Delhi District Court
Saubhagya Wati vs Rattan Kumar on 31 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY SINGH PARIHAR
ACJ-CUM-ARC, NORTH DISTRICT,
ROHINI DELHI
RC ARC No. 114/2016.
CNR No. DLNT030001502012
Smt. Saubhagya Wati (deceased)
Through her husband and LR
Sh. Ram Chand Bajaj S/o Bhagwan Dass Bajaj
R/o D-3/4, Model Town III
Delhi-110009 ......Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Rattan Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Amar Nath
Shop No. 1, property no. B-3/13
Model Town I, Delhi-110009
.....Respondent
Date of Institution : 03.10.2012
Date of reserving the order : 11.06.2025
Date of pronouncement : 31.07.2025
ORDER
1. The petitioner, by way of present petition, is seeking eviction
of respondent from shop no.3 in property bearing No. B-3/13,
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 1 of 50Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:41:30 +0530
Model Town-I, Delhi-110009 situated at ground floor
(hereinafter referred to as “tenanted premises”) as shown in red
colour in the site plan annexed with the petition under Section
14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred
to as “DRC Act“), read with Section 25B of the DRC Act. The
whole of property bearing No. B-3/13, Model Town-I,
Delhi-110009 is hereinafter referred to as “subject property”.
Facts disclosed in petition
2. The tenanted premises was let out by original owner/landlady
late Smt. Saubhagya Wati in the year 1985, however, there is
no written rent agreement. After demise of Smt. Saubhagya
Wati, all her legal heirs relinquished their share in favor of Sh.
Ram Chand Bajaj who is husband of late Smt. Saubhagya Wati.
3. It is averred that petitioner has a large family comprising of
himself, her husband Sh. R. C. Bajaj, both married sons Sh.
Satish Bajaj and Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj, and two grandsons and
grand daughters beside the wife of married sons. All the family
members are dependent upon the petitioner for residential
purpose as well as for their business activities purpose. It is
averred that tenanted premises is bonafide required by the
petitioner for her sons, daughter in law Ms. Shikha Bajaj (wife
of Sh. Satish Bajaj) and her grandson namely Sh. Hitesh Bajaj
(son of Sh. Satish Bajaj) who has completed his MBA in 2009.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PARIHAR
Page2025.07.31
2 of 50
16:41:35 +0530
It is averred that Ms. Shikha Bajaj is running her business
under the name and style of M/s Kartik Sales with the help of
other family members on the part of ground floor as well on
the part of Mezzanine floor in subject property for the last
more than two decades and she is also having factory license
certificate from Factory Licensing Department, MCD Office,
Civic Centre, Delhi. It is averred that family of petitioner is
doing the business of manufacturing and supply of hang tags at
a very large scale and 12 employees are working under them.
In the backside portion of ground floor, one off set automatic
machine (10′ x 8′), one paper cutting machine (7′ x 5′),
another paper cutting machine (7′ x 5′), two punching
machines, 2 tradel machines are already installed. In the
remaining backside portion of mezzanine floor, M/s Kartik
Sales has their office which is being used by the office staff
persons including accountant and two computers are also
installed there. A big record room is also being used there and
Ms/ Shikha Bajaj, her husband Sh. Satish Bajaj and their son
Sh. Hitesh Bajaj are also permanently sitting in that portion.
4. It is averred that family of petitioner wants to install more
machines for the progress and improvement of their business
activities but there is no sufficient or suitable space available
with them. There is no proper place for taking rest by
employees of M/s Kartik Sales and for entertaining the
customers who usually come and visit the said commercial
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar
SINGH Page 3 of 50
Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:41:39 +0530
place. It is averred that sufficient accommodation is required
for keeping materials, card boards, papers, printing of hand
tags in bulk as per the requirement of the business orders
received from various customers, punching, threading and
sorting out the tags. It is also averred that there is no space for
installing dye cutting machine and for installing mini offset
machine which is very necessary and relevant for the business.
5. It is also averred that respondent is also occupying another
shop and part of mezzanine floor in the subject property for the
last so many decades as tenant for which separate eviction
petitions are filed. It is averred that entire front portion except
one shop which is in possession of petitioner is urgently
required by the petitioner and other family members for further
progress and better earning from the said business activity. It is
also averred that the approach to building in question from
front side is definitely a plus point for augmentation of
business, for loading and unloading purpose of goods as well
as for attracting the local customer of the area, which is not
possible from the backside small lane. The first and second
floor of the property is already in possession of old tenants and
said portion can not be used for commercial purpose. Legal
notice dated 08.08.2012 was served upon the respondent upon
which the respondent sent a false and frivolous reply dated
17.08.2012.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:41:42 +0530
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 4 of 50
6. Notice of the petition was sent to the respondent in the
prescribed format which was duly served upon the respondent,
in response to which the respondent filed leave to defend
application duly supported by an affidavit.
Leave to defend affidavit
7. In leave to defend affidavit, it is deposed that the present
petition is not maintainable as even the basic ingredients of
Section 14 (1) (e) DRC Act have neither been averred nor been
satisfied or revealed and thus, it is prayed that the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
8. It is deposed that petitioner has falsely claimed and tried to
project the alleged bonafide requirement for his sons, daughter
in law Mrs. Shikha Bajaj W/o Sh. Satish Bajaj and his
grandson Sh. Hitesh Bajaj, without disclosing the material fact
that Sh. Satish Bajaj (son of petitioner) is one of the partners in
M/s Sperry International which is operating its business of
making cables at A-51/1, GT Karnal Road Industrial Area,
Delhi.
9. It is also deposed that petitioner has not disclosed that Sh.
Ghanshyam Bajaj, the other son of petitioner is running the
business of printing under the name and style of M/s Bajaj
Printers as Proprietor from back portion of ground floor, major
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar SINGH Page 5Date:
of 50
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:41:46 +0530
part of mezzanine floor, first floor and second floor of the
subject property and thus, possession of the same is with the
petitioner and his family members.
10. It is deposed that the petitioner has also not disclosed the fact
that M/s Bajaj Printers has been allotted an alternative plot of
150 sq meter bearing no. B-19, Sector-2, Bawana Industrial
Area, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Bawana property”) by
DSIDC for shifting of polluting unit of printing press from
subject property and that possession of the said plot was taken
by M/s Bajaj Printers on 15.04.2002. It is deposed that even
after construction of ground floor, first floor and open terrace
and electricity connection, the Bawana property is lying vacant
which can easily meet the alleged requirement of petitioner and
his family members.
11. It is also deposed that the contention of petitioner that M/s
Kartik Sales is being run by Smt. Shikha Bajaj for more than
two decades is false on the face of it as the profit and loss
account for the year 2011 and sales tax registration certificate
does not show the same. It is also deposed that the factory
license placed on record by the petitioner has also been
procured recently and had it been the case that M/s Kartik
Sales was running the business of printing press since two
decades, it would also have been allotted alternative unit as per
order of Hon’ble Apex Court.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar SINGHPage 6 ofDate:
50
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:41:51 +0530
12. It is also mentioned that there is no electricity connection in the
name of M/s Kartik Sales which is allegedly claiming itself to
be working from one shop from back portion and part
mezzanine floor of subject property and in fact, M/s Bajaj
Printers has been working from back portion and mezzanine
floor and even shop no. 2 has been in its possession and
further, electricity connection is also in its name.
13. It is also deposed that the present petition is hit by the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M C Mehta VS Union
of India, as per which the operation of industries in residential
and non conforming areas was stopped and therefore, the work
of printing press is impermissible and is being run illegally. M/
s Bajaj Printers by virtue of scheme floated by government for
relocation of polluting industries was even allotted with
alternative plot i.e., Bawana property in lieu of closure of
business at subject property which is lying vacant and in fact,
said M/s Bajaj Printers and M/s Kartik Sales are now
contemplating to shift to said Bawana property.
14. It is deposed that the claim of petitioner that first floor and
second floor of the subject property is in possession of old
tenants is falsified in view of findings in DD no. 48B dated
07.11.2012 which has been obtained by respondent from PS
Model Town which shows that the rooms on first floor as well
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 7 of 50
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:41:55 +0530
as on second floor are lying vacant with petitioner and only
one or two rooms are occupied by some persons/ students.
15. It is deposed that on one hand petitioner has claimed that he
has no other commercial property for alleged expansion of
business of her daughter in law and son but on the other hand,
he has not disclosed the availability of vacant Bawana property
which is with M/s Bajaj Printers which is the proprietorship
concern of son of petitioner. It has also not been disclosed that
said M/s Bajaj Printers has been given said alternative Bawana
property pursuant to closure of industrial unit/ printing press
from the subject property wherefrom the petitioner now wants
to expand business. The alleged activities sought to be
conducted by petitioner are not permissible as printing presses/
polluting units have already been banned from functioning in
the City even from non conforming area for which, in
compensation alternative plots have already been allotted. It is
deposed that triable issued have been raised by the respondent,
hence the respondent is entitled for unconditional leave to
defend.
Counter affidavit of petitioner
16. The petitioner filed counter affidavit to leave to defend
affidavit refuting the claim of respondent.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PARIHAR
Page2025.07.31
8 of 50 +0530
16:42:00
17. In the counter affidavit, it is deposed that the property
numbered A-51/1, situated on G.T. Karnal Road in the
Industrial Area of Delhi, is owned by Sh. Naresh Bajaj. This
property was acquired in 1995 and is being used by Sh. Naresh
Bajaj for residence and business. Neither the petitioner nor her
two sons, Sh. Satish Bajaj and Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj, have any
involvement in the business. The entire building is leased to
various tenants, with the exception of a small portion that was
rented to M/s Sparry International. M/s Sparry International is
a separate entity that has been operating since 1980, predating
the establishment of M/s Kartik Sales in 1994. M/s Sparry
International was a partnership concern with Sh. Satish Bajaj
as its partner and operating as a small-scale unit for the
manufacture of cables in the premises of Property No. A-51/1,
G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi. Following the purchase of the
property by Sh. Naresh Bajaj, it became a sole proprietorship
concern. As a gesture of goodwill from his younger brother,
Sh. Naresh Bajaj was allowed to continue operating his
business in the small portion of the premises. It is also deposed
that there is no legal impediment to individuals starting new
businesses, as exemplified by the establishment of M/s Kartik
Sales in subject property, in the year 1994.
18. It is deposed that there is no commercial activity of any kind
on the first or second floor of the property where the tenanted
premises is located, although the same is occupied by other
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar
SINGHPage 9 Date:
of 50
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:42:05 +0530
tenants. It is not denied that M/s Bajaj Printers used to receive
daily correspondence and still does so from the subject
property. The allotment of Bawana property and the
construction thereon is not denied. Nevertheless, the Bawana
property is currently vacant, as admitted by the respondent in
his leave to defend affidavit. It is deposed that there has been
no permanent electric connection installed in the Bawana
property. The temporary electric connection obtained by Sh.
Ghanshyam Bajaj at the commencement of construction of the
Bawana property is only of one kilowatt. As per the electric bill
filed by the respondent, the electric consumption from
04.09.2012 to 01.10.2012, was only 32 units. However, the
reading of the electric meter indicates that the consumption has
reached 990 units since the installation which shows that no
commercial activities were conducted in the Bawana property.
It is also deposed that no skilled labor is available in the area to
support the business operations of M/s Bajaj Printers.
Consequently, the property, which is approximately 22
kilometers away from the residence of Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj,
is not suitable for commercial activity. It is also deposed that
M/s Bajaj Printers obtained a license from MCD to operate a
printing press at its Bawana property for the year ending
31.03.2012. This license was subsequently renewed for the
subsequent year, 2012-13, indicating M/s Bajaj Printers
intention to establish a business. However, due to the above
circumstances the business could not be started. It is also
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page2025.07.31
10 of 50
PARIHAR 16:42:10 +0530
deposed that the entire rear portion of the ground floor is
currently under the control and possession of M/s Kartik Sales,
comprising Ms. Shikha Bajaj, Sh. Satish Bajaj, and their son,
Sh. Hitesh Bajaj.
19. In the counter affidavit, it is further deposed that M/s Kartik
Sales has been operating since 1994 as a trading unit in the
subject property on the rear portion of ground floor and
mezzanine floor of subject property. No alternative site has
ever been allotted to M/s Kartik Sales, nor has there been any
occasion for such an allotment, as it was a trading unit.
However, due to the recent necessity for manufacturing
purposes, M/s Kartik Sales has obtained the requisite MCD
License. It is further deposed that the respondent, either in his
own name or in the name of his other family members,
acquired one shop and a basement in building No. B-3/3,
Model Town, Delhi, just opposite to the tenanted premises in
October 2010. The respondent can easily relocate his business
to this location and will not incur any losses if an eviction
order is passed.
20. It is deposed that old electric connection in the subject property
is in the name of M/s Bajaj Printers is still going on but M/s
Bajaj Printers have no space in the said property to run its
business. M/s Bajaj Printers have given address of subject
property as their correspondence address to its old customers
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar
PARIHARPage 11 of 50
2025.07.31
16:42:15 +0530
and is receiving its dak some time at the subject property
because Bawana property is lying vacant and locked.
21. It is deposed that subject property is situated in commercial
area and building in question is a commercial cum residential
property. The entire ground floor is commercial and permitted
for such use.
22. It is deposed that photographs of Bawana property filed by the
respondent are false and frivolous because the name boards
were never affixed either by M/s Bajaj Printers or M/s Kartik
Sales because none of the said firms are actually working
there. The said name boards on the property have been illegally
and malafidely put by the respondent for taking photographs
and for creating frivolous evidence just to mislead this Court.
23. It is deposed that the additional accommodation is necessary
on account of the fact that business of M/s Kartik Sales has
doubled and has reached a level of sale of more than ₹72 lacs
during the past one to two years. The requirement of additional
space for expansion of business is genuine. The business of the
family members of the deponent will be more profitable if the
same is started from front side of the building which is in
possession of the respondent/tenant.
24. It is deposed that the respondent has filed a police report,
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:42:20 +0530
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 12 of 50
which on the face of it appears to have been made at the
instance of the respondent, which has been found as “Bogus”
as mentioned therein. Even the number of the building
mentioned in the police report as “H. No. 3/13 Model Town,
Delhi” is not correct, but in fact it is “B-3/13, Model Town,
Delhi”. The bonafide need of the M/s Kartik Sales will not be
satisfied even if Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj Prop. M/s Bajaj Printers,
starts his business in Bawana Industrial Area.
25. It is deposed that M/s Bajaj Printers is not working in the
subject property because there is no sufficient or proper space
available in the subject property. The local police has wrongly
shown in its report the business of M/s Kartik Sales as the
business of Mr. Bajaj. No room on the first floor and second
floor of the subject property, is lying vacant. The first floor and
second floor portion of the said property can not be used for
commercial activities and are with old tenants.
26. It is deposed that there is no proper and sufficient space for
enhancement and expansion of the business activities. The
deponent or his family members are not doing any business
activities which create air, water and noise pollution in the said
property. The premises in question is situated in commercial
area. It is denied that the petitioner is concealing any material
fact.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 13
PARIHAR of 50
2025.07.31
16:42:28 +0530
27. It is deposed that M/s Kartik sales has nothing to do with the
Bawana Property and so there is no question of putting any
name board of the said firm. M/s Kartik Sales is running their
business at subject property for the last more than 18 years for
which purpose, a lot of documentary evidence in the form of
Registration certificate of Sales tax department etc. have
already filed. None of the documents filed by the deponent
alongwith the eviction petition has been challenged by the
respondent. M/s Kartik Sales has started their business after the
closure of M/s Bajaj Printers and after obtaining proper license
from the MCD.
Subsequent events by respondent
28. Respondent has also filed application u/s 151 CPC r/w Sec 36
and 37 of DRC Act for bringing on record subsequent events. It
stated that shop no.2 situated at ground floor of subject
property of petitioner was sealed by the MCD on 24.09.2015
because of non-confirming area and on 09.10.2015 one of the
family member namely Ms. Shikha Bajaj moved an application
seeking De-sealing of shop no.2 occupied by M/s Kartik Sales
in subject property. Through this application Ms. Shikha Bajaj
sought 20 days time to shift from the shop no.2. That an
affidavit for temporary de-sealing has been furnished on behalf
of Ms. Shikha Bajaj w/o Sh. Satish Bajaj on 09.10.2015
without mentioning the name of any of the business entity. In
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 PARIHAR
Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar
2025.07.31
Page 14 of 50
16:42:33 +0530
the affidavit it has been undertaken that she is owner/tenant of
the subject property. It has been further averred that the
property was sealed by the MCD on 24.09.2015 because of
Non-confirming Area and she undertake that she will not
undertake any manufacturing activity in future and she will
abide by all the guidelines and norms issued from time to time
in future regarding the property, where it is situated. It has been
further undertaken by her that to abide by all the orders of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.C. Mehta v Union Of
India & Ors including penalty on account of misuse of
premises. It has been further averred in the affidavit that she
also undertake that non-compliance of affidavit would subject
her to offence of perjury and contempt of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. That there are correspondence and other evidences to
this effect that son of Ms. Shikha Bajaj w/o Sh. Satish Bajaj is
actively running M/s Bajaj Printers from the said subject
property. Whereas the record with the MCD shows that M/s
Bajaj Printers is not traceable. That Ms. Shikha Bajaj w/o Sh.
Satish Bajaj is living with her family at the petitioner’s address
D-3/4, Model Town-3rd, Delhi. MCD has issued the de-sealing
order dated 12.10.2015 at this address. Photographs of shifting
signifies that petitioner family was doing manufacturing
business in the non-confirming area and was flouting the
norms set by Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v Union
Of India & Ors.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar
PARIHARPage 15 of 50
2025.07.31
16:42:38 +0530
Subsequent events by petitioner
29. The petitioner has filed additional affidavit wherein the
petitioner has disclosed subsequent events as was existing in
the month of May 2024. The petitioner has deposed in
additional affidavit that present petition was filed in the year
2012 and during the pendency, the family of petitioner has
grown substantially. It is deposed that the grandsons and grand-
daughters of petitioner have got married, and the grandsons are
having kids. The grand-sons & grand-daughters of the
petitioner have graduated and are willing to start some work to
earn their livelihood.
30. It is deposed that the grandson Sh. Kartik Bajaj completed his
post-graduation in MBA from IIT Kanpur in 2017, and now
wants to set up his own mobile phone and accessories business
in the said premises as he has previously worked with Lava
International. That the petitioner’s grand-daughter in-law Ms.
Aastha Sahni Bajaj has completed her NI level Japanese
Language Proficiency Test in 2023 after her marriage in 2021,
and wants to start a Japanese teaching institute in the said
premises for her livelihood. That the grand-daughter-in-law,
Ms. Arushi Bajaj got married to Sh. Hitesh Bajaj in year 2015
and Possesses an MBA degree, wants to start her Boutique, and
needs space for the same.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 114/2016 SINGH Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Date: Page 16 of 50 PARIHAR 2025.07.31 16:42:43 +0530
31. It is deposed that Sh. Kartik and Ms. Aastha want to use Shop
no.1 and 3 respectively and Ms. Aarushi, Ms. Shikha and Sh.
Hitesh Bajaj want to adjust and use the Mezzanine floor in
sharing till the de-sealing of the sealed premises after which
they will accommodate in de-sealed premises. Sh. Kartik shall
also use the Mezzanine floor as storage for his mobile phone
boxes.
32. It is deposed that after the filing of this eviction petition, the
above-mentioned family members of the petitioner have
qualified/ graduated to start their own enterprises in the said
premises. That the petitioner requires the tenanted premises to
support his family members as they have no other place and
are dependent upon the petitioner for the need of the premises.
33. It is also deposed that the only area being used by Ms. Shikha
Bajaj (Proprietor- M/s Kartik Sales) has been sealed by the
MCD in 2015 without any valid reason. Thus, M/s Kartik Sales
is functioning from rented premises. Thus, the tenanted
premises is also required by Ms. Shikha Bajaj daughter-in-law
of the petitioner for running her business, as per the rules &
regulations. That M/s Kartik Sales is also involved in the
trading of various items like lockpins, matka pins, safety pins,
threads along with their printing services. They are paying a
hefty rent in a nearby area, which can be significantly reduced
if they shift their office/ trading business back in the said
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PARIHAR 2025.07.31
Page16:42:48
17 of 50 +0530
premises.
34. Respondent has also filed counter affidavit to additional
affidavit filed by petitioner wherein the respondent has merely
denied the deposition made in additional affidavit.
35. Arguments heard. Record perused.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
36. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section
14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish that:-
i. He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted
premises.
ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any
member of his family dependent upon him.
iii.He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
37. In case of eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act,
the Rent Controller has to see the affidavit filed by the tenant
and the counter affidavit filed by the landlord. The controller is
not required to conduct a full fledged trial and should only see
that if the affidavit of the tenant raise any triable issues.
38. In Precision Steel Engineering Works and Anr. Vs Prem Deva
Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1518″, theDigitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.07.31
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan KumarPARIHAR Page 18 of 50
16:42:53
+0530
Hon’ble Supreme Court held :- “If the averments in the
affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the
satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from
recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon
the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that facts alleged
and disclosed are controverted by the landlord because the
stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly possible that a
tenant may fail to make good the defence raised by him.
Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are
materially different from each other and one cannot bring in
the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility has to be
shown.”.
39. It was further held :- “Statutory duty is cast on the Controller
to give leave as the legislature uses the expression ‘the
Controller shall give’ to the tenant leave to contest if the
affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would
disentitle the landlord for an order for recovery of possession.
The Controller has to look at the affidavit of the tenant seeking
leave to contest. Browsing through the affidavit if there
emerges averment – of facts which on a trial, if believed, would
non-suit the landlord, leave ought to be granted. Let it be made
clear that the statute is not cast in a negative form by enacting
that the Controller shall refuse to give to the tenant leave to
contest the application unless the affidavit filed by the tenant
discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar SINGH
Page 19Date:
of 50
2025.07.31
PARIHAR 16:42:59
+0530
obtaining an order etc…. The language of sub-section 5 of
section 25B casts a statutory duty on the Controller to give to
the tenant leave to contest the application, the only
precondition for exercise of jurisdiction being that the affidavit
filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the
landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of 13;
possession of the premises on the ground mentioned in section
14(1) (e).
40. In Nirmala Kumari & Ors vs Girish Kakkar & Anr RC.REV.
156/2018 (17th May 2024), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held
that ARC is only required to sift/comb through the application
for leave to defend and to take stand of landlord as genuine. It
was held :- “27. The learned ARC is not required to take a
magnifying glass and minutely scrutinize the averments made
in the Eviction Petition. Once the landlord has stated that he
requires the tenanted property for a particular use, the Courts
are required to believe the statement to be true and genuine,
unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent
material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical. The
learned ARC is further required only to sift/comb through the
averments made in the leave to defend application and see
whether the tenant has established with cogent and material
defence, facts which disentitle the landlord from an Eviction
order. This Court in “Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Prakash“
[2010 SCC OnLine Del 351] has clearly held that:- Praveen v.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar SINGH Page Date:
20 of 50
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:43:04 +0530
Mulak Raj, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7721, “7… The Controller is
required to sift/comb through the application for leave to
defend and the affidavit filed therewith and to see whether the
tenant has given any facts/particulars which require to be
established by evidence and which if established would
disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction. The test is not
of the tenant having controverted/denied the claim of the
landlord and thus disputed questions of fact arising; the test is
to examine the pleas of facts and then to determine the impact
thereof.”.
41. In light of the above guidelines enunciated by Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Hon’ble High court, this court has to see
whether affidavit of leave to defend raises any triable issues.
Ownership and landlord-tenant relationship
42. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent that no document
has been filed by petitioner to prove his ownership or landlord-
tenant relationship. It is argued that Shop no.1 and mezzanine
floor was let out to Raj Automobiles and tenanted premises
was let out to Late Sh. Amarnath Malik, Late Ms. Lella Malik
and respondent. It is argued that in another eviction petition
filed u/s 14(1)(a) of DRC between the same parties, the
petitioner has admitted that rent receipts were issued in the
name of Raj Automobiles. It is also argued that cross
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 212025.07.31
PARIHAR of 50
16:43:09 +0530
examination done in above said eviction petition shows that
there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner
and respondent. It is argued that petitioner has failed to
establish his ownership and landlord-tenant relationship, hence
this in itself raises triable issue.
43. It is settled law that while deciding leave to defend application/
affidavit, the Rent Controller can not consider any other
pleading or document except petition, leave to defend affidavit
of tenant, counter affidavit filed by landlord and subsequent
events. In present case the respondent has filed leave to defend
affidavit, application of subsequent event and counter affidavit
to additional affidavit of petitioner, however, in none of the
three documents the respondent has raised the issue of
ownership and landlord-tenant relationship. It is the duty of
tenant to raise all triable issues in leave to defend affidavit,
however in present case the respondent has failed to aver and
raise any triable issue regarding ownership and landlord-tenant
relationship. In leave to defend affidavit the respondent has not
challenged or denied the ownership or landlord status of
petitioner, infact in paragraph no.1 of leave to defend affidavit
respondent has stated that he is the tenant. Paragraph no. 1 of
leave to defend affidavit reads as follows:- “1. That the
Deponent is the tenant-respondent in the captioned matter and
being well conversant with the facts & circumstances of the
case, competent to depose & swear this affidavit.”. Once the
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar SINGHPage 22Date:
of 50
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:43:13 +0530
respondent has admitted himself to be a tenant he can not do a
summersault and dispute tenancy. The tenant is estopped from
disputing tenancy u/s 116 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. Since
respondent has not raised any triable issue in his leave to
defend affidavit and also admitted himself to be a tenant, in
view of the court no triable issue is made out so far as
ownership and landlord-tenant relationship is concerned.
Hence first ingredient of sec 14(1)(e) DRC is fulfilled by
petitioner.
Bonafide requirement
44. Qua bonafide requirement, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
“Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999
Supreme Court 100, held :- “…..The crux of the ground
envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the
requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted
premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he
requires his building for his own occupation the Rent
Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the
requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the
clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie
case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption
that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said
by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the
landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 23 2025.07.31
PARIHAR of 50
16:43:17
+0530
possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the
question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is
quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the
landlord could have adjusted himself. Facts such as the cordial
relationship between a landlord and her daughter-in-law or
that he is comfortably residing in the present building are not
relevant in judging the bona fides of the claim of the landlord.
Otherwise it would appear that landlord can think of residing
in his or her own residential building only when cracks
develop in the relationship between him and his other kith and
kin”.
45. In Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, it was
held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the landlord is the best
judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate
to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live.
Bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should not be
normally interfered with.
46. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by
LRs. vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co. observed that the word
`reasonable’, connotes that the requirement or need is not
fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire. The Word
`requirement’ coupled with the word reasonable means that it
must be something more than a mere desire but need not
certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. A
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar SINGH Page 24 of 50
Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:43:22 +0530
reasonable and bona fide requirement is something in between
a mere desire or wish on one hand and a compelling or dire or
absolute necessity at the other end. It may be a need in presenti
or within reasonable proximity in the future.
47. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul
Ahad Khan And Ors, 1979 AIR 272, 1979 SCR (2) 1 while
dealing with civil appeal in relation to Jammu & Kashmir
Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 held :- “…The
distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in
mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing
but a desire as the High Court has done in this case. It seems
to us that the connotation of the term ‘need’ or ‘requirement
should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly
stretched or strained as to make it impossible or extremely
difficult for one landlord to get a decree for eviction. Such a
course would defeat the very purpose of the Act which affords
the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain
specified grounds. This appears to us to be the general scheme
of all the Rent Control Acts, prevalent in other State in the
country. This Court has considered the import of the word
requirement and pointed out that it merely connotes that there
should be an element of need.”
48. In light of above broad guidelines set by Hon’ble Courts, it has
to be seen whether the requirement of petitioner is bonafide or
Digitally
signed by
AJAY AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page16:43:26
25 of 50
+0530
not.
49. It argued on behalf of respondent that requirement for which
present eviction petition has been filed has extinguished. It is
argued that present petition has been filed for expansion of
printing press business of M/s Kartik Sales, however the said
business of printing press can not be carried out at the tenanted
premises as Shop no.2 where allegedly M/s Kartik Sales was
operating its business has been sealed by the MCD on
24.09.2015 because of non-confirming area. It is argued that
since the printing press business can not be done in the said
premises hence the expansion of the such business can not be
done which consequently makes the need of the petitioner non
existent. It is argued that on 09.10.2015 one of the family
member of petitioner Ms. Shikha Bajaj moved an application
seeking De-sealing of premises occupied by M/s Kartik Sales
in subject property. Through this application applicant sought
20 days time to shift from the premises. That an affidavit for
temporary de-sealing has been furnished by Ms. Shikha Bajaj
w/o Sh. Satish Bajaj on 09.10.2015 without mentioning the
name of any of the business entity. In the affidavit it has been
undertaken that she is owner/tenant of the subject property. It is
deposed in affidavit that she will not undertake any
manufacturing activity in future.
50. It is further argued that there is no electricity connection in the
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.07.31
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan KumarPARIHAR Page 16:43:30
26 of 50
+0530
name of M/s Kartik Sales which is allegedly claiming itself to
be working from one shop from back portion and part
mezzanine floor of subject property and in fact, M/s Bajaj
Printers has been working from back portion and mezzanine
floor and even shop no. 2 has been in its possession and
further, that electricity connection is also in its name. It is
argued that there are correspondence and other evidences to
this effect that son of Ms. Shikha Bajaj w/o Sh. Satish Bajaj is
actively running M/s Bajaj Printers from the subject property
aid premises. Whereas the record with the MCD shows that M/
s Bajaj Printers is not traceable. It is argued that Ms. Shikha
Bajaj w/o Sh. Satish Bajaj is living with her family at the
petitioner’s address D-3/4, Model Town-3rd, Delhi and MCD
has issued the de-sealing order dated 12.10.2015 at this
address. Photographs of shifting also signifies that petitioner
family was doing manufacturing business in the non-
confirming area.
51. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of petitioner that shop no.2
was used and operated by M/s Kartik Sales which is evident
from factory license certificate issued by MCD for the year
2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015 and 2015-2016,
however in 24.09.2015 the said shop no.2 was sealed by MCD.
It is argued that apart from printing press business M/s Kartik
Sales was also doing work of supply of hand tags, cutting done
through cutting machine, punching done through punching
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PARIHAR
Page2025.07.31
27 of 50
16:43:35 +0530
machine. It is also argued that space is required for office staff,
for record room, for employees to take rest, for entertaining
customers, for keeping cardboards and paper, for installing dye
cutting machines. It is also argued that M/s Kartik Sales is also
involved in trading other items like lockpins, matka pins,
safety pins. It is further argued that with the passage of time
and during pendency of proceedings, the need of petitioner has
increased. It is argued that tenanted premises is also required
for Sh. Kartik Bajaj, grandson of petitioner for opening mobile
shop, for Ms. Aastha Sahni Bajaj and Ms. Arushi Bajaj,
granddaughter in laws of petitioner for opening teaching
institute and for opening a boutique respectively.
52. It is argued that the tenanted premises can be used for other
works of M/s Kartik Sales and for grandson and grand
daughter in laws of petitioner.
53. The respondent has filed electricity bill dated 26.10.2012 in the
name of M/s Bajaj Printers to show that M/s Bajaj Printers was
continuing its work from the subject property and that M/s
Kartik Sales is not functioning at the subject property. The
petitioner has not denied that electricity connection was in the
name of M/s Bajaj Printers. It is stated by petitioner that
electricity connection was not changed even after the closure
of business by M/s Bajaj Printers. The electricity bill filed by
respondent does show the name of M/s Bajaj Printers, however
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar SINGHPage 28PARIHAR
of 50
Date: 2025.07.31
PARIHAR 16:43:42 +0530
the address mentioned on the bill makes it clear that the
electricity connection is installed at first floor of the subject
property whereas the petitioner has stated that M/s Kartik Sales
is working on the ground floor and mezzanine floor. It is
argued on behalf of petitioner that M/s Kartik Sales started in
the year 1994 after closure of M/s Bajaj printers. The petitioner
has also argued that earlier it was doing trading business,
however later on it started printing work too. The petitioner has
filed factory license certificates for the year 2011 till 2016. The
petitioner has also filed sales tax order for the period
1994-1995, 1999-2000 and 2004-2005 all in the name of M/s
Kartik Sales having subject property as its address. Factory
license certificates from the year 2011 till 2016 are in the name
of M/s Kartik Sales wherein the address mentioned is of
ground floor of the subject property. The petitioner has also
filed site plan wherein he has shown the manner in which M/s
Kartik Sales was using the ground floor and mezzanine floor in
the subject property. The respondent has not filed any counter
site plan showing how M/s Bajaj Printers is carrying out its
business at the said premises. Photographs filed by respondent
shows that machines are being taken out, however this was
done after desealing order of shop no.2. Photographs show that
name of M/s Kartik Sales is written on the shutter of shop no2.
All these documents show that M/s Kartik Sales was carrying
on its business on ground floor and mezzanine floor of subject
property and not M/s Bajaj Printers.
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.07.31
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PARIHAR
Page 29 of 50
16:43:47
+0530
54. It is argued on behalf of respondent that son of Ms. Shikha
Bajaj w/o Sh. Satish Bajaj is actively running M/s Bajaj
Printers from the subject property which is evident from
correspondence letter and courier receipts, whereas the record
with the MCD shows that M/s Bajaj Printers is not traceable.
The petitioner has not denied that correspondence of M/s Bajaj
Printers is being done from the said premises as Bawana
property is not functional and lying vacant. The electricity bill
filed by respondent of Bawana property shows that it is a long
term temporary connection, further it shows that total
consumption of electricity since installation on 11.04.2005 till
01.10.2012 is only 990 units. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for
petitioner that labour required to do printing press work is not
readily available in the area hence the printing press work
could not be started at Bawana property. All these facts show
that Bawana property is not in use by M/s Bajaj Printers and at
the same time it has been shown by petitioner that M/s Kartik
Sales is doing business from the ground floor and mezzanine
floor of subject property. As Bawana premises is not
functional, there has to be a place for correspondence with
customers for M/s Bajaj Printers and in view of the court, it
will be appropriate to use old address to communicate with
customers as is done by M/s Bajaj Printers. Correspondence at
subject property by M/s Bajaj Printers does not make out any
triable issue as petitioner has clearly shown that M/s Kartik
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 30 of 50
2025.07.31
PARIHAR 16:43:51
+0530
Sales was doing its business from ground and mezzanine floor
of subject property.
55. It is argued by respondent that the work for which expansion is
sought by petitioner has been directed to be closed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court, hence the very basis of need of petitioner has
vanished. It is an admitted fact that shop no. 2 adjacent to
tenanted premises has been sealed by MCD on 24.09.2015,
however the M/s Kartik Sales is not only doing the business of
printing press but also doing other work as mentioned in
paragraph 18 (iii) of petition. It is averred in petition that the
tenanted premises is required to expand the work of M/s Kartik
Sales which is doing business of supply of hang tags at a very
large scale apart from manufacturing them. The premises can
not be used for printing/manufacturing hangtags which is
evident from affidavit of Ms. Shikha Bajaj, however the
tenanted premises can certainly be used for allied work as
mentioned in petition. Apart from the requirement shown in
petition, the petitioner has also filed affidavit of subsequent
event wherein he has disclosed additional need of tenanted
premises which arose during pendency of proceedings. The
respondent in counter affidavit to the affidavit of subsequent
events has merely denied the additional need and change of
circumstances without effectively showing as to how these
subsequent needs are not bonafide. The petitioner in additional
affidavit has even disclosed as to how the tenanted premisesDigitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PARIHAR 2025.07.31
Page 31 of 50
16:43:56
+0530
may be used after vacation. If it is presumed that even the
allied work of manufacturing/printing hangtags can not be
done then also the tenanted premises is required for need of
grandson and granddaughter in laws. The petitioner has filed
MBA degree and past job document of Sh. Kartik Bajaj,
Japanese language certificate of Ms. Aastha Sahni Bajaj and
MBA degree of Ms. Arushi Bajaj to show the relevant
eligibility and experience. It is settled law that a landlord may
start a new business even if he has no experience in the field
and the tenant can not take defense that landlord does not have
eligibility or experience to start a new business.
56. If the premises is used for printing press then MCD is free to
take action against M/s Kartik Sales, however merely on the
apprehension of respondent that tenanted premised may be
used for manufacturing activity will not be sufficient enough to
doubt the bonafide need of petitioner. Even otherwise, there are
other needs of petitioner which are highlighted in earlier
portion which are not prohibited by any law, hence there is
nothing on record to question bonafide need of petitioner.
57. While relying on Santosh Devi Soni vs Chand Kiran Civil
Appeal no. 412 of 2000 SC, it is argued on behalf of
respondent that where additional accommodation is asked for
in proceedings under DRC Act, normally leave to defend
should not be refused. In the present case, the petitioner hasDigitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan KumarPARIHAR Page 32 of 50
2025.07.31
16:44:00
+0530
asked for additional accommodation for M/s Kartik Sales,
however tenanted premises is also required for the need of
grandson and granddaughter in laws which is not a requirement
of additional accommodation. It is also observed that first floor
and second floor of subject property are occupied and there is
no other property owned by petitioner which is suitable for his
needs, hence in peculiar facts of present case, the judgment
relied by Ld. Counsel has no application.
58. Respondent has also relied on judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in Puran Chand & Anr. Vs Yaspal, Rent Control Revision
No. 22 of 2004, it is argued that self created paucity of
accommodation cannot be made basis of relief under section
14(1)(e) of DRC Act. Landlord cannot create paucity of
residential accommodation and plead he has bonafide need for
additional accommodation. In Puran Chand supra, the landlord
filed eviction petition for residential purpose, however the
landlord kept utilizing the rooms as and when they got vacant
for godown or for commercial activity. In present case, it has
not been shown as to how the petitioner has created paucity of
accommodation. It has been observed in later part of this order
that petitioner has no reasonable suitable accommodation,
hence this court fails to understand as to how petitioner has
created paucity of accommodation, hence this judgment is
distinguishable on facts.
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.07.31
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page16:44:08
33 of 50
+0530
59. Respondent has also relied on Freddy Fernandes vs P.L. Mehra,
ILR1973DELHI682. It is argued on behalf of respondent that
need of landlord is to be judged not by landlord himself but by
Controller. It is also held in this case that when landlord has to
choose between two alternative accommodation his judgment
has to be given due weight. In the persent case, this court has
reached to the conclusion that need of petitioner is bonafide
and there is no reasonable suitable alternative accommodation
as observed in later part. The tenant has failed to show
alternative accommodation and their suitability. In such
circumstances, the choice of landlord has to be given due
weight, hence this judgment is infact in favour of petitioner.
60. Respondent has also relied on the judgment in Vinod Kumar &
Anr. Vs Ajay Kumar Singhal, RC Rev. 374 of 2015. This
judgment is also distinguishable on facts. In this case leave to
defend was granted and evidence were lead, the court observed
that evidence not marshaled and not examined in light of
submission and counter submissions of parties, whereas in
present case leave to defend has not been granted yet, hence
this judgment is not applicable to present facts.
61. Respondent has also relied on Khem Chand & Ors. vs Arjun
Jain & Ors. RC Rev. 442 of 2012 DHC, it is stated that Rent
Controller rejected application by merely applying proposition
that landlord was best judge to decide his need in a mechanicalDigitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.07.31
PARIHAR 16:44:13
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page+0530
34 of 50
manner and didn’t consider question of availability of
reasonable accommodation vis a vis accommodation which
landlord was enjoying coupled with his ownership for first
floor of property, where proposed business could be carried out
in the event of any future eventuality. Since it has already been
observed that need of petitioner is bonafide and there is no
reasonable alternative suitable accommodation as allegations
of respondent regarding alternative accommodation have been
dealt with in later part of this order, this court has no doubt that
petitioner has proved the ingredients of 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act.
This court is cognizant of the fact that in presence of
alternative suitable accommodation, leave to defend can not be
denied even if requirement is bonafide, however, in present
case the respondent has failed to show prima facie that
alternative accommodation are owned by petitioner or suitable
to his needs.
62. In Rajiv Mehra & Anr Vs Ravi Bhushan RC.REV. 341/2018,
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi observed that the Rent Controller
has to presume the need of landlord as genuine and bonafide
and it is for the tenant to refute the presumption. It is
observed:- “43. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the judgement
of Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778
has held that whenever a landlord seeks eviction of the tenant
for bonafide need, Controller shall presume the need as
genuine and bona fide. Additionally, the burden to refute the
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PageDate:
35 of 50
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:44:17 +0530
said presumption squarely lies on the tenant and the mere
assertion on part of the tenant is insufficient. “19. … In our
view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions for
the tenants that whenever the landlord would approach the
court he would approach when his need is genuine and bona
fide. It is, of course, subject to the tenant’s right to rebut it but
with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, in the proceeding
taken up under Section 13-B by the NRI landlords for the
ejectment of the tenant, the court shall presume that the
landlord’s need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona
fide. But this would not disentitle the tenant from proving that
in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not
genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that
the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this
fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary
facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if
available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the
Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the
question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A
mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient
to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord’s favour that his
requirement of occupation of the premises is real and
genuine.”.
63. In the present case the respondent has not been able to show
how the need of petitioner is not genuine and bonafide and on
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar SINGH Date:
Page 36 of 50
2025.07.31
PARIHAR 16:44:48
+0530
the other hand, petitioner has shown his additional requirement
of M/s Kartik Sales as well as the need of his grandson and
granddaughter in laws, hence in such circumstances second
ingredient of sec 14(1)(e) DRC is also fulfilled by petitioner.
Availability of alternate reasonable suitable accommodation
64. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan
& Ors. 2025 INSC 271, recently reiterated that tenant cannot
dictate landlord to get another property vacated for bona fide
need. It was held :- “10. The law with regard to eviction of a
tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need
of the landlord is well settled. The need has to be a real one
rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. The
landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property
should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant
has no role in dictating as to which premises the
landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for
eviction.
65. Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Shri Om Prakash Bajaj vs Shri
Chander Shekhar 2003IAD(DELHI)669, 102(2003)DLT746,
2003(67)DRJ674 observed “11. …Suitability of the alternative
premises cannot be determined by mere counting the rooms.
But it has to be determined keeping in view the totality of the
facts, the nature of need pleaded by the landlord, his and his
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 114/2016 SINGH
Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar
PARIHAR
Page 37 of 50
Date: 2025.07.31
PARIHAR 16:44:53 +0530
family’s standard and style of life and the purpose to which the
landlord wants to actually put it after coming it into
possession. The landlord has right to choose which of the
accommodation is required by him for himself and the
members of his family…”.
66. It is further observed “14. A landlord, who did not want his
tenant to occupy the premises may terminate the tenancy or
upon efflux of time stipulated in the lease ask the tenant to quit
in accordance with the provision of Transfer of Property Act.
The Rent Acts have put a clog on this right. The landlord
cannot now evict the tenant on his whims and fancy. He has to
satisfy the Controller about existence of one or more of the
ground of eviction specified in Section 14(1) of the Act. Right
of landlord is not absolute but curtailed by various provisions
of Rent Acts. Crux of the ground of eviction under clause (e) on
which eviction of the petitioner is sought is that the
requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenant
premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he
requires the suit premises for her own residence the Rent
Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the
requirement is not bonafide. Once the bonafide of the
requirement of the premises for occupation is established by
the landlord the tenant cannot ask the landlord how else he
adjust without disturbing his own possession in the suit
premises. Therefore, it will be unnecessary to try to ascertain
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 SINGH Page
Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar 38 of 50
Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:44:58 +0530
as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself at
another place…”.
67. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh &
Anr. v. Sudarshan Kumar & Anr. in case bearing Civil Appeal
Nos. 231-232 of 2021 observed that it is not for the tenant to
dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business
venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord
will be adequate. It has been further observed that the genuine
need of the appellant to secure vacant possession of the
premises for the proposed business is found to be established.
The adequacy or otherwise of the space available with the
landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant to dictate.
68. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh
Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 case held that for a petition for
eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act to succeed, the
concept of bonafide need is required to be looked at practically
in view of realities of life, neither a too liberal nor a too
conservative approach must be taken. If the alternate
accommodation available does not satisfy the need of the
landlord or the convenience or safety of the landlord and their
family members, the same cannot be held to be reasonable
suitable accommodation. It was further held that the Court
must consider the profession/vocation of the landlord and its
family members, their style of living, habits, and their
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar
SINGHPage 39Date:
of 50
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:45:02 +0530
background.
69. In Nirmala Kumari & Ors vs Girish Kakkar & Anr RC.REV.
156/2018 (17th May 2024), Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held
that the Court is not to sit in the armchair of the landlord. It
was held :- “29. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has
repeatedly held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the
landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to
be best utilized by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his property
and is the best person to decide which property is to be utilized in what
way. The respondent cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to utilize his
property. If the respondents/landlord states that the alternate premises are
unsuitable to meet his/her needs, the Court is to believe the same. The
landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific
requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard.”.
70. In light of above pronouncements it has to be seen whether
respondent has been able to raise any triable issues so far as
alternate accommodation is concerned.
71. It is contended on behalf of the respondent that petitioner has
not disclosed that Sh. Satish Bajaj the son of petitioner is one
of the partners in M/s Sperry International which is operating
its business of making cables at A-51/1, GT Karnal Road
Industrial Area, Delhi and Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj, the other son
of petitioner is running the business of printing under the name
and style of M/s Bajaj Printers as Proprietor from back portion
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar SINGHPage 40PARIHAR
of 50
Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:45:08 +0530
of ground floor, major part of mezzanine floor, first floor and
second floor of subject property and thus, possession of the
same is with the petitioner and his family members.
72. It is argued on behalf of respondent that petitioner has not
disclosed entire property. It is stated that as per site plan, all the
remaining portion in the subject property is in possession of
petitioner.
73. It is argued that the petitioner has also not disclosed the fact
that M/s Bajaj Printers has been allotted an alternative Bawana
property by DSIDC for shifting of polluting unit of printing
press from subject property and that possession of the said plot
was taken by Bajaj Printers on 15.04.2002. It is deposed that
even after construction of ground floor, first floor and open
terrace and electricity connection, the said property is lying
vacant which can easily meet the alleged requirement of
petitioner and his family members.
74. It is argued on behalf of respondent that petitioner has not
disclosed allotment Bawana property and sealing of the shop
no.2 where printing press work was done. It is argued that
petitioner has not disputed the fact that Bawana property is
allotted and that, shop was sealed. Ld. Counsel has submitted
that since the petitioner has not disclosed the above fact,
present petition may be dismissed due to suppression of
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 41 of 50
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:45:13 +0530
material facts.
75. Ld. Counsel has relied on following judgment qua suppression
of facts:-
• S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs Jagannath, 1994 AIR 853. Ld.
• Premchand Rameshchand vs DDA, 1997IIAD(DELHI)629.
• Meghmala & Ors vs G N Reddy & Ors. 2010 (8) SCC 383.
• In Re Suo Moto Proceedings against R. Karupan 2001.
76. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that first and second floor of
the property are residential not commercial, hence can not be
used for commercial needs of petitioner. It is argued that
property bearing no. A-51/1, GT Karnal Road Industrial Area,
Delhi is owned by Sh. Naresh Bajaj hence there is no need to
disclose this property. It is argued that M/s Sperry International
is now a proprietorship firm wherein Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj has
no role to play. In alternative it is argued that even if Sh.
Ghanshyam Bajaj is presumed to be working with M/s Sperry
International then also there is no bar to start a new business.
77. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that M/s Kartik Sales was
operating its business from the ground floor and mezzanine
floor of subject property after the closure of M/s Bajaj Printers.
The site plan specifically shows how the remaining part of
ground floor and mezzanine floor was used by M/s Kartik
Sales. It is argued that respondent has not filed any counter site
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.07.31
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PARIHAR
Page 42 of 50
16:45:17
+0530
plan showing how M/s Bajaj Printer was using the said
property.
78. In the present case, it is argued on behalf of respondent that
petitioner did not disclose that Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj is partner
in M/s Sperry International working at property bearing no.
A-51/1, GT Karnal Road Industrial Area, Delhi. It is argued on
behalf of petitioner that this property is owned by Sh. Naresh
Bajaj hence there is no need to disclose this property and after
purchase M/s Sperry International has become a proprietorship
firm wherein Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj is not working. The
respondent has not deposed in his leave to defend affidavit that
above said property is owned by petitioner. It is only argued
that petitioner has not disclosed that Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj is
working in M/s Sperry International. Non disclosure of the fact
that Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj is working as partner in above said
firm in petition is of no consequence as the tenanted premises
is required for expansion of business of M/s Kartik Sales which
is run by Ms. Shikha Bajaj as is evident from factory license
certificates and for the need of grandson and granddaughter in
laws. Petition and affidavit of subsequent event filed by
petitioner no where shows that tenanted premises is required
for Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj, hence there was no need to disclose
as to where Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj was working.
79. It is argued on behalf of respondent that Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj,
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.07.31
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PARIHAR
Page 43 of16:45:22
50
+0530
the other son of petitioner is running the business of printing
under the name and style of M/s Bajaj Printers as Proprietor
from back portion of ground floor, major part of mezzanine
floor, first floor and second floor of subject property and thus,
possession of the same is with the petitioner and his family
members.
80. It has already been observed in paragraph 53 that it was M/s
Kartik Sales which was doing business on ground floor and
mezzanine floor and not M/s Bajaj Printers. For showing that
M/s Bajaj Printers was doing business from ground floor and
mezzanine floor, the respondent has filed electricity bill dated
26.10.2012 in the name of M/s Bajaj Printers, however this
electricity bill shows that it pertains to first floor of the
premises.
81. Further, respondent has filed the DD entry 48 B, P.S Model
Town, dated 07.11.2012 which mentions that Sh. Ghanshyam
Bajaj printing press has shop on ground floor and on
mezzanine floor. The entry further states that on the first floor
and second floor some rooms are occupied and remaining
portion is vacant. This DD entry is in contrast with the
argument of Ld. Counsel for respondent that M/s Bajaj Printers
is also doing business from first and second floor and that
whole property is with the petitioner. This DD entry shows that
first and second floor are not with M/s Bajaj Printers.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:45:26 +0530
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 44 of 50
82. Even if it is presumed that M/s Bajaj Printers was doing
business from first and second floor and it is lying vacant then
also it will not help the case of respondent as it is settled law
that tenant can not dictate the landlord as to how he should
utilize his property. The landlord has right to choose which of
the accommodation is required by him for himself and the
members of his family. Even otherwise the plea of the
respondent with respect to availability of first and second floor
of the subject property is not tenable in view of the dicta of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatlbai (2002)
6SCC 16 and Uday Shanker Upadhyay Vs. Naveen
Maheshwari (2010) 1SCC 503, wherein it was held that
judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the upper floors are
generally not commercially viable and consumers and patrons
of the market are reluctant to walk into the same and are more
prone to walk into a shop on the ground floor. Relying on these
decisions, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s
A.K. Woolen Industries & Ors. Vs. Shri Narayan Gupta RC.
REV. No. 495/2017 dated 31.10.2017 held that availability of
upper floors above the tenanted premises on the ground floor
cannot be said to be alternate suitable accommodation.
83. Hence, the argument of Ld. Counsel for respondent that entire
property is with the petitioner is falsified by the documents
filed by respondent himself, even otherwise same can not be
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar
SINGH Date:
Page 45 of 50
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:45:31 +0530
considered to be alternate suitable accommodation.
84. It is also argued on behalf of respondent that the petitioner has
not disclosed the fact that M/s Bajaj Printers has been allotted
an alternative plot i.e., Bawana property by DSIDC for shifting
printing press from subject property and that possession of the
said plot was taken by M/s Bajaj Printers on 15.04.2002.
85. Per contra it is argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that
Bawana property has been allotted to M/s Bajaj Printers which
is lying vacant due to non availability of skilled labour. It is
also argued that said property is to be used by M/s Bajaj Printer
who also obtained license from MCD. It is argued that tenanted
premises is required for M/s Kartik Sales and not for M/s Bajaj
Printers. It is argued that Bawana property need not be
disclosed for two reasons first, it is not allotted to M/s Kartik
Sales and second it is not suitable for the need of petitioner as
same is situated at a distance of 22 km from the present place
of business and non availability of skilled labour.
86. The landlord is expected to disclose alternative
accommodation, however this accommodation should be
owned by him and it has to be reasonably suitable
accommodation. If alternative premises is not owned or
suitable for the need of landlord then landlord can not be
faulted for non disclosure of alternative premises.
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.07.31
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PARIHAR
Page 46 of 50
16:45:36
+0530
87. The respondent has filed allottees list as per which Bawana
property is allotted to M/s Bajaj Printers and as per electricity
bill filed by respondent of Bawana property, Sh. Ghanshyam
Bajaj is proprietor of M/s Bajaj Printers. Petitioner has also
filed factory license certificate of M/s Bajaj Printers having
proprietor Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj issued for printing work at
Bawana property. It is clear that M/s Bajaj Printers is run by
Sh. Ghanshyam Bajaj and the property at Bawana is expected
to be used by M/s Bajaj Printers as is evident from factory
license issued by MCD. Since the Bawana property is allotted
to M/s Bajaj Printers then how the same can be used by M/s
Kartik Sales. It is not the case of respondent in leave to defend
affidavit that Bawana property is owned or allotted to
petitioner. Since Bawana property is not allotted to or owned
by petitioner, the petitioner is not expected to disclose the
same. Respondent has also filed Photographs of Bawana
property wherein the name board of both M/s Kartik Sales and
M/s Bajaj Printers is shown, however upon closer scrutiny of
photograph no.9 it is revealed that both the boards are kept on
the platform. It is apparent that both the boards are not affixed.
Had it been the intention of property owner to place the name
board then boards must have been affixed properly and not just
kept on the platform. Even otherwise it has already been
observed that it is M/s Bajaj Printers which was allotted the
Bawana property then M/s Kartik Sales is not in position to use
Digitally
signed by AJAY
AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:45:40
+0530
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 47 of 50
this property. Hence petitioner was not bound to disclose this
fact.
88. The respondent has filed electricity bill of Bawana Property
which shows that it is a temporary electric connection of one
kilowatt in the name of Bajaj Printers, proprietor Sh.
Ghanshyam Bajaj. As per this electricity bill, the electric
consumption from 04.09.2012 to 01.10.2012, was only 32 units
and total units from the energisation date i.e., 11.04.2005 till
01.10.2012 is only 990 units which shows that no commercial
activities were conducted in Bawana property which also
substantiate the argument of petitioner that due to lack of
skilled labour, work could not be started. In such circumstances
by no stretch of imagination it can be said that this property is
suitable for any commercial purpose. Since it is not suitable for
commercial purpose, on this ground also the petitioner was not
obliged to disclose the fact of allotment of this property.
89. Since the petitioner had no obligation to disclose the fact of
allotment of Bawana property, there is no suppression of any
fact hence the judgments relied by Ld. Counsel for respondent
as mentioned in paragraph no. 72 have any application to
present proceedings.
90. It is also argued that petitioner has concealed the fact of sealing
of Shop no.2, hence this petition may be dismissed. Record
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 48 of2025.07.31
PARIHAR 50
16:45:46
+0530
shows that Shop no.2 was sealed on 24.09.2015 which is after
filing of present eviction petition. The respondent brought on
record the fact of sealing by way of application u/s 151 CPC
moved on 24.05.2016 to which petitioner filed reply. This court
is of the view that petitioner could not be accused of
concealing any material facts in the eviction petition because
this was a subsequent event. Reference can be had to Kishan
Chand vs Chiman Lal And Ors. AIRONLINE 2001 SC 407.
91. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh, has
specified that the Leave to Defend to a tenant cannot be
granted on mere asking or in a routine manner as it will defeat
the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter
III-A of the Act and what has to be seen while granting leave to
defend is that there is a strong prima facie case against the
landlord who is seeking eviction. In the matter at hand, no
ground is made out to grant leave to defend.
92. In the present case the respondent has failed to show any
reasonable alternative suitable accommodation, hence in such
circumstances third ingredient of sec 14(1)(e) DRC is also
fulfilled by petitioner..
93. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered
opinion that respondent has failed to raise any triable issue vide
his leave to defend application/affidavit. The application/
Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.07.31
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar PARIHAR
Page 49 of 50
16:45:57
+0530
affidavit for leave to defend is hereby dismissed.
94. Consequently, petitioner has proved all the ingredients of
section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, hence petitioner is entitled for an
eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour
of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the
respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e., shop no.3 in
property bearing No. B-3/13, Model Town-I, Delhi-110009, as
indicated in red color in the site plan annexed to the petition
filed with the eviction petition, in terms of Section 14(1)(e) r/w
Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner,
however, shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof
before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of
this order as mandated by sec 14(7) of DRC Act.
95. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.07.31
16:46:03 +0530
Announced in Open Court (Ajay Singh Parihar)
on 31.07.2025. ACJ-cum-ARC-North
Rohini Court/ Delhi
RC ARC No. 114/2016 Saubhagya Wati Vs Rattan Kumar Page 50 of 50