Delhi District Court
Mst.Sanobar Shafi vs Gopal Kumar Bajaj on 19 May, 2025
RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARJINDER KAUR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-2 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No: 79853/2016
MST. SANOBAR SHAFI
W/O SHAFI AHMAD
R/O 2451, RANG MAHAL
PHATAK HABASH KHAN
TILAK BAZAR, DELHI-110006
..........PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. SH. GOPAL KUMAR BAJAJ
S/O SH. RATAN LAL BAJAJ
R/O 161, CHITRANJAN AVENNUE
KOLKATA (WEST BENGAL)
2. SHRI AMRIT LAL KHURANA
S/O SH. PRAKASH CHAND KHURANA
R/O 5260-61, BALLIMARAN
DELHI-110006
3. SHRI HIRA LAL KHURANA (NOW DECEASED)
REPRESENTED THROUGH HIS LRS
I. MRS. SAVITA KHURAΝΑ
WD/O SHRI HIRA LAL KHURANA
II. MR. NAMAN KHURANA
S/O SHRI HIRA LAL KHURANA
III. MRS. ANNU KHANNA
D/O SHRI HIRA LAL KHURANA
ALL R/O BESTECH PARKVIEW,
GRAND SPA TOWER E-1001,
10TH FLOOR, SECTOR 81,
NEW GURGAON-122004,
(Arjinder Kaur)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
19.05.2025 Page no.1 of 31
RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
ALSO AT: 5260-61,
BAZAR BALLIMARAN, DELHI-110006
4. SHRI RAJ KUMAR KHURANA
S/O SH. PRAKASH CHAND KHURANA
R/O 5260-61, BALLIMARAN
DELHI-110006
5. SMT. AMARWATI MADAN
W/O SHRI B.L. MADAN
D/O LATE SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KHURANA
R/O H.NO.701, SURYA BUILDING LINKING ROAD,
SANTA CRUZ (WEST) MUMBAI
........RESPONDENTS
***********
Date of Filing of petition : 05.06.2009
Date of reserving judgment : 19.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 19.05.2025
Decision of petition : Allowed
***********
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 14 (1)
(e) read with section 25 (B) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of suit premises/shop/property no. 5260-61, ground floor and second floor, bazar Ballimaran, Delhi-110006, which is shown in red colour of the site plan attached (hereinafter referred to as 'suit premises').
THE PETITION
2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the entire property consist of ground floor, first floor & second floor bearing No. 5260-61, Ballimaran, Chandni (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.2 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
Chowk, Delhi 110006 and the respondents are tenants at the ground floor and second floor of the said property at a monthly rent of Rs. 650/-. That previously the mother of petitioner was the owner of the property and after her death it has come to share of petitioner and the respondent have become tenant under the petitioner by operation of law. The respondent no. 1 and the predecessor of the respondents no. 2 to 5, Shri P.C. Khurana have already attorned in petitioner's favour. That the suit premises at ground floor was let out for non-residential purposes and it has been used as such till date, while the second floor was let out for residential purpose. That the petitioner requires the above mentioned suit property bonafied for herself and for her family members dependent upon her for the commercial purpose as well as for residential purposes. That the petitioner is residing in property No. 2451, Rang Mahal, Phatak Habash Khan, Delhi in a dingy bye lane of Slum Area which is not sufficient for herself and her family members who are dependent upon her for the purpose of residence as well as for the purpose of business. The said house No. 2451 is double storyed consisting of ground floor and first floor. There are two rooms on the ground floor and the one small room, which is less than 100 sq. ft. and not fit for residence and same accommodation is there on first floor of the said property. That the first floor of the property as well as godown on ground floor are occupied by old tenants. That the family of petitioner consist of herself, her husband namely Shafi Ahmed, her son namely Bilal Shafi ages 20 years, her two married daughter namely (i) Mst. Amreen Suhal W/o Mohd. Suhail, (ii) Mst. Sana (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.3 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
Danish W/o Mohd. Danish. Each married daughter of the petitioner is having one child. The elder daughter i.e. Amreen Suhail has a daughter aged 7 years and the other married daughter i.e. Mst. Sana has one son aged 4 years and they often come to the residence of petitioner to stay there for several days and are also dependent upon the petitioner for commercial purpose as well as residential purpose. That the petitioner requires the premises for herself, her husband, for her son, and for married daughters. That the petitioner has no other alternative suitable commercial accommodation. The son of the petitioner who is also of marriageable age and wants to start his own business alongwith the other members of the family in the suit property i.e. shop on ground floor and that the petitioner also requires the complete second floor alongwith her husband, son, daughters and other family members for residential purpose. The husband of the petitioner, her son and the married daughters have also no place of business in their possession. The petitioner herself also requires the premises to run the business as well as for her residence. Thus, the eviction of respondent from tenanted premises has been prayed for.
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. It is stated in written statement, that the petitioner had not filed the plan which shows the correct picture of the tenanted premises and the true details of the property in which tenanted premises is situated had been concealed from this Hon'ble Court. That the petitioner had not made the legal heirs and representatives of the deceased landlord/owner, Ms Zeenat Begum (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.4 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
party to the present eviction petition and as such the present eviction is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the same is liable to be rejected. That the said property in which tenanted premises is situated is a commercial property in entirety and requirement for residential use had been created by the petitioner to seek the eviction of the respondents with ulterior motives. That the petitioner and respondent have no relationship of landlord and tenant with each other and even there is no privity of contract between them in any manner. That neither petitioner nor her mother nor her husband are the owners of the property under tenancy. The landlord/owner of the property in question was Ms Zeenat Begum and after his demise, her legal heirs became the owners of the property and all the legal heirs can only claim any right over the property jointly and not severally. That the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Hon'ble Court to create and manufacture the ground of eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement. The petitioner had concealed from this Hon'ble Court that during the lifetime of Ms. Zeenat Begum, she had filed an ejectment petition against the father of the Respondent No. 2 and 3 on the ground floor of subletting in which an order was pssed by Rent Controller, Shri. K.B. Andley vide orders dated 11.06.1971 against which Appeal was also filed by M/s East India Ruber Works Private Limited under Section 38 of the Delhi Rent Control Act wherein a compromise was been arrived. In terms of the compromise, the father of the Respondent late Shri P.C. Khurana and Shri Gopal Kumar Bajaj, become the joint tenants of the possessoin of the remaining portion of the building was (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.5 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
surrendered to Ms. Zeenat Begum and in terms of the same the eviction petition as well as the said appeal was disposed off and no such need for any premises was so shown. That except the present tenanted premises, there is not other source of accommodation for the respondents. It is pertinent to mention that the tenanted premises under the possession of the respondents is not required by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present petition with the malafide intention to increase the rent of the tenanted premises. Rest of the contentions of the petition have been denied in toto. It has been prayed that the present petition be dismissed. Respondent no. 4 filed his written statement separtely with same averments as made by respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 and their written statement.
REPLICATION
4. Replication/ rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to each written statement of the respondents, wherein the averments made in the petition have been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondents in the written statement has been vehemently denied as false.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER
5. Sh. Shafi Ahmed has examined as PW-1 and tendered evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
Copy of GPA dated 28.01.2016, Ex. PW1/1 (OSR). Relinquishment deed dated 20.03.1989, Ex. PW1/2 in original, Original covering letter issued by Gopal Kumar Bajaj, Ex.
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.6 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
PW1/3.
Original counter foil of rent receipt Ex. PW1/4. House tax receipt Ex. PW1/5.
Site plan, Ex. PW1/6 (objected to as it is not signed). Copy of site plan qua property no. 2451, Phatak Habash Khan, Tilak Bazar, Delhi-06, Mark A. 5.1 PW2 Sh. Sheikh Mahtab Ahmed tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature at point A and B. He relied upon following documents:-
original deed of relinquishment, Ex. PW1/2 bearing his signature on each pages at point A to D. 5.2 Vide order dated 10.12.2020, evidence on behalf of petitioner was closed in affirmative.
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT
6. The Respondent no. 1 Sh.Raj Kumar Khurana has examined himself as RW-1 and tendered evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. RW1/A. He relied upon following documents:-
Ex. RW1/1 which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/R1, (objected to on the ground floor of mode of proof and no negative has been filed).
Ex. RW1/2, which is office copy of the reply to the legal notice sent by the petitioner, (objected to as it is only a photocopy, as per law it cannot be exhibited and on the ground of mode of proof).
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.7 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
6.1 RW2 Sh. Amrit Lal Khurana tendered evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. RW2/A. He relied upon following docu- ments:-
Ex. RW1/1 which was already exhibited as Ex. PW1/R1, (objected to on the ground floor of mode of proof and no negative has been filed).
Ex. RW1/2, which is office copy of the reply to the legal notice sent by the petitioner, (objected to as it is only a photocopy, as per law it cannot be exhibited and on the ground of mode of proof).
6.2 RW3 Sh. Ravi Rai, Section office, North MCD, Kashmiri Gate, House Tax Department, Delhi brought the summoned record with regard to property No.2062, Veer Gali, Sadar Nala Road and 2184, Basti Julan, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. That the house tax of the said properties had not been shown deposited in the record since the origination of the property till date. As per available record, i.e. demand and collection register property No. 2062/1, Veer Gali, Sadar Nala Road stand assessed in the names of Sh. Virender Kumar, Sh. Purushotam Kumar, Sh. Hem Raj, Smt. Ganga Devi, Mr. Kishan Lal, Mr. Lala Mohan Lal, Smt. Sunhari and Mr. Nzair Singh. That the records the property was mutated in the name of Sh. Virender Kumar, Mr. Purshotam Kumar, Mr. Pardeep Kumar, Mr. Hem Raj, Mr. Yash Pal in 2002. He further deposed that he had no personal knowledge.
Q. Who is present occupying the properties? Ans. I do not have personal knowledge.
6.3 RW4 Sh. Anil Kumar, Junior Secretary Assistant, (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.8 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
Nigam Bhawan, Old Hindu College, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi deposed that he brought the summoned record pertaining to property no.2451, Rang Mahal, Khurd, Phatak Habas Khan, Tilak Bazar, Delhi and property no.1338-42, Phatak Habas Khan, Tilak Bazar, Delhi.
• The copy of online PTR with regard to the said property are exhibited as RW4/1 and RW4/2. (Objected to on the ground that it is merely photocopy and unaccompanied by the certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence and without comparing with the original). • The previous self assessment tax form and carbon copy of receipt(originally is usually given to assesse) in the name of the assessee which are exhibited as Ex RW4/3 and exhibited as EXRW4/4 (Objected to on the ground the document is a carbon copy and it cannot be exhibited without comparing with the original record) as recorded with respect to the property no.1338 to 1342 Phatak Habas Khan, Tilak Bazar, Delhi. • The copy of inspection book, copy of mutation application, indemnity bond, copy of judgment of Hon'ble High court, copy of memorandum dated of the year 1985, copy of award, copy of arbitration agreement which as marked as A, Mark B, Mark C, Mark D, Mark E, Mark F, Mark G, Mark H and Mark I. • The carbon copy of original mutation, Assessment List, demand Letters in the name of Abdul Elahi and Shafi Ahmed which are exhibited as RW4/5, RW4/6 and RW4/7and RW4/8. ( Objected to on the ground the document is a carbon copy and it cannot be exhibited without comparing with the original record). • The file pertaining to property no. 2451, Rang Mahal Phatak, (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.9 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
Habas Khan, Tilak Bazar, containing original indemnity bond, Affidavit given in the name of Sanobar Shafi, which are exhibited as RW4/9, RW4/10 (objected to both the documents on the ground of mode of proof as the witness is neither the executant of the document nor its attesting witness).
• copy of sale deed mark J. • Original letter dated 27-04-1999 issued in the name of
Sanobar Shafi which is exhibited as RW4/11 and carbon copy of the mutation order, Ex. RW4/12 ( Objected to on the ground the document is a carbon copy and it cannot be exhibited without comparing with the original record).
• Copy of plan mark K. 6.4 RW5 Ms. Manju, Senior Assistant Sub Registrar office-
Kashmere Gate, Delhi brought the summoned record i.e. sale deed no. 10141 dated 03.11.2011 Ex. RW5/1 (OSR), sale deed no. 2173 dated 07.03.2012, Ex. RW5/2 (OSR) and sale deed no.9205, 9206 and 9207 dated 18.10.2014, which are Ex. RW5/3(OSR), Ex. RW5/4(OSR) and Ex. RW5/5(OSR), 6.5 RW6 Sh. Manoj Kumar, Junior Assistant, Sub Registrar office-V-1, Lajpat Nagar, brought the summoned record i.e. sale deed vide registration no. 1909 book no. 1 volume no. 587 on pages 32 to 40 on dated 11.04.2018 in favour of Smt. Sanober Saifi, Ex. PW6/1 (OSR).
6.6 Vide order dated 12.02.2024, RE was closed.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard the arguments at length and have also carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.10 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
documents and material on record and case law relied upon.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS
8. At the outset, it is expedient to reproduce Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which 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."
9. As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) There should be a 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/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
10. Let us now discuss the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act one by one as applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
I. OWNERSHIP & LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
11. As stated in the petition, the petitioner is owner/ landlady of the entire property number 5260-61, Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor. Previously, the mother of the petitioner, Ms Zeenat Begum was owner of the property and after her death, the (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.11 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
petitioner became its owner. The respondents were already tenants in the property at ground floor and second floor at the monthly rent of Rs. 650/- when the petitioner became the owner of the property. The respondent no.1 and the predecessor of respondent no. 2 to 5 Sh. P.C Khurana had attorned in favour of the petitioner. The premises at the ground floor was let out for non-residential purpose, while the second floor was let out for the residential purpose.
11.1 As per the written statements, there is no landlord- tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent as there is no privity of contract between them in any manner. It is further stated that neither the petitioner nor her mother or her husband are owners of the property. Respondent no. 2 and 3 have stated that in their WS that the original landlord/owner of the property was Ms Zeenat Begum, and after her demise, her legal heirs became the owners of the property and all the legal heirs can only claim any right over the property jointly and not severally. It is further stated that the property is a commercial property in its entirety and cannot be used for residential purpose. It is further stated that the petitioner has concealed from the court that during her lifetime Ms. Zeenat Begum had filed an ejectment petition against the father of respondent no. 2 and 3 namely P.C Khurana on the ground of subletting where in an order was passed by Ld. ARC Sh. K.B Andely vide order dated 11.06.1971, against which appeal was also filed by M/s East India Rubber Works Private Limited under section 38 of the DRC, where in a compromise was arrived at according to which father of the respondent late Sh. P.C (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.12 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
Khurana and Shri Gopal Kumar Bajaj became joint tenants in the tenanted portion and the possession of the remaining portion was delivered to Ms Zeenat Begum.
11.2 To prove the pleadings of the petitioner through petitioner evidence, the husband of the petitioner deposed as PW1 through his evidence affidavit PW1/A that :-
"..........The petitioner is the owner/landlady of the entire property consists of ground floor, first flour and second floor of property bearing No.5260-61. Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 and the respondents are tenants of the ground floor and second floor of the said property at a monthly rate of rent of Rs.650/-(Rupees Six Hundred Fifty Only) previously under the mother of the petitioner namely Mst. Zeenat Begum who was the owner of the property and after her death it has came to the share of the petitioner respondents have became the and tenant the by operation of law. The respondent No.1 and the predecessor of respondent No.2 to 5 Shri P.C. Khurana have already attorned in favour of the petitioner. registered The copy of the relinquishment deed dated 20.03.1989 executed by the father, brothers and sisters of the petitioner in favour of the petitioner is Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) and the copy of the covering letter is Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) and the copies of the counter foils of the rent receipts are Ex. PW1/4 (OSR) (Colly). He further deposed that petitioner also deposited the house tax in her name in the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and the said property has been duly mutated in her name. The copy of house tax receipt is Ex. PW1/5(OSR).........."
11.3 PW1 was cross examine during which he was questioned a bit about the ownership of the petitioner. However, nothing contrary to the pleadings in the petition could be elicited. During the entire cross-examination of PW1, there is not even a single suggestion to the effect that petitioner is not the owner of the suit property.
11.4 In respondent evidence Shri Rajkumar Khurana deposed as RW1 and Shri Amrit Lal Khurana as RW2 through their respective affidavits Ex. RW1/A and Ex. RW2/A. Like their WS, they admitted in their examination in chief that the mother of (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.13 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
the petitioner was original owner and landlady of the tenanted premises. It is also not disputed that their father, Sh. P.C Khurana, had attorned in favour of petitioner. The plea of the respondents that all the legal heirs of Ms. Zeenat Begum can claim their right only jointly is liable to fail in view of law laid down in the case titled as M/s Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by LRs Smt. Savitri Agarwalla & Ors., AIR 2004 1321; it was held that:
"The consent of other co-owners is assumed to be taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to the ejectment of the tenant and suit/petition for their eviction was filed despite their dis-agreement."
11.5 Perusal of well settled proposition of law clearly shows that petition U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC Act may be maintained even without impleading the other co-owners. As such, this plea of the respondent does not raise any triable issue which could dis- entitle the petitioner to obtain the order of eviction. Moreover, the relinquishment deed Ex. PW1/2 executed in favour of the petitioner, by the other legal heirs has been duly proved by PW2. Original of relinquishment deed is on record as Ex. PW1/2. Duly perused.
11.6 Perusal of their cross examination, establish that landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent has been admitted . The relevant extracts from the cross-examination of RW1 is being reproduced.
"...............I am occupying the suit premises as tenant. The rate of the rent of the tenanted property is Rs. 650/- per month excluding electricity charges. There is no water amenity in the suit property.
Lastly, I had given the rent to Sh. Gopal Kr. Bajaj and he used to pay the same to the landlord i.e. LRs of (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.14 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
Mst. Zeenat Begum. It is correct that Mst. Zeenat Begum was the owner landlady in the suit property till her death.
She expired approximately 30-35 years back. (Vol. I have not received any information regarding death of Mst. Zeenat Begum). I do not know/remember the names of the legal heirs of Mst. Zeenat Begum. Before 2007, my father alongwith Sh.
Gopal Kr. Bajaj used to pay the rent and deed Mst. Zeenat Begum. It is correct that the notice dated 04.10.2006 Ex.PW1/R7 was received by Sh. Gopal Kr. Bajaj and my father. Ques: I put it to you vide legal notice dated 04.10.2006 your father and Sh. Gopal Kr. Bajaj was asked to pay the rent after the death of Mst. Zeenat Begum. What do you have to say? Ans: It is correct that legal notice dated 04.10.2006 was received and reply to the said notice was sent to the petitioner. It is correct that Ex.RW1/2 is the reply sent to the legal notice dated 04.10.2006 Ex.PW1/R7 and alongwith the said reply, a demand draft of Rs. 10,000/- was also sent to the petitioner. Ques: I put it to you that apart from petitioner Sanobar Shafi, any other legal heir of Mst. Zeenat Begum have not claimed rent from you or your father?
Ans: It is correct.
Ques: I put it to you that apart from petitioner, whether any other legal heir of Mst. Zeenat Begum have given any notice to you? Ans: I have not received any such notice.
Ques: I put it to you that after the death of Mst. Zeenat Begum, whether ou or any of the joint tenants approached other legal heirs for payment of rent?
Ans: It is correct. I have never approached them. (Vol. However, they used to come to me and informed me that there is a dispute in respect of the property between the brothers and sisters). Ques: Can you tell the court the names of the person who informed you that there is dispute between the brothers and sisters?
Ans: I do not remember.
It is incorrect to suggest that I am unable to disclose the names of the person because of the fact that no such person ever informed or visited me. It is wrong to suggest that the petitioner after the death of her mother Mst. Zeenat Begum have become the owner landlady of the property. It is further wrong to suggest that due to the said reason, rent was tendered by way of a demand draft to the petitioner alone. It is wrong to suggest that after the death of Mst. Zeenat Begum, all her other legal heirs relinquished and released their share in the suit property by virtue of release deed dated 20.03.1989. Representative of Sh. Gopal Kr. Bajaj had collected the rent about two years back from us. However, I cannot tell name of the said representative as different representative used to come. I cannot say that the rent collected from me was entrusted with the petitioner. (Vol. I have no knowledge, there was a litigation also between Sh. Gopal Kr. Bajaj and Sh. Prakash Chand Khurana). A decision has been given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and we have been declared as joint tenants. I have not placed on record any such order. I am not aware about the family members of the petitioner. The Petitioner is residing at property no. 2451-2452, Phatak Habas Khan, Tilak azar, Delhi-06 and 1138, Phatak Habas Khan, Tilak (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.15 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
Bazar, Delhi-06. I ave not seen any title documents of the said properties............".
11.7 In the cross examination of RW1 & RW2 clearly admitted having paid rent to Ms. Zeenat Begum and also admitted having sent DD of Rs. 10,000/- towards payment of rent alongwith their reply (Ex. PW1/7) to the legal notice (Ex. PW1/6) sent by the petitioner.
11.8 In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court has specifically held that:-
"It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppel against such tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this respect".
11.9 Thus, the ownership of petitioner over the suit premises and landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent stands established.
II. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT & ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION
12. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner requires the above mentioned suit property bonafied for herself and for her family members dependent upon her for the commercial purpose (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.16 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
as well as for residential purposes. The petitioner is residing in property No. 2451, Rang Mahal, Phatak Habash Khan, Delhi in dingy bye lane of Slum Area which is not sufficient for herself and her family members who are dependent upon her for the purpose of residence as well as for the purpose of business. The said house No. 2451 is double storyed i.e. having ground floor and first floor. There are two rooms on the ground floor and the one small room, which is less than 100 sq ft. and not fit for residence and same accommodation is there on first floor of the said property. The first floor of the property as well as godown on ground floor are occupied by old tenants.
12.1 That the family of petitioner consist of herself, her husband namely Shafi Ahmed, her son namely Bilal Shafi aged 20 years, her two married daughter namely (i) Mst. Amreen Suhal W/o Mohd. Suhail, (ii) Mst. Sana Danish W/o Mohd. Danish. Each married daughter of the petitioner is having one child. The elder daughter i.e. Amreen Suhail has a daughter aged 7 years and the other married daughter i.e. Mst. Sana has one son aged 4 years and these married daughter often come to the residence of petitioner to stay there for several days and are also dependent upon the petitioner for commercial purpose as well as residential purpose. 12.2 That the petitioner requires the premises for herself, her husband, for her son, and for married daughters. That the petitioner has no other alternative suitable commercial accommodation. The son of the petitioner who is also of marriageable age wants to start his own business alongwith the other members of the family in the suit property i.e. shop on (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.17 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
ground floor and also requires the complete second floor alongwith her husband, son, daughters and other family members for residential purpose. The husband of the petitioner, her son and the married daughters have also no place of business in their possession. The petitioner herself also requires the premises to run the business as well as for her residence.
12.3 In written statement it is stated by the respondent that the entire need and requirement of the premises has been manufactured, created and cooked up by the petitioner to evict the respondents . It is stated that the petitioner and her family members are already having properties and excess accommodation for their needs and requirements. It is further stated that the husband and family members of the petitioners are not dependent upon the petitioner for residence and purpose of business. That the petitioner's husband and her family members are having their own independent establishments and properties which have not been disclosed in the petitioner. It is further stated that husband of petitioner is already carrying independent business in Sadar Bazaar and son of petitioner is also engaged in the same business along with his father. It is also stated that petitioner is having estranged relationship with in-laws of her daughter due to which daughters of the petitioner never visit her and petitioner has made false pleas regarding requirement of the space for her married daughters. Similar averments were made by respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 through their evidence affidavit. 12.4 Perusal of written statement and examination-in-chief affidavits of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 shows that as per (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.18 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
the respondent the petitioner has got the following properties as alternative suitable accommodation available to her :-
1. 5260-5261 - Bazaar Ballimaran, Delhi.
2. 2451-2453 - Rang Mahal, Phatak Habash Khan, Delhi
3. 1338, Gali Amar Bux, Phatak Habash Khan, Delhi
4. 2062, Veer Gali Sadar Nala Road, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi
5. 2184 - Basti julahar, Sadar Nala Road, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi
6. Two godowns at first floor in Sadar Bazaar.
1. 5260-5261 - Bazaar Ballimaran, Delhi.
1(a). In written statement, it is stated that the first floor of the property, which is stated to be occupied by M/s R.K. Optical Manufacturing Company, is also lying vacant and is not being used by the said firm and now its possession is with the Petitioner. It is further stated the petitioner has possession of 40% of the ground floor of this property which has not been shown by the petitioner in the site plan filed with petition. 1(b). It is further stated in WS filed by respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 that respondents have came to know that respondent no. 1 has handed over the possession of the second floor of this property to the petitioner which fact has not been disclosed by the Petitioner in this Court.
1(c). It is important to take note of cross-examination of PW1 regarding this property, the relevant extract of which is being (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.19 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
reproduced here under:-
"..........On the other second floor of the suit property nobody is residing except the guard of Gopal Kr. Bajaj, at present nobody is residing and the same is locked and lock might be of Gopal Kr. Bajaj. I had visited the second floor of the suit property around 10 years back . At that time the chowkidar of the respondent no. 1 was there. It is wrong to suggest that the site plan Ex. PW1/6 is incorrect or the same was fabricated by me and my wife. On the ground floor of the suit property the shop of footwear is being run. On the first floor over the suit property the showroom of spectacles is being run..........".
".................Q. Whether it is correct that the first floor portion of the property no. 5260-61, Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk, Delhi is also lying vacant and the possession of the same is with the petitioner?Ans.
It is incorrect.
Q. Could you tell what work is being going on in the said first floor portion of said property?Ans.
Spectacles business is being going on first floor by R.K. Opticals , who is our tenant. I received the rent of the said portion through cheque and lastly it was received the rent from R.K. Optical in September, 2018.
It is wrong to suggest that the first floor portion of the property no. 5260-61, Ballimaran Chandni Chowk, Delhi is vacated by its tenant and the possession is with me and I had not received rent from him in the month of September 2018.............".
1(d). RW1 and RW2 reiterated the averments made in their written statement in their examination in chief through their respective affidavits Ex. RW1/A and Ex. RW2/A. Relevant extract from cross examination of RW1 regarding this property is being reproduced hereunder:-
"..................The possession of the first floor of property no. 5260-61 Ballimaran, Chandni Chowk was earlier occupied by RK Opticals Manufacturing Company. Now Shafi Ahmed husband of petitioner is using the same. I can not tell the exact year since when the said RK Opticals manufacturing is not using (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.20 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
the premises however, it is since four five years back. In my presence no possession letter was executed regarding giving or taking of the possession. It is wrong to suggest that the said RK Opticals manufacturing Company is still in possession and occupation of the first floor of the property no. 5260- 61 and not handed over the possession. It is wrong to suggest that the said first floor is lying vacant or is in possession of petitioner.
It is wrong to suggest that the ground floor of the said property towards the back side is occupied by tenant Mohd. Tazir and Mohd Tahir. It is wrong to suggest that I am deliberately and intentionally making false statement as I have myself mentioned the names and addresses of the said tenants on the ground of the said property in the list of witnesses filed in the court dtd 07.03.2022.
1(e). Here it is important to take note of few facts. Firstly the respondent failed to disclose the source of their knowledge on the basis of which they are alleging that the first floor of this property has been handed over to petitioner and have simply stated in their deposition that "deponent has come to know" . Definitely this piece of their testimony cannot be anything but "hearsay evidence" and hence irrelevant. Neither any document nor any photographs substantiating this allegation has been placed on record by respondent. It has come on record during the cross examination of PW1 that presently the first floor is lying vacant but under the lock and key of tenant Sh. Gopal Kumar Bajaj. 1(f). Perusal of list of witnesses filed by the respondent in court on finds a mention of Mohd. Tazir and Mohd. Tahir.
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.21 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
2. 2451-2453 Rang Mahal.
2(a). As per the petition, property no. 2451 is located in dingye by lane of slum area and is not sufficient for petitioner and her family members who are dependent upon her for the purpose of residence and business. That the house no. 2451 is double storyed. There are two rooms on the ground floor and one small room which is less than 100 sq feet and not fit for residence and same accommodation is there on the first floor of the property. 2(b). In written statement, it is stated that the tenanted premises is not better than the premises in which the petitioner is presently residing with her family members. That the petitioner had concealed about the ownership of this property and has not filed the plan of this property in order to conceal that it is a big property having 3 storyes, entirely in the possession of the petitioner. That Petitioner and her husband are also in the occupation of the property bearing no 2452-53 Rang Mahal just adjoining the property bearing no 2451. Perusal of evidence shows that the respondent failed to prove any of the above pleas. 2(c). From the side of the petitioner the husband of the petitioner Mr. Shafi Ahmed while deposing as PW1 reiterated the averments made in the petition. It is also deposed by him that the first floor and the ground floor godown in the said property are occupied by old tenants. Nothing to the contrary could be elicited during the cross-examination of the PW-1. There is no suggestion by the respondent to the effect that property 2451 is sufficient for the residence and bonafide need of the petitioner or that the tenanted premises is not better than this property. Also there is no (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.22 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
suggestion to the effect that petitioner or her husband are also in occupation of property of adjoining property no. 2452-53. 2(d). The respondents RW1 Raj Kumar Khurana, RW2 Amrit Lal Khurana while deposing through their affidavits Ex. RW1/A and Ex. RW2/A reiterated the averments made in the written statement regarding these properties. 2(e). During the cross-examination, they admitted that they have not seen any titled document property 2451-2452 and have also not checked details of these properties in house tax records. 2(f). The relevant extract of cross-examination of RW-1 is being produced here under:-
".............I have not seen any ownership/titled document of property bearing no2451-2451 Rang Mahal, Phatak Habas Khan, Delhi-6. I have also not checked the details of the above mentioned properties stand mutated. Properties bearing no 2451 and 2452 are two separate properties. I have seen the said properties about 6-7 years back during the pendency of the case. I have not went inside the said properties. The area of property no.2451 is appx 250 Sq Yards. I can not tell are of property no 2452.
Q. Can you tell the status of construction of property no 2451 and how many floors exists in the said property Ans. The said property is constructed about two and a half/three floors.
Q. Can you tell the exact floors constructed as on date whether the property no 2451 is constructed two and half floor or three floor?
Ans. I can not tell whether the said property is exactly two and a half or three floor. Again said it was dark so I could not see the entire structure however, the said property might be consist of three floors. I can not tell rooms existing on each floor of property no. 2451 and size of the said rooms.
It is wrong to suggest that property no 2451 only comprises of two storey i.e. ground and first floor. It is wrong to suggest that property no 2451 is not (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.23 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
constructed over an area of 250 Sq yards. I can not admit or deny the fact that there exist two rooms on the ground floor and one room less than 100 sq feet. (Vol. I never visited inside of the said property). I can not admit or deny whether the first floor or the said property and godown on the ground floor are occupied by tenant.
Q. On what basis you say that property bearing no. 2452 and 2453 Phatak Habas Khan, Delhi 6 belongs to petitioner?
Ans. After inquiring from the persons in the gali, I came to know that the said properties belongs to the petitioner. I can not tell the names of the persons who told me that the said properties belongs to the petitioner. I myself personally gone there. I visited after filing of the present suit when Reply/Written Statement was to be prepared. Q. Can you tell whether you visited the said property in the period between 2005, 2010, 2015 ? Ans. I appx visited in the year 2010. I do not remember as to what was the season when I visited. I am not checked the voter list of the said properties as to who are residing in the said properties no. 2452- 2453.
At this stage witness is confronted with the voter list pertaining to the said property, the same is Ex.RW/P1. I do not have any knowledge who were the persons residing in the property no. 2452-2453. I cannot admit or deny the suggestion whether the petitioner or any of her family members have any concerned with above mentioned properties. Vol. Yes they have..........".
2(g). From the above cross examination of RW1, it is evident that respondent utterly failed to prove that 2452-53 belongs to petitioner and 2451 is spacious/sufficient enough for the need of the petitioner.
3. 1338, Gali Amar Bux, Phatak Habash Khan, Delhi. 3(a). It is stated in the WS that the petitioner has concealed about ownership of this property. That the relinquishment deed filed by the petitioner shows that petitioner is also residing at this (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.24 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
property. PW1 was questioned about this property during his cross examination and the relevant extracts is as under:-
"..........When I married with the petitioner I was doing the work of supplies from my home at 1338, Phatak Habus Khan, Tilak Bazar, Delhi-06. I had work at the said place till 1989. The said property belongs to my grandmother and my father had pre- deceased my grandmother and I had no concern with the said property. It is wrong to suggest that the said property is owned and possessed by me.............".
3(b). RW1 and RW2 reiterated the averments made in WS through their evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and Ex. RW2/A. However, they failed to sustain their averments during their cross examination. The relevant extract of which is being reproduced hereunder:-
"........ I have not seen the ownership papers of property no. 1338, Gali Amar Baksh, Phatak Habas Khan, Delhi-110006.
Ques. Since you have not seen the titled document of the above mentioned per therefore I suggest you that you can not tell as to whom the above need property belongs to?
Ans. It is wrong to suggest the same.
I have not checked house tax records of the property no.1338, Gali Amar Baksh, Phatak Habas Khan, Delhi-110006.
It is wrong to suggest that even as per the house tax record the said property no. 1338 does not stand in the name of petitioner or any of her family member. I have visited the said property no. 1338. I can not tell the area of the said property however there are six shops on the ground floor. The said shops measuring about 15 x 20, and measurement of the other shops somewhat less or somewhat more. I can not tell the exact measurement of the said shops. Vol. As people available there are creating obstructions. I can not tell the name of the persons present there but the brother of the husband of the petitioner was also there. The neighbouring people had told that the person so sitting as of there is the brother of Shafiq Ahmed. I can not (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.25 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
tell the name, identity of the neighbouring people who told me about the brother of Shafiq Ahmed. I had visited the said property firstly in the year 2010 and 2015 approximately. It is wrong to suggest that I have never visited the said property. It is wrong to suggest that there are not six shops on the ground floor of the said property. It is further wrong to suggest that neither the petitioner nor any of her family members have any concerned with the said property. It is further wrong to suggest that neither the petitioner nor any any of her family members is in the possession of the said property no.1338............".
4. 2062, Veer Gali Sadar Nala Road, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi & 5. 2184 - Basti julahar, Sadar Nala Road, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi. 4 & 5 (a). It is stated in WS that husband of petitioner is carrying business of metal in the name and style of M/s M.I Tin Store at the above two properties. The suggestions to this effect were denied by PW1 during his cross examination dated 15.10.2016. The cross examination dated 14.03.2022 of RW1 is reproduced hereunder:-
"...............It is wrong to suggest that husband of petitioner is not doing any business of glass work at Sadar Bazar, It is further wrong to suggest that the petitioner or her husband or any of her family members have no concern with any business in the name and style of M/s M.I Tin Stores or any property bearing no. 2062 Veer Gali, Sadar Nala Road, Delhi-0006. It is further wrong to suggest that the petitioner or her husband or any of her family members have no concern property bearing no. 2184. Basti Julahan, Sadar Nala Road, Delhi-110006. It is further wrong to suggest that the photographs EX.RW1/1(Colly) does not prove the ownership and possession over the said property no.2062 and 2084 in the name of petitioner or her husband...............".
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.26 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
4 & 5 (b). RW3 was summon with relevant house tax record of these properties. Perusal of his testimony and summoned record shows that respondent failed to prove connection of peti- tioner or her family members to any of the properties.
6. Two godowns at first floor in Sadar Bazaar. 6(a). No detail of any such godown has been furnished either in pleading or their evidence.
12.5 Here, it would be apt to take note of settled law with regard to determinative of bonafide need of the petitioner. 12.6 In the case titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT 652 it was observed that:-
"24. 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 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.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement".
12.7 In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff- landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.27 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
12.8 In the case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs United India In- surance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"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 bona fide. 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 in 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 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."
12.9 Furthermore, in "Labhu Lal Vs. Sandhya Gupta"
[2011(1) RCR,(Rent) 231 (Delhi)], it has been held by this Court that the children are very much dependant on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their business and such a requirement is a bonafide one.
12.10 The moral duty of a father to help establish his son was also recognized by the Apex Court in "Joginder Pal Singh Vs. Naval Kishore Behal" [AIR 2002 SC 2256] in the following words:
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.28 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
"24........Keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord.
If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query. Applying the overlaid tests to the facts of the present case it is clear that the tenancy premises are required for the office of the landlord's son who is a chartered accountant. It is the moral obligation of the landlord to settle his son well in his life and to contribute his best to see him economically independent."
12.11 As far as the plea of the respondent that husband and son of the petitioner are already carrying business at various places is concerned, firstly the respondent has utterly failed to establish the same and secondly the same is not tenable in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) through L.Rs. Vs. Chagan Lal Sundarji & Co. (1999) 8 SCC 1 held that:-
"It will be seen that the trial court and the appellate court had clearly erred in law. They practically equated the test of "need or requirement" to be equivalent to "dire or absolute or compelling necessity". According to them, if the plaintiff had not permanently lost his job on account of the lockout or if he had not resigned his job, he could not be treated as a person without any means of livelihood, as contended by him and hence not entitled to an order for possession of the shop. This test, in our view, is (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.29 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
not the proper test. A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business. The manner in which the courts have gone into the meaning of "lockout" in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 appears to us to be nothing but a perverse approach to the problem. One cannot imagine that a landlord who is in service should first resign his job and wait for the unknown and uncertain result of a long-drawn litigation. If he resigned his job, he might indeed end up in utter poverty. Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back one's premises. For that matter assuming the landlord was in a job and had not resigned it or assuming that pending the long-drawn litigation he started some other temporary water business to sustain himself, that would not be an indication that the need for establishing a grocery shop was not a bona fide or a reasonable requirement or that it was motivated or was a mere design to evict the tenant".
12.12 Therefore, in view of the above discussion, in the light of above cited judgments, pleadings, evidence and the entire material placed on record, the respondents miserably failed to prove on record that the petitioner has any other alternate reasonable suitable accommodation to satisfy bonafide need of the petitioner. Therefore, it can be said that no other reasonable suitable alternate accommodation is available with the petitioner.
CONCLUSION
13. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, the petitioner is able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the suit premises/shop/property no. 5260-61, ground (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 19.05.2025 Page no.30 of 31 RC ARC No. 79853/2016 Sanobar Shaifi Vs. Gopal Kumar Bajaj and ors.
floor and second floor, bazar Ballimaran, Delhi-110006, as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
15. File be consigned to record room.
ARJINDER
KAUR
Announced in the open Court Digitally signed by
ARJINDER KAUR
on 19.05.2025 Date: 2025.05.19
15:55:40 +0530
(ARJINDER KAUR)
Additional Rent Controller-02,
Central District, THC, Delhi
(Arjinder Kaur)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
19.05.2025 Page no.31 of 31