31. Thereafter, respondent’s evidence was closed vide order dated
28.04.2025 and the matter was listed for the final arguments.
32. Written synopsis have been filed on behalf of both the parties.
33. I have heard the arguments advanced by Learned counsels for both
the parties at length and have further gone through the record
carefully including the written synopsis so filed by the parties. My
findings are as under :-
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
34. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of
Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and the same is as under:
“Section-14. Protection of tenant against
eviction-
(1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.12 of 38
contained in any other law or contract, no
order or decree for the recovery of possession
of any premises shall be made by court or any
controller in favour of the landlord against a
tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an
application made to him in the prescribed
manner, make an order for recovery of
possession of the premises on one or more of
the following grounds only, namely:-
“That the premises are required bonafide by
the landlord for himself or for any member of
his family dependent on him, if he is the owner
thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the
premises are held and that the landlord or such
person has no other reasonably suitable
accommodation.”
35. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been
enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the
premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not
have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for
attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a). The said premises are bonafide required by
the landlord either for himself or for his family
member.
b). The landlord or the family member has no
other reasonable suitable accommodation.
36. These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to
attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one
of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.13 of 38
37. The following are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act
as culled out from the discussion above :
(i) There should be relationship of landlord and tenant
between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted
premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the
landlord for himself/herself or for any member of
his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv) Landlord should not have other reasonable suitable
accommodation.
(I) OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS (II) EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD
TENANT RELATIONSHIP
38. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani
2008 (153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a landlord
tenant litigation as governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished
from the one in title suit. In the case of M. R. Sawhney Vs. Dories
Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was held that once a tenant always
a tenant, unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law
which is not so in the present petition.
39. It is settled law, that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the
Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the
tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with
a title suit. The petitioners have to prove only that he is something
more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.14 of 38
and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on
the point what is meant by the word “Owner”, it is held that the
general rule is to the effect that the petitioners have to have a better
title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the
best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of
ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to
avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute
sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v.
Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh
Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993
(51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR
2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that
the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the
DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute
owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title
only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai
Prem Prakash by the Hon’ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC
1264.
40. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a
Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept
of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of
the DRC Act had noted as follows:
“There is a tendency on the part of tenants to
deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)
(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the
part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that
they should state who else is the owner of the
premises if not the petitioner. In the present
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.15 of 38
case it is not said as to who else is the owner.
Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are
not title cases involving disputes of title to the
property. Ownership is not to be proved in
absolute terms. The respondent does not claim
the owner of the premises.”
41. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved
Prabha & Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed :
“That the meaning of term ‘owner’ is vis a vis
the tenant i.e. the owner should be something
more than the tenant.”
It is also well settled that the petitioner should
be something more than the tenant and the
petitioner need not prove his ownership in
absolute terms. It is sufficient for the
petitioner to prove or to show that he is
something more than a tenant.
42. In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court
has specifically held that:-
“It is settled preposition of law that in order
to consider the concept of ownership under
Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see
the title and right of the landlord qua the
tenant. The only thing to be seen by the
Court is that the landlord had been receiving
rent for his own benefit and not for and on
behalf of someone else. If the landlord was
receiving rent for himself and not on behalf
of someone else, he is to be considered as the
owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the
premises may be. The imperfectness of the
title of the premises cannot stand in the way
of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)
(e) of the D.R.C. Act, neither the tenant can
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.16 of 38
be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title
or title not vesting in the landlord and that
too when the tenant has been paying rent to
the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act
creates estoppel against such tenant. A tenant
can challenge the title of landlord only after
vacating the premises and not when he is
occupying the premises. In fact, such a
tenant who denies the title of the landlord,
qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent,
acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there
was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC
in this respect”.
43.It is settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no
right to challenge the ownership of the landlord , neither is the
landlord required to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover,
law of estoppel also bars the respondent herein from challenging the
landlordship of the petitioners. It has been held by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. smt. Ved Prabha &
Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute
ownership but only as a title better than the tenant. So, what has to be
seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can
be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title
better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati &
Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
44. Now, in the light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts
of the case in hand.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.17 of 38
45. It is the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner has contended
himself to be the absolute owner of the premises in question i.e.
property bearing No.H-4A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. In support of his
contention, the petitioner has placed on record the document
Ex.PW1/2, which is a Gift Deed duly executed on 06.09.1999
between one (1) Charan Dass and (2) Shri Ram Parkash both sons of
late Sh. Ram Lal Kathuria residents of H-4A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi,
being the donors and Sh. Krishan Lal Kathuria (petitioner in the
present case), son of late Sh. Ram Lal Kathuria R/o H.-4A, Kirti
Nagar, New Delhi being the donee of property bearing No.H-4A,
with freehold land underneath measuring about 250 Sq. Yds. situated
in the approved colony known as Kirti Nagar, New Delhi area of
village Bassai Darapur, Delhi State, Delhi.
46. Thus, vide the present registered document, i.e. a Gift Deed, PW-1
has categorically proved, that with respect to the property in question
he is the absolute owner. Even otherwise for the purpose of deciding
the rent petition, the Court primarily has to see that the petitioner is
standing at a higher pedestal in comparison to the respondent as far as
right and claim of the property in question is concerned.
47. It is further relevant to note, that it also stands admitted by the
respondent in para 11 of his para wise reply of WS, that the
respondent is sending money order of Rs.72/- as half of the rent of the
half shop, meaning thereby, that the tenancy in question duly stands
admitted and vide para 11, the respondent is only raising a
disagreement qua the rate of rent. It is further apposite to note, that
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.18 of 38
vide para 18 it is further admitted, that tenancy was created in the
name of the father of the respondent and after the death of the father
of the respondent, the answering respondent was in possession of the
shop in question, though he has also made a reference to an inter se
petition that was contested between him and his brother namely late
Sh. Rajesh but that per se does not raise an embargo with respect to
the initial tenancy that was executed in favour of the father of the
respondent.
48. In view of the discussion as above and in light of settled law, this
Court has no hesitation in deducing, that the law with regard to the
right of the tenant to challenge the ownership of the landlord is fairly
settled as well as limited. In this context, what appears to be the
meaning of term “owner” vis a vis the tenant is that the “owner”
should be something more than the tenant.
49.Therefore, in view thereof, the landlord – tenant relationship between
the petitioner and the respondent stands duly proved for the purposes
of Delhi Rent Control Act.
WHETHER THE NEED OF THE PETITIONER IS BONAFIDE &
WHETHER THE ALTERNATE SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION
IS AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER ?
50.Before delving into the merits of the bonafide need of the landlord,
this Court deems it fit to discuss the essence of term “bonafide” and
the law settled in this regard.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.19 of 38
51. The word “genuine” means “natural: not spurious: real: pure:
sincere”. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to
mean “good faith, without fraud or deceit”. Thus the term bonafide
refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The
degree of intensity contemplated by “requires” is much higher than in
mere desire. The phrase ‘required bonafide’ is suggestive of
legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or
fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A
requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a
sincere, honest desire, in contra- distinction with a mere pretense or
pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to
occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family
would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Rent Control
Legislation generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the
provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide
requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or use of the
tenanted accommodation, which treats the landlord with some
sympathy.
52. The question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of
facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in
the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy
the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the
answer were in positive the need is bonafide.
53. The Full Bench of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.20 of 38
distinguished between the genuine requirement and the reasonable
requirement. It was held in case Damodar Sharma and an- other v.
Nandram Deviram that:-
“It is wrong to say that “genuinely
requires” is the same as “reasonably
requires”. There is distinction between
the two phrases. The former phrase refers
to a state of mind; the later to an
objective standard. “Genuine
requirement” would vary according to the
idiosyncrasy of the individual and the
time and circumstances in which he lives
and thinks. Reasonable requirement
belong to the “knowledge of the law” and
means reasonable not in the mind of the
person requiring the accommodation but
reasonable according to the actual facts.
In my opinion, in this part of Section 4
(g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter
of his own requirements but he must
prove that he, in fact, wants and
genuinely intends to occupy the premises.
His claim would no doubt fail if the
Court came to the conclusion that the
evidence of “want” was unreliable and
that the landlord did not genuinely intend
to occupy.”
54. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the
landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and
that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that
need. Landlord’s desire for possession, however honest it might
otherwise be, has in-inevitably a subjective element in it and that
desire, to become a “requirement” in law must have the objective
element of a “need”. It must also be such that the court considers it
reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.21 of 38
court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that
the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely
“illusory or whittled down”. The words “reasonable requirement”
undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as
opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and
need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the
genuine need as nothing but a desire. Mere desire of a landlord/owner
cannot be equated with bonafide need.
55. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words ” required bonafide by the
landlord” signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore
incorporate a concept, which is both objective as well as subjective.
The statute makes both the motivations of the owner as indeed the
reasonableness of the desire, justiciable and the law therefore requires
not only that the need of the owner for the premises should be
honestly and genuinely entertained but must also be the need of a
reasonable person in the position of the owner having regard to the
totality of the circumstances such as the extent of the family of the
owner, the standard of living to which the family is used, its social
status, the pattern of life relevant to that status, the social conditions
and any peculiar requirement of the family. All these have to be
considered in the wider context of the socioeconomic conditions
obtaining in the country. Once the court comes to the conclusion that
the claim of the landlord is result of honestly entertained need the
court would not weigh the requirement in a fine scale, even while
keeping the landlord confined within reasonable limits having regard
to all the relevant circumstances.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.22 of 38
56.It has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Indian Insurance Pvt. Ltd., AIR
1999 Supreme Court 100, wherein it was held that :-
“….. the crux of ground envisaged in clause
(e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that the
requirement of landlord for occupation of
the tenanted premises must be bonafide.
When a landlord asserts that he requires his
building for his own occupation, the Rent
Controller shall not proceed on the
presumption that the requirement is not
bonafide. When other conditions of the
clause are satisfied and when the landlord
shows a primafacie case, it is open to the
Rent Controller to draw a presumption that
the requirement of the landlord is bonafide.
It is often said by the courts that it is not for
the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as
to how else he can adjust himself without
getting possession of the tenanted premises.
While deciding the question of bonafides of
requirement of the landlord, it is quite
unnecessary to endeavour as to how else the
landlord could have adjusted himself…”
57.On the basis of the law as above, returning to the facts of the case in
hands, the principal averment made by the petitioner via present
petition, is that the petitioner requires the premises in question for his
daughter, who is living in his neighbourhood in Kirti Nagar i.e. the
same locality/area in which the disputed shop is situated. It is
contented by the respondent, that there are five other shops which are
belonging to the petitioner and are located in the whole sale market of
Chandni Chowk but the petitioner has vehemently denied the same
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.23 of 38
and in support of his contention he has also placed on record the rent
receipts of the tenanted shop and the copy of the sale deed of the 5 th
shop belonging to the son of the petitioner and against the said
document the respondent has not placed on record even a single
document to show, that the said shops belong to petitioner and are
lying vacant and completely available to the petitioner so to speak.
Even otherwise, the law is completely settled with regard to the
petitioner being the best judge of his requirement and suitability with
respect to his bona fide need and neither the Court nor the
respondent/tenant can dictate terms to the petitioner in this regard.
58.Even if version of the respondent is believed to be gospel truth to the
extent that there are five shops belonging to the petitioner and lying
vacant in the wholesale market of Chandni Chowk, even otherwise
the requirement of the petitioner in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the present case is specific as he requires the shop in
Kirti Nagar as his daughter is living in the same area and wants to
start a business of ladies suit close to her place of residence and in
this background the onus was upon the respondent to prove firstly,
that the alleged five shops as stated by him belong to the petitioner
and are lying vacant and secondly these shops are better suited to the
requirement of the daughter of the petitioner than the disputed
premises in question but no light has been thrown on these aspects by
the respondent.
59.At this stage, it is also relevant to reproduce excerpts of the cross-
examination of RW1 to this effect as under : –
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.24 of 38
“It is correct that after the death of my father, I had continued
to run my business from the disputed shop. It is correct that
my father had taken the disputed premises on rent. It is
correct that other than the property in question bearing no.
H-4A, Kirti Nagar, the petitioner Sh. Krishan Lal Kathuria
does not own any property in Delhi. It is correct that four
shops bearing no. 730, 649, 733 and 726, Katra Hardayal
Singh, Chandani Chowk, are in the possession of the sons of
the petitioner.”
60.Thus, from the above extract, it per se stands deduced, that the
respondent has himself categorically admitted, that the four shops
bearing No. 730, 649, 733 and 726, Katra Hardayal Singh, Chandani
Chowk, Delhi are in possession of the son’s of the petitioner and that
apart from the property in dispute the petitioner does not own any
property in Delhi. Therefore, from the above candid admission of the
respondent it safely stands deduced, that the petitioner is not having
ownership over any of the properties in Delhi, except the disputed
property in question and thus, the contention of the respondent vide
his WS, that the petitioner has various properties belonging to him in
Delhi stands negated by his own categorical admissions made as
above.
61.Even otherwise, it is a settled law and re-iterated time and again in
plethora of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble High Court as well
as the Apex Court, that the landlord is the best judge of his needs.
The Court further takes assistance from the following judgment as
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.25 of 38
under:
62.In the case of Om Prakash Singhal Vs. Shri Roshan Lal, 1969 RCR
391, it has been held that as a broad workable rule, the landlord must
left to assess his requirement in the background of his possession,
circumstance, status and life and social and other responsibilities, and
other relevant factors.
63. In Parvati Devi Vs. P. V. Krishna, JT 1987 (1) SC 764 , it has been
held as under :-
“The landlord is the best judge of his
requirement. He has complete freedom in
the matter. It is no concern of the courts to
dictate to the landlord how and in what
manner he should live and prescribe for
him a standard of their own. There is no
law that deprives the landlord of the
beneficial enjoyment of his property.
64. In Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja, MANU / SC / 0435 / 2014 : (2014)
15 SCC 610, it has been held as under :-
“It would hardly require any reiteration of
the settled principle of law that it is not for
the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to
how the property AIR 1999 SC 100 (1996)
5 SCC 353 (2014) 15 SCC 610, Neutral
Citation Number : 2023 : DHC : 3199
belonging to the landlord should be
utilized by him for the purpose of his
business.”
65. In Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarhan Kumar, MANU / SC / 0087 / 2021 , it
has been held as under :-
“It is not for the tenant to dictate how much
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.26 of 38
space is adequate for the proposed business
venture or to suggest that the available
space with the landlord will be adequate.”
66. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr) MANU / SC /
0432 / 1999: (1999) 6 SCC 222, it has been held as under :-
“Once the Court is satisfied of the
bonafides of the need of the landlord for
the premises by applying objective
standards then in the matter of choosing out
of more than one accommodation available
to the landlord his subjective choice shall
be respected by the Court.”
67. Now, in liu of the above law reproduced as above, it is also relevant
to reproduce excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect
as under : –
There is another shop next to my shop and the same is
lying vacant for almost 20 years. The said shop is the
corner shop which is lying vacant. There is another shop
next to the shop of Panwala, the same is also lying
vacant. At present, the shop of the panwala is also lying
vacant. There is another shop at the other corner which
is also lying vacant. At present in total, four shops are
lying vacant. It is incorrect to suggest that at the corner
there is no shop but that is a dead space. It is incorrect
to suggest that the two shops at the corner are dead
spaces and are only being used for stores. Vol. In one of
the corner shops, there was tea stall and in the other
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.27 of 38
corner shop, there was a footwear shop. At present, I
cannot say if I can place on record any proof to testify
that the corner shops were being run as a tea stall and as
a footwear shop respectively.”
68.Thus, from the above extract of cross-examination of RW-1, it safely
stands deduced, that though it is averred by RW-1, that there is a
shop at which a tea install is being run and there is another shop
where a footwear shop is being run but at the same time he has
faltered in placing any cogent document in support of his contention.
Further, with respect to the disputed premises, RW-1 has
categorically admitted in his cross-examination, that the measurement
of the shop in his possession is approximately 8 x 8 and the varanda
of the said shop would also be around the same measurement i.e. 8 x
8 making a total are of 160 feet. The relevant excerpts of cross-
examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under : –
“The measurement of shop in my possession is
approximately 8′ X 8′, but I cannot tell the
measurements of the verandah but it would not
be more than 8′ X 8”
69.As fare as corner shop is concerned it is himself contended by the
respondent, that the shop would be measuring somewhere around 3 x
4 i.e. 12 Sq. feet, which per se does not appear to be a plausible area
for any one to run the boutique from there. The relevant excerpts of
the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as
under : –
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.28 of 38
“I cannot tell the exact measurements of the corner
shops but it would be somewhere around 3′ X 4′”
70.It is further contended by the respondent, that the petitioner’s
requirement is with respect to the need of his married daughter and
therefore, the requirement of the married daughter can not be set to be
falling within the preview of the bonafide necessity of the petitioner.
However, the said contention of the respondent does not hold merit in
light of the judgment of Hon’ble Highc Court of Delhi titled
as”Satish Kumar Bharti Vs. Gupdeep Kaur” RC. REV.614/2015 &
C.M. NO.28280/2015 (stay) as under :-
“The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner on this score that a married daughter is not a
‘dependent’ within the meaning of Section 14 (1)(e) of
the DRCA was repelled by a Bench of this Court.
In 1975 RLR 112 Lal Ram Vs. Kalawati in the
context of married daughter it was noted that the
requirement of the daughter and her husband would
be treated as the requirement of the landlady.
In 1986 (1) RCJ 717 R.K. Bhatnagar versus
Sushila Bhargava, the word ‘dependent’ was analysed
to include not only a person who is financially
dependent upon the landlord/landlady but has under
ambit. In this context it was noted as under:
“it is now well settled that the word
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.29 of 38
“dependent “cannot be construed as
wholly dependent in the sense of earning
nothing at all and the entirely dependent
on the parents for lodging and
maintenance. It connotes a wider concept
and covers a larger field. It takes a person
who is not financially dependent upon the
landlord but who would in normal course
look upto the landlord to provide him/her
with the facility of a house/portion
possessed by the landlord.”
The impugned order on this score suffers from no infirmity.”
71.In the judgment of Hon’ble of High Court of Delhi titled as “Vinod
Gupta Vs. Kailash Aggarwal & Ors.” R.C.REV. 576/2015, CM
APPL 40713/2018 this Court has specifically held that :-
13. Coming to contention (b) qua dependency of
married daughter, I may refer to Sunder Singh
Talwar V. Kamal Chand Dugar 2018 (1) RCR
(Rent)537, wherein the Court held as under :
25. xxxxx Hence, it is not a universal rule that
married daughter cannot be dependent upon her
father. Even otherwise in my opinion, in the present
day and age it would be futile to argue that once the
daughter is married she ceases to be responsibility of
her father. A daughter has equal rights in the estate
of the parents in case of intestate death. There can be
no reason as to why the father would not like to
settle his daughter in business or profession in the
same way as he would like to settle his son. The plea
to the contrary in the present facts is completely
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.30 of 38
misplaced. It may also be noted that in the present
case there is a clear and categorical averment
that the daughter does not own any other property in
Delhi and is dependent on the father to be settled.
14. Further in Rajender Prasad Gupta V. Rajeev
Gagerna 2014 (114) DRJ 182, the Court held as
follows :
5. Having considered the arguments of learned
counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that
the Trial Court has taken into consideration each of
the contentions raised in the leave to defend and
found them to be not triable issues. The reasons for
and conclusion arrived at cannot be faulted.
Furthermore, simply because the daughter of a
marriageable age and allegedly likely to marry would
not necessary cut her ties from her maternal family
nor would the requirement for her accommodation in
her father’s house be lessened. Indeed, in the present
times a daughter who is married-out, may like to
retain her accommodation in her father’s house which
forms an emotional anchor and a place for refuge for
all times. In times of an unfortunate marital discord
such need becomes more acute should there be such a
need. Conversely her family also would want to
retain a room so as to re-assure her of a continued
place of residence in her paternal home. A married
daughter’s ties with her paternal family do not end
upon her marriage. For a married daughter her
parents‟ home is always a refuge; an abode of
reassurance and an abiding source of emotional
strength and happiness. In the present case the
daughter is a practicing advocate, i.e. a qualified
professional, the need is all the more acute and bona
fide. This Court finds, as did the Trial Court did, that
no triable issues were raised in the leave to defend.
Therefore, there was no need to grant leave or set
the matter for trial. The reasons and the conclusion
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.31 of 38
arrived at in the impugned order are correct and call
for no interference.
15. Thus the law discussed above does not leave
any room for further discussion on this topic.
Admittedly the law as it stands, the daughters share
equal rights in their parental properties as a son
does, hence saying a married daughter severe all her
relations with her father’s family and would never
be considered dependent upon the family’s property,
residential or commercial, that her parents own,
would not be correct. Hence no fault can be found
in impugned order even on this score.
16. Lastly I may say in revision the scope of
interference of this Court is limited. It is a settled
law the High Court is only entitled to satisfy itself
as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any
decision or order impugned before it as indicated
above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity,
correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned
decision or the order, the High Court shall not
exercise its power as an appellate power to
reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to
a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not
and cannot be equated with the power of
reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of
first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be
satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may
examine whether the order impugned before it
suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity,
per Gulshera Khanam vs. Aftab Ahmad 2016 AIR
(SC) 4810.
17. Thus, the landlord being the best person to
choose how much space is needed for him/her or his
family member dependent upon him to start or
expand any of his activity, is a sole Judge to decide
qua the accommodation he intend to seek eviction
for. The concealment of unavailable/unsuitable
accommodation is not material and the suitability of
accommodation is needed to be judged on the
touchstone of the landlord and not of tenant. This
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.32 of 38
Court in revision should be slow to intervene in any
such finding of facts by the Additional Rent
Controller.”
72.It is further not out of place to mention, that it is contended by the
petitioner, that his daughter wants to utilize her time and talent
therefore, the petitioner decided to provide her a suitable
accommodation as he has done in case of his two grand daughters as
well.
73.It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, that the
daughter of the petitioner is living with her in-laws in a residential
area and same is shared by her brother-in-law and thus she neither has
any space available to her in the said house nor is the same suitable.
Even otherwise, the perusal of the site plan Ex.PW1/1 reveals, that
the disputed shop is on the main road and per se suitable for the
business of boutique purpose as the main road location not only has
easy access but per se also serves as an advertisement in itself simply
because of its location, thereby serving better business prospectus.
74. Another objection taken by the respondent is with regard to his
brother being another LR and co-sharer of the said shop and not being
made a party to the present petition/legal proceedings but the said
objection is not maintainable in the light of the settled proposition of
the law. Further, this Court takes assistance from the judgment of
Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain , whereby the law stands settled
that after the death of original tenant, its legal heirs inherit the
tenancy as joint tenants and all the legal heirs are not required to be
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.33 of 38
impleaded as party. It has been held in the case titled as Suresh
Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain CIVIL APPEAL No. 3996 OF 2018
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5489 OF 2014) , as
under :-
20) We are of the view that in the light of H.C.
Pandey (supra), the situation is very clear that
when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit
the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of
one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint
tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to
implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant,
whether they are occupying the property or not.
It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either
of those persons who are occupying the
property, as party. There may be a case where
landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of
deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs
who are in occupation of the property is
sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction
petition. An eviction petition against one of the
joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint
tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the
order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is
one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into
different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the
tenants on this count must fail.
75. It is per se to note, that another line of arguments harped upon by the
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.34 of 38
Ld. Counsel for the respondent is to the effect, that the respondent
along with his brother had entered into an inter se split of tenancy,
whereby half of the portion of the tenanted premises as alleged is in
the possession of the respondent in question and other half is in
possession of the brother of the respondent. Negating this argument
of Ld. Counsel for the respondent, this Court deems it fit to state, that
there is a settled preposition of law whereby once a property is given
on rent, the tenant cannot buy himself/themselves split the tenancy
among themselves unless there is a final order of any competent
Court to that. Hence, this Court while rendering such view, takes
assistance from the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as
“Habibul Asabegn Vs. G. Dura” whereby it has been held that once a
property is given on tenancy the same can not be split by the tenants
themselves unless there is an official order.
“In S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand, [1968] 1 SCR 536, it was
held that where a contract of tenancy was a single
indivisible contract and in the absence of any statutory
provision to that effect, it is not open to the Court to
split the tenancy. Law, therefore, is that where there is
a single indivisible contract of tenancy, it cannot be
split by a Court unless there is statutory provision to
that effect. In the present case it is not disputed that
the contract of tenancy is single indivisible contract
for Door Nos. 27 and 28. It is also not disputed that
there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Building
(Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 empowering the
Court to order partial ejectment of a tenant from the
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.35 of 38
premises by splitting the single indivisible nancy. For
these reasons it was not open to the High Court to split
the tenancy and ordered for partial ejectment of the
tenant from the premises.
In view of the aforesaid legal position of law this
appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the
High Court to the extent it allowed the revision of the
tenant is set aside and the decree of the trial court is
affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
76. This, in the light of the detailed analysis as above, this Court finds no
hesitation in deciding that, Presiding Officer of the Trial Court should
place himself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the
given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord
can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and the concept of
bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach
instructed by the realities of life.
77. Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be whimsical or
merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in
favour of the landlord also and the courts should not impose their
own wisdom forcibly upon the landlord/petitioner to arrange his/ her
own affairs according to their perception carried away by the interest
or hardship of the tenants and the inconvenience that may result to
him in passing an order of eviction.
78. I have placed myself in the place of petitioner to determine whether
in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.36 of 38
landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and I have
also applied a practical approach instructed by the realities of life on
the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement.
79. In view of testimonies of the witnesses, and the arguments so
advanced, it is clear, that the petitioner has been able to satisfy the
Court, that no alternate reasonable suitable accommodate is available
with the petitioner for setting up of the business of sale of ladies suit
from the shop in dispute and except the tenanted premises she does
not have any other suitable property/shop available to her in Kirti
Nagar, New Delhi, that requirement as alleged by petitioner is
bonafide. Further, the petitioner / landlord cannot be dictated by the
tenant to chose a different place of business. The tenant cannot ask
for a project report from the landlord. No previous experience is
required for starting a business. The respondent has failed to place on
record any document which could show that the petitioner has any
suitable alternate accommodation.
Conclusion
80. Thus, in totality of the discussions made above, the petitioner has
successfully proved all the essential ingredients of section 14 (1) (e)
of the DRC Act. Accordingly, the eviction petition filed by the
petitioner against the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC
Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted
premises i.e. the disputed shop consisting one room on the ground
floor measuring approximately 8′ X 10′ with front open verandah of
the same size of the property bearing no.H-4/A, Kirti Nagar, New
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.37 of 38
Delhi-110015 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed along
with the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to
initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the
tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view
of the provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act. Keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
81. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.29
Announced in the open Court 15:55:56 +0530
on 29.07.2025 Richa Sharma
SCJ-cum-RC (West)
THC / Delhi / 29.07.2025
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.38 of 38