Delhi District Court
Savinder Kaur vs Rajesh Kumar on 13 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
RC ARC No: 64/2023
CNR No. DLWT-03-001887-2023
(1) Smt. Savinder Kaur
widow of late Shri Amrik Singh,
(2) Shri Gurdeep Singh
(3) Shri Charanpal Singh
Both sons of late Shri Amrik Singh
All R/o 19/12B, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018. ....Petitioners
Versus
Shri Rajesh Kumar
Son of Shri Kashmiri Lal
Shop No.10, Ground Floor,
Property Bearing No. E-20, Rewari Line,
Phase II, Mayapuri, New Delhi.
Also at: B-323, Hari Nagar,
Clock Tower, New Delhi. .....Respondent
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. The Petitioners 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 Petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the
One Shop bearing Private No. 10, measuring about 7×10 sq. ft.,
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.1 of 34
situated on the ground floor of the property bearing No. E-20, Rewari
Line, Phase II, Mayapuri, New Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site
plan (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted premises” or premises in
question).
AVERMENTS BY PETITIONERS IN THE PETITION
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioners, that the petitioner’s
predecessor-in-interest namely Shri Amrik Singh, was the owner of the
property bearing No. E- 20, situated in the layout plan of Rewari Line,
Phase II, Mayapuri, New Delhi, and the said property was purchased
by him from the previous/erstwhile owners namely Sh. Amrik Singh
and Sh. Manjeet Singh, who inducted the respondent as a tenant long
ago at the rate of rent of Rs. 400/-, excluding other charges. However,
no written rent agreement was entered between the said previous
owner and the respondent.
3. It has been been further averred, that the petitioner’s predecessor in
interest during his life time had filed an eviction petition against some
of the tenants on the ground of non-payment of rent and the orders
were passed regarding the deposit of the rent and those petitions are
still pending in the Court of Learned Additional Rent Controller, Delhi.
4. It has been been further averred, that the husband of the petitioner
No.1 and the father of the petitioners No. 2 & 3 namely Shri Amrik
Singh was having no permanent business and he purchased the said
property for the purpose of establishing himself along with his two
sons, who are married and unemployed. It has been been further
averred, that after the death of Shri Amrik Singh (husband of the
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.2 of 34
petitioner no. 1 and father of the petitioners no. 2 and 3), the
petitioners became the owners/landlords in respect of the said property
and they require the premises in possession of the respondent for their
bonafide need as they have got no other reasonable, suitable
commercial premises to run the business and as such, the present shop
as well as the other adjoining shops are in the possession of the other
tenants and the same are required by the petitioners. It has been
further averred, that the petitioners decided to demolish the existing
structure which is very old and is in dilapidated condition and after
demolishing the existing structure of the present shop as well as the
other shops which are in possession of the other tenants, the petitioners
would construct a banquet hall and after constructing a banquet hall,
the petitioners would run a banquet hall at the said premises for the
purposes of arranging marriages and other functions etc.
5. It has been been further averred, that the place where the property in
dispute is situated is on the commercial road and there are several
banquet halls existing in the said area and the petitioners have also
decided to construct a banquet hall and run the same in conformity
with the rules and regulations of the local bodies. It has been been
further averred, that the petitioners have got no other reasonable
suitable commercial accommodation at their disposal and the petitioner
No.2 & 3, who are the sons of petitioner no.1 are having no source of
income and the rental income which is being received from the various
shops, is wholly inadequate to meet the financial needs of the family
because the petitioner No.2 & 3 are already married and they have
children and the petitioner No.1 who is the mother of the petitioner
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.3 of 34
No.2 & 3 is also a house wife and has no source of income and after
the construction of the banquet hall, a regular income would crop-in
and the petitioners would be in a position to maintain themselves as
well as their families with the said income.
6. It has been been further averred, that the area where the property is
situated, is a commercial area and there is a great demand of the
banquet hall as the said property is also situated on the main road and
the people would be attracted towards the said banquet hall as there is
a big road in front of the same and also there is no problem of parking
of the vehicles. It has been been further averred, that the total area of
the plot is 240 sq. yards and towards the eastern side of the said
property, there is a road measuring 45 ft. and towards the western side,
there exists plot No.21 and on the Northern side of the said plot, there
is a service road and on the Southern side of the said plot, there is a
road measuring 45 ft. It has been been further averred, that the
petitioner is having sufficient space for constructing the banquet hall
and also parking of the vehicles of the guests so invited in connection
with the marriages and other functions at the said banquet hall and the
persons who will book the said banquet hall, would have no problem
either in ensuring the entry of the guests as well as other family
members because huge space would be available at the said banquet
hall and the said banquet hall would accommodate more than 1000
persons at one time and there will be no parking problem and even the
location of the said area is very good and the banquet hall would
flourish at the said site and in this way, the petitioners would be in a
position to maintain their family members.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.4 of 34
7. It has been been further averred, that Late Amrik Singh, husband of the
petitioner, also wanted to set up a banquet hall but unfortunately, on
account of his demise, he could not fulfill his desire of setting up a
banquet hall and consequently, the petitioners No.2 & 3 who are the
sons, have also decided to fulfill the desire of their father for setting up
a banquet hall at the said site which would give a peace of mind to the
departed soul.
8. It has been been further averred, that the said property was purchased
by the petitioner’s predecessor in interest with the sole object that his
children would help him in setting up a banquet hall at the said site but
unfortunately, the father of the petitioner No.2 & 3 died in the prime
time of his life and consequently, the petitioner No.2 & 3 have got no
other commercial property except the property in dispute. Lastly, it is
prayed that the an eviction order be passed in favour of the petitioners
and against the respondent.
PLEAS TAKEN IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND
9. In the leave to defend application, the respondent has inter-alia stated,
that the respondent received the summons of the application along with
copy of petition U/s 14(1)(e) D.R.C. Act and the present application
for leave to defend was filed within the statutory days. The respondent
has vehemently denied each and every statement, averment and
submissions made therein as the same are false, frivolous and
misconceived and are totally baseless except for which is admitted or a
matter of judicial record.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.5 of 34
10. It has been further stated, that the present eviction petition is not
maintainable and the respondent has several grounds to contest the
Eviction Petition which constitutes triable issues. It has been
contended, that the petitioners have not pleaded the entire ingredients
U/s 14 (i) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control.
11. It has been contended, that the Petitioners have claimed themselves to
be the landlord and owner of the property and further has pleaded that
the petitioners needs the property in question for their bonafide
requirement which is a vague plea taken by the petitioners just to
achieve their ulterior motives and mislead this Court to evict the
respondent for their own benefit. It has been contended, that the
petitioners are already in possession of the 9 shops in the property
bearing Plot no. E-20, Rewari Line, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New
Delhi-110064 and have sufficient space. It has been further submitted,
that the Petitioners have incorporated the false and mischievous facts
in the petition as the petitioners are neither the owner of the property
nor the land lords to the present tenant.
12. It has been further submitted, that Mr. Narender Singh is the owner of
16 shops situated upon the First Floor of the Property bearing Plot no.
E-20, Rewari Line, Mayapuri, Phase-II, New Delhi-110064 along with
the roof right. It has been further submitted, that when the present
petitioners are not the owner of the entire property, how would they
demolish the entire building.
13. It has been further submitted, that the original owner of the property
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.6 of 34
i.e. M/s A. Sons has already taken money from the respondent and had
handed over the ownership rights to him and since last many years, the
respondent is working for gain in the said property and the electricity
meter is also installed in the name of the respondent and the house tax
qua the property has also been paid/ deposited by the respondent and
hence the present petitioners have no right or title in tenanted premises.
It has been further submitted, that the petitioners are in habit of issuing
false notices and filing the false cases so as to pressurize the tenants to
increase the rent or to part with money in order to avoid any
mischievous litigation. It has been further submitted, that the
respondent has not received any notice from the petitioners. It has been
further submitted, that the petitioners are in possession of the 9 shops
in the property bearing no. Plot no. E-20, Rewari Line, Mayapuri,
Phase- II. New Delhi-110064 and have sufficient space and source of
income for their survival.
14. It has been further submitted, that the petitioners have not disclosed in
the petition the fact regarding the non-availability of an alternative
accommodation. It has been further submitted, that as per the amended
CPC, if the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for
himself/herself and for the family members dependent upon him/her, if
he/she is the owner thereof, or for any purpose and for whose benefit,
the premises are required, he/she must disclose that such a person has
no other alternative accommodation. It is submitted, that the
petitioners have nowhere pleaded as to how they are claiming
themselves to be the landlords and by virtue of which documents and
in which manner, they are the owners of the premises.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.7 of 34
15. It has been further submitted, that the petition is also not maintainable
for bonafide requirement as the petitioner has not pleaded necessary
ingredients of Section 14(i)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, which reads
as “that the premises let are required bonafide by the landlord for
occupation 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 residential accommodation”.
16. It has been further submitted, that the petitioners have not pleaded
necessary ingredients for bonafide requirement that the petitioners do
not have any other alternate accommodation available to them. It is
submitted, that the petitioners are in the possession of 9 shops at the
ground floor of the suit property and further petitioners are the owner
of the Properties bearing No. C-271 Maya Puri New Delhi, area
measuring 400 Sq. Yds. and property bearing No. W-102, Maya Puri
New Delhi area measuring 100 Sq. Yards. It has been further
submitted, that both the properties are situated on main road. It is
further submitted, that the Property bearing C-271, Maya Puri New
Delhi is a big premises than the present suit property and good for
constructing a banquet hall for the purpose of arranging marriages and
other functions etc.
17. It has been further submitted, that the ingredients required to make a
case under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of DRC Act are well
established by the Apex Court and the Delhi High Court of Delhi in
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.8 of 34
their numerous landmark Judgments that the landlord only require to
prove three ingredients in order to succeed in section 14 (1) (e) where
as it is being held that the court is bound to see the broader aspect
while deciding the application. In fact, the petitioners have miserably
failed to prove the basic three ingredients, firstly – the petitioners are
not the owner of the tenanted premises nor the landlord and secondly –
the petitioner lacks bonafide requirement for themselves. This fact is
well established that petitioners are the owner of the property bearing
no. C-271, Maya Puri New Delhi, area measuring 400 Sq. Yds. and
Property bearing No. W-102, Maya Puri New Delhi area measuring
100 Sq. Yards and also have source of income of the rental income
which is being collected from 9 shops situated at basement of the
property and the other property in the same locality. It is reiterated,
that there are many shops in the said building and petitioner is
collecting rent from all shops from the said building.
18. It has been further submitted, that the petitioners are suffering a loss
and are facing hardship with regard to running their business is totally
false and does not stand to any reasonable explanation as the
respondent is only holding a small shop in the huge building and on the
other end, the petitioners are collecting huge rent from commercial
shop and rented residential accommodation, therefore, the petitioners
have more than sufficient space to run the same and if the said shop is
being taken from him, then it would would lead to the destruction of
his family in his old age. It has been further submitted, that the
petitioners are earning more than Rs. 10-15 Lac from the different-
different properties let out by them in the same area and are of the
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.9 of 34
worth of Rs 700 Cr.
19. It has been further submitted, that in Suraj Lamp & Industries (P) Ltd.
v. State of Haryana (Suraj Lamp 1), a two-Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court declared “power of attorney” sales to be an invalid
mode of property transfer. A three-Judge Bench issued clarificatory
judgment substantiating this point in 2011 in Suraj Lamp & Industries
(P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana (Suraj Lamp II). The Court conclusively
stated, that the parties could not effectuate a valid sale by executing a
power of attorney, nor by entering into a sale agreement (SA) which
was followed by a power of attorney (GPA) and will a transaction
termed as SA/GPA/will transfer. It is submitted, that as per the Apex
court Judgment, the buyer has to pay Stamp Duty to the Govt. at the
time of transfer of the title of the property but in that case father of the
petitioner no.2 & 3 and husband of the petitioner no.1 had not
deposited any stamp duty to the Govt. and further as per the Apex
Court ruling, the title of the property cannot transfer through the
SA/GPAWill, therefore from the above ruling of the Apex Court it is
clear, that Petitioners are neither the landlord or nor the owner of the
suit property. It has been further submitted, that the Petitioners have no
locus to file the present petition.
REPLY & COUNTER AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE
PETITIONERS TO LEAVE TO DEFEND FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT/TENANT
20. It has been stated, that the application seeking Leave to Defend is a
vexatious, baseless and time-wasting activity carried out by the
Respondent as the same is nothing but a counterblast to the genuine
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.10 of 34
and bonafide need of the “suit premises” by the Petitioners and his
family members and the contents of the application for Leave to
Defend has been denied in totality unless admitted specifically. It has
been further stated, that the Respondent has raised no triable issue nad
has merely asserted, that the ‘tenanted premises’ is not bonafidely
required by the Petitioners without providing any cogent proof and/or
completely deviating from the normal course of nature.
21. It has been contended, that the total area of the plot is 240 sq. yards
and towards the eastern side of the said property, there is a road
measuring about 45 ft. and towards the western side, there is a plot
No.31 and on the Northern side, there is a service road and on the
Southern side of the said plot, there is a road measuring 45 sq. ft. and
keeping in view the location and surrounding circumstances, it is a fit
place for setting up a good banquet hall at the said site and by setting
up the banquet hall, the petitioners No.2 & 3 shall look after and
maintain their families and also their mother i.e. petitioner No.1, who
is a house wife and they have got no other source of income and the
mother of the petitioners No.2 & 3 is a widow and she is totally
depending upon petitioners No.2 & 3 because there is a joint family
and they are living jointly. Various shops existing in the said property
are in possession of the tenants and some of the shops are closed and
no body is running any business and keeping in view the size of the
shops as well as the area where the shops are situated and the said
shops are to be demolished and a banquet hall is to be reconstructed at
the said site and the petitioners have got all arrangement and funds etc,
for the purposes of setting up a banquet hall. It is wrong and denied,
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.11 of 34
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has declared in Suraj Lamp
case that the sale on the basis of the power of attorney is invalid. In
fact, the Court has observed that the unregistered power of attorney
along with the agreement to sell and other documents which are
unregistered, the said unregistered documents do not confer any rights
in any immovable property but in the present case admittedly, the
power of attorney was duly registered before the Sub Registrar, Delhi
and registered power of attorney amounts to a conveyance deed in
respect of the said property and both the sons of Shri Amrik Singh,
who inherited the said property appeared before the Court and made a
statement that the said property had already been sold by them to the
predecessor in interest of the petitioners herein namely Shri Amrik
Singh and as such, the tenant cannot challenge the title of the landlord
howsoever the defective it may be, premises in dispute is required
bonafide.
22. It has been contended, that the husband of the petitioner No.1 and the
father of the petitioners No.2 & 3 had purchased the said property from
the previous owner. The petitioners have annexed the registered G.P.A.
dated 07.09.2012 whereby Shri Amrik Singh and Shri Manjeet Singh
executed a G.P.A. in favour of the husband of the petitioner No.1 and
father of petitioners No.2 & 3 and the said G.P.A. was duly registered
and consequently, the registered G.P.A. amounts to a conveyance deed
as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court and even otherwise, the tenant is
not competent to challenge the title of the landlord and the respondent
has also failed to pay the rent in respect of the said premises for
sufficient long time.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.12 of 34
REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE REPLY OF
THE PETITIONER
23. The respondent has reiterated the pleas taken by him in the leave to
defend application in the rejoinder filed by him. It has been prayed,
that the requirement of the petitioners is not bonafide and that they are
not the owners of the property in question and requested to allow the
application for leave to defend.
24. I have heard detailed arguments advanced by Learned counsels for the
parties and have further gone through the record carefully. My findings
are as under :-
ANAYLYSIS AND FINDINGS
25. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of
Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and the same is as under:
“Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1)
notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other
law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession
of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in
favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him
in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of
possession of the premises on one or more of the following
grounds only, namely:-
“That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for
himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he
is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the
premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no
other reasonably suitable accommodation.”
26. 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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.13 of 34
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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29. It is a settled proposition of law, that burden placed on a tenant is
limited and light, provided the affidavit filed by him discloses such
facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining the order for
recovery of possession of premises on the ground specified in clause
(e) being good enough to grant leave to defend.
30. It is further well settled that at a stage, when the tenant seeks leave to
defend, it is enough if he prima-facie makes out a case by disclosing
such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.14 of 34
eviction. Unless, the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case
as would not suit the landlord, leave to defend should not be granted,
when it is not the requirement of section 25 B (5). A leave to defend
sought for cannot also be granted on mere asking all in a routine
manner as the same would defeat the very purpose and objective of
special provisions entailed under Chapter III A of the Act.
31. It is further settled, that at the stage of granting leave to defend, parties
rely on affidavits in support of rival contentions. Assertions and
counter-assertions made in affidavit may not afford safe and acceptable
evidence so as to arrive at a affirmative conclusion in one way or the
other unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to
show that the facts disclosed in the application filed by the tenant
seeking leave to defend were either frivolous, untenable or most
unreasonable.
32. It is further settled, that when a possession is sought on the ground of
personal requirement, a land lord has to establish his need which is
genuine and real and not merely his desire.
33. In short and substance, wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence
may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend, but a triable issue is raised,
a duty is placed on the Rent Controller by Statute itself to grant leave.
When a tenant is denied leave to defend, although he had fair chance to
prove his defence, he will suffer great hardship. Therefore, a balance
view is to be taken having regards to the settled propositions of law
and competing claims of the rival parties.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.15 of 34
34. The satisfaction of bonafide need and no reasonably suitable
accommodation has been time and again emphasized by the Supreme
Court of India in several cases and more recently in the case Deena
Nath v. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court
observed thus:-
“The Legislature in enacting the provision has taken ample
care to avoid any arbitrary or whimsical action of a landlord
to evict his tenant. The statutory mandate is that there must
be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is
not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such
requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid
the mere whim or desire. The ‘bonafide requirement’ must
be in presenti and must be manifested in actual need which
would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or
whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further
clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other
reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own
in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This
requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is
no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get
the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar
statutory provision is made in sub-section (e) of Section
12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for
residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate being
clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty-bound to examine
not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the
eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably
suitable non-residential accommodation in his occupation in
the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the
court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show
that the court/authority has applied its mind to these
statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior
court will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in
appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement, on a
first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording
a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind that
statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(1)(f). If it is
found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions
to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the
finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a
mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally
arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.16 of 34
35. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean “in good
faith and genuine i.e. without fraud or deceit”. Requirement is not a
mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by “requires” is
much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase “required bonafide”
is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the
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 contradistinction with 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. Looked at
from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding
the need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of
successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the
Court. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement
needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. It is no
concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what
manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of
their own.
OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD TENANT
RELATIONSHIP
36. 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 is always a tenant,
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.17 of 34
unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law which is
not so in the present petition.
37. It is settled law, that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the
Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the
tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a
title suit. The petitioners have to prove only that he is something more
than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in
Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the
point what is meant by the word “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.
38. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.18 of 34
Bench of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept
of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of
the DRC Act had noted as follows:
“There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny
ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the
substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the
Courts have insisted that they should state who else is
the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the
present case it is not said as to who else is the owner.
Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title
cases involving disputes of title to the property.
Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The
respondent does not claim the owner of the premises.”
39. 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.
40. Now, in light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts of
the case in hand.
41. It is the case of the petitioners, that their predecessor-in-interest
namely Sh. Amrik Singh was the owner of the tenanted premises vide
virtue of registered GPA, Will along with receipt. The respondent,
here, was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owner Sh. Amrik Singh,
from whom the petitioner’s predecessor in interest had purchased the
tenanted premises.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.19 of 34
42. Inter-alia, in their leave to defend, the respondent has denied the
ownership as well as the landlord tenant relationship between the
petitioners and the respondent and has further submitted that the
original owner of the property was M/s. A. Sons and the latter had
already taken money from the respondent and thereafter, had handed
over the ownership rights to the respondent. It is apposite to note, that
no document or any other evidentiary proof with regard to the alleged
ownership of the respondent has been placed on record. But it is
evident from the averment of the respondent itself, that M/s. A. Sons
were the admitted owners to begin with. The petitioners have placed
reliance on the statements of the sons of owners of M/s. A. Sons
namely Sh. Amrik singh and Sh. Manjeet Singh in support of their
contentions. The said statements have been tendered on oath before
another Court, whereby it has been categorically stated, that after the
death of their father i.e. Sh. Arjan Singh, the legal heirs executed a
lease deed in their favour vide relinquishment dated 27.06.2012,
whereby both the brothers became the owners of the said property.
The said statements also speak loud about the transfer of ownership
rights in respect of the property in question to the petitioner’s
predecessor in interest. The said statements are reproduced below in
verbatum :-
“RC ARC No . 15/2017 & 16/17
18.07.2018
Statement of Sh. Amrik Singh, Slo Sh. Arjan
Singh, Aged scout 64 years, Rio H. No. A-38,
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi, (Copy of ADHAAR
Card retained on record (OSR))
ON SA
My father was owner of the property beaning No.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.20 of 34
E-20, Phase-ll, Mayapuri, New Delhi and he was
carrying on the business under the name and style
of “A Sons” and after the death of my father the
said property devolved upon me along with my
brother Sh. Manjeet Singh along with my sisters
namely Smt. Davinder Kaur, Smt. Kawaljeet Kaur
and my mother Smt. Harbans Kaur and after the
death of my father other Legal heirs executed a
lease deed in our favour vide relinquishment dated
27.06.2012 and on the basis of relinquishment deed
I along with my brother Sh. Manjeet Singh became
the actual owner in respect of the said property. I
along with my brother sold the said property to the
petitioner and executed all relevant documents
regarding, the transfer of ownership rights in
respect of the said property and I along with my
brother have got no concern are connection with
respect of the said property and petitioner is the
owner of the said property and entitled to deal with
the tenant and realize the rent from the tenants in
accordance with law.
RO & AC (Rajinder Singh)
SCJ/RC/West/Delhi
18.07.2018"
"RC ARC No. 15/2017 & 16/17
18.07.2018Statement of Sh. Manjit Singh, Slo Sh.
Arjan Singh, Aged about 64 years, Rio H. No.
A-38, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. (Copy of
ADHAAR Card retained on record (OSR))
ON SA
My father was owner of the property bearing No.
E-20, Phase-II, Mayapuri, New Delhi and he was
carrying on the business under the name and style
of “A Sons” and after the death of my father the
said property devolved upon me along with my
brother Sh. Amrik Singh along with my sisters
namely Smt. Davinder Kaur, Smt. Kawaljeet Kaur
and my mother Smt. Harbans Kaur and after the
death of my father other Legal heirs executed a
lease deed in our lavour vide relinquishment dated
27.06.2012 and on the basis of relinquishment deed
I along with my brother Sh. Amrik Singh became
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.21 of 34
the actual owner in respect of the said property. I
along with my brother sold the said property to the
petitioner and executed all relevant documents
regarding the transfer of ownership rights in
respect of the said property and I along with my
brother have got no concern are connection with
respect of the said property and petitioner is the
owner of the said property and entitled to deal with
the tenant and realize the rent from the tenants in
accordance with law.
RO & AC (Rajinder Singh)
SCJ/RC/West/Delhi
18.07.2018"
43. Therefore, in lieu of the above said statements before the Court of Law,
simplicitor denial of the respondent to the ownership and land-lordship
of the petitioners does not suffice.
44.Another leg of argument harped upon by the respondent is in lieu of the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamps and Industries
Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana, whereby GPA sales are invalidated. Relying
upon the said judgment, it is argued that the petitioner’s predecessor in
interest could not be said to be the valid owners of the tenanted
premises.
With respect to the plea of the absence of vesting of
ownership in the predecessor in interest of the petitioners are
concerned, this Court has no hesitation in stating 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 that is
the owner should be something more than the tenant.
45. It is settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.22 of 34
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 between 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.
46.Therefore, in view thereof, the pleas taken by the respondent in the
leave to defend challenging the landlordhsip and the ownership of the
petitioners are not pleas which raise the triable issue which could
disentitle the petitioner from obtaining the eviction order in their
favour.
WHETHER THE NEED OF THE PETITIONERS IS BONAFIDE?
47.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.
48. The word “genuine” means “natural: not spurious: real: pure: sincere”.
In Law Diction- ary, Mozley and Whitley define bona fide to mean
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.23 of 34
“good faith, without fraud or deceit”. Thus the term bona fide refers to
a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The de- gree of
intensity contemplated by “requires” is much higher than in mere
desire. The phrase ‘required bona fide’ 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 require-ment 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.
49. The question to be asked for deciding the bona fide by a judge of facts,
is by placing him- self in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the
given facts proved by the material on re- cord the need to occupy the
premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer
were in positive the need is bona fide.
50. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court distinguished between
the genuine re- quirement 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
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.24 of 34
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 un- reliable and
that the landlord did not genuinely intend
to occupy.”
51. 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-evitably a subjective element in it and that desire,
to become a “requirement” in law must have the objective element of a
“need”. It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and,
therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all
relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection
afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely illusory or
whittled down”. The words “reasonable requirement” undoubtedly
postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.25 of 34
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 land- lord/owner cannot be
equated with bona fide need.
52. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words “required bona fide by the
landlord” signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore
incorporate a concept, which is both objec tive 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 socio-economic 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.
53.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 :-
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.26 of 34
“….. 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…”
54. On the basis of the law as above, returning to the facts of the case in
hands, it is the case of the petitioner, that their predecessor in interest
namely Amrik Singh was the owner of the property bearing no. E-20,
Rewari Line, Phase II, Mayapuri, New Delhi. The shop in question as
well as the other adjoining shops in possession of the other tenants are
required by the petitioners as they have decided to demolish the
existing structure and to construct the banquet hall for the purpose of
arranging marriage and other functions etc. over there. It is further
contended, that the petitioners have got no other reasonable suitable
commercial accommodation at their disposal and the petitioners no.2
and 3 who are the son of petitioner no1 are having no source of income
and the rental income that is being received from the other is
inadequate to meet the financial needs of the family as petitioners no. 2
and 3 are already married and have their children and petitioner no. 1
who is their mother and a widow is completely dependent upon
petitioner no. 2 and 3 for her sustenance, as she has no source of
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.27 of 34
income.
55. Per contra, it is stand of the respondent, that 16 shops situated upon the
first floor of the property are under the ownership of one Sh. Narender
Singh, and therefore it is not possible for the petitioners to demolish
the entire property. Accordingly, it is argued that a doubt over the
bonafide need of the petitioners arises.
56. It is writ large on record, that the respondents have not placed on
record even a single document in support of the contention that 16
shops that are situated on the first floor of the property are under the
ownership of one Sh. Narender Singh. The averment made by the
respondent is a mere bald averment, not substantiated by any cogent
proof. On the other hand, the petitioners have placed on record the
copy of registered GPA, Will, etc. in favour of the petitioner’s
predecessor in interest qua the entire property. Thus, the averment of
the respondent are nothing more than a mere averment and therefore,
perse not tenable in the absence of any cogent proof to this effect.
It is also argued upon by the Learned Counsel for the
respondent, that the entire property in question is a lease hold property
under the ownership of DDA and thus the same cannot be demolished
by the petitioners. Perse, the said line of argument is beyond the
purview of leave to defend application and is primarily hovering
around the issue of ownership but be that as it may, even if this
contention of the respondent is taken into consideration, it cannot perse
be presumed that the petitioners intend to construct the banquet hall
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.28 of 34
without following the parameters of law requiring for taking of
adequate steps and measures for conversion of their property from
leasehold to freehold for the purpose of construction.
57. Therefore, qua this aspect of bonafide need as well, it can be deduced
that there is no triable issue that stands established by the respondent
against the petitioners.
WHETHER THE SUITABLE ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATE IS
AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONERS?
58. The respondent has averred in his leave to defend qua this aspect, that
the petitioners are in possession of nine shops at the ground floor of the
suit property and have sufficient space and means undertaking the
construction of a banquet hall there. Further, it is argued, that the
petitioner is the owner of proper bearing no. C-271, Mayapuri, Area
measuring 400 sq yds and also of another property bearing no. W-102,
Mayapuri, New Delhi, area measuring 100 sq yds. It is the plea of the
respondent, that both the properties mentioned as above are situated on
the main road. It is further averred, that the property bearing no.
C-271 Mayapuri New Delhi is a bigger premises than the suit property
and is good to construct a banquet hall and run a banquet hall for the
purposes of arranging marriages and other functions.
59. Before delving into this aspect, Court deems it fit to discuss the law
laid down vide plethora of judgments by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
determining that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and
he is at complete liberty to take this call. Law is well settled that it is
the landlord who has to decide as to how and in what manner, he
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.29 of 34
should live and that he is the best judge of his requirement.
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.
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.
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.”
In Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarhan Kumar, MANU / SC /
0087 / 2021, it has been held as under :-
“It is not for the tenant to dictate how much
space is adequate for the proposed business
venture or to suggest that the available space
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.30 of 34
with the landlord will be adequate.”
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.”
60. On the basis of the law reproduced on this aspect, coming to the facts
of the case in hand, it is the case of the petitioners, that the property in
question is ideally situated for constructing a banquet hall as the total
area of the plot is 250 sq yds and towards the eastern side of the said
property there is a road measuring 45 feet. Towards the western side,
there exists plot no. 21 and on the northern side of the said plot, there
is a service plot. On the southern side of the said plot, there is a road
measuring 45 ft and for setting up a good banquet hall, one requires
sufficient space and with respect to the property in question, the
petitioner is having sufficient space for constructing the banquet hall
and for parking of vehicles of the guests so invited in connection with
the marriages and other functions at the said banquet hall. It is further
contended that the person who would book the said banquet hall,
would have no problem, either in entertaining the guests and their
family members as the huge space would be available at the said
banquet hall and it would be able to accommodate more than 1000
persons at one time.
The other properties cited as an alternative
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.31 of 34
accommodation by the respondent does not specify as to what is the
placement of the property and in context of the peripheral access from
all the directions, how are the said properties in question better than the
one qua which the present petition is filed. Further, there is no
specification pleaded by the respondent qua the alternative properties
being vacant and not in tenancy of any other person. Thus, the plea of
the respondent not being clear and cogent does not give rise to any
triable issue which may disentitle the petitioner for obtaining the
eviction order in their favour.
61.The next plea of the respondent is that great hardship would be faced
by the respondent in case the eviction order is passed against him.
62.In the considered view of this Court, undoubtedly, in case the eviction
order is passed against the tenant, it would cause the hardship to the
respondent but the requirement of the petitioners has more importance
than the hardship to the respondent as being the owner of the tenanted
premises, landlord can not be left suffering merely to save the tenancy
of the respondent. Although, this Court has sympathy with the
respondent. Moreover, it is well settled law that a Rent Controller is
not supposed to weigh such plea of the tenant while deciding the
petition U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
63.Next plea of the respondent is that petitioners want to get the tenanted
premises vacated for the purpose of demolition of structure and
construction of Banquet Hall.
64. In the considered view of the Court, Section 19 of the DRC Act is
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.32 of 34
already on statute and the respondent can always have recourse to such
provision in case Section 19 of the DRC Act is not followed by the
petitioners herein.
65.Next plea of the respondent is that the electricity connection is in his
name and he has been paying the electricity charges to the Department
concerned including property tax.
66.In the considered view of this Court, tenant remains tenant and he can
not become owner of the tenanted premises by depositing such charges
or taxes.
67. Perusal of record shows that the respondent has relied upon certain
case law. In view of exhaustive discussion as earlier, peculiar facts of
the case and well settled proposition of law, this case law does not
assist the respondents.
Conclusion
68. Therefore, in the teeth of the above exhausted discussion and settled
proposition of law, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
undisputed conclusion is that the respondent has failed to raise any
triable issue, which requires evidence to be proved. The petitioners, on
the other hand, have clearly established their bonafide requirement
regarding tenanted premises. The application for leave to defend filed
by respondent is ordered to be dismissed. Consequently, eviction order
is liable to be passed against the respondent under Section 25 B (4) of
the Act. In view of above, petitioners are held entitled for recovery of
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.33 of 34
the tenanted premises, i.e. “One Shop bearing Private No. No. 10
measuring about 7×10 sq. ft., situated on the ground floor of the
property bearing No. E-20, Rewari Line, Phase II, Mayapuri, New
Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan ” as shown in red colour
in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioners
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 provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
Keeping in view the facts & circumstances, no order as to costs.
69. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.01.13
Announced in the open Court 16:11:35
+0530on 13.01.2025. Richa Sharma
SCJ-cum-RC (West)
THC, Delhi / 13.01.2025____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No.64/23 Savinder Kaur & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Page No.34 of 34