Delhi District Court
Urmila Jain vs Parveen Kumar Jain on 18 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. UPASANA SATIJA
SCJ-Cum-RC (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC ARC No. 158/2021
CNR NO. DLWT03-001758-2021
IN THE MATTER OF
Smt. Urmila Jain
W/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Jain
R/o 1281, IInd floor, Wakeel Pura,
Gali Guliyan, Delhi110006 .....Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Parveen Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. Virsen Jain
R/o 1281, Ground Floor, Back of Chhipiwara,
Wakeel Pura, Gali Guliyan, Delhi-110006
Also at:
B-103, Suraj Mal Vihar,
Delhi-110092 ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 18.03.2021
Date of Reserving the Order : 11.03.2025
Date of Decision : 18.03.2025
Decision : Application seeking leave to
defend filed on behalf of
respondent is dismissed.
Eviction order is passed.
ORDER
(on application for Leave to defend filed on behalf of respondent)
1. Smt. Urmila Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner') has filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) r/w RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 1 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:34:46 +0530 Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') seeking eviction of Sh. Praveen Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') from Shop at South- East Side, 1281, Ground Floor, Back of Chhipiwara, Wakeel Pura, Gali Guliyan, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
Brief Facts pleaded in the petition
2.1. Petitioner is the sole owner of entire tenanted premises and the respondent is the tenant only in one shop/godown situated at south-east corner of property, 1281, Ground Floor, Back of Chhipiwara, Wakeel Pura, Gali Guliyan, Delhi-110006. Initially the father of the respondent Sh. Virsen Jain was inducted as tenant in the shop in question and after his death, the respondent became the tenant as the son/legal heir of the Late Sh. Virsen Jain. All the rent receipts are issued in the name of the Sh. Virsen Jain and there is no dispute regarding the tenancy of shop in question. The respondent himself had paid the rent and got the receipt of the same from the petitioner by signing the receipt himself.
2.2. The petitioner had owned the property in question vide Registered Will dated 02-12-1993 executed by father-in-law of the petitioner Late Sh. Mam Chand Jain vide registration no. 32867 Book no. 3 Volume no. 878 page no. 183 to 184 registered on 16-12-1993 before sub-registrar IV, Delhi. The petitioner is old lady aged about 69 yrs and a paralysis patient of half portion of body, she is living with her husband who is suffering from various diseases/ailment, his son Vikas Jain and two minor RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 2 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:36:08 +0530 grandsons in the portions of first and second floor of the tenanted premises, whereas other tenants are also living in remaining portions of first and second floors of the property. Petitioner for herself and her family needs entire ground floor of the said property because the petitioner and her husband are not able to use the stairs at this advance age. Therefore the petitioner is in great need of entire ground floor of above said property. In the ground floor there are two rooms and one shop/godown (shop in question).
2.3. Petitioner needs the shop in question to start a shop of glossary/gift specially for her son namely Vikas Jain and at this advance age of petitioner, it is responsibility of petitioner to settle a shop for her son. Son of petitioner has to look after his two minor sons and if a glossary/gift shop started by the son of petitioner in the shop in question at the place where he is residing then it would be fantastic opportunity to the son of petitioner to earn his livelihood and also able to look after his two minor sons and might look for second marriage of his son in future.
Petitioner is not having any other alternative property/space where any commercial space is available with her to start business of her son 2.4. Relationship of the landlord and tenant is clearly proved between the petitioner and respondent because last rent receipt of tenanted shop has been issued on 19-03-2020 in the name of the father of the respondent by the petitioner but the respondent had given the rent and also signed the receipt. Respondent is neither giving the rent nor ready to vacate the shop RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 3 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:36:45 +0530 in question whereas the petitioner is having the bonafide requirement for purpose of starting and establishing shop of glossary for her son who is unemployed at present.
3. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent who filed application seeking leave to defend.
Leave to defend Application 4.1. In his application, respondent has stated that the petitioner may be the owner of the property in question; however, the petitioner is not the landlord of the property as the petitioner was the landlady of his father Sh. Virsen Jain and after his death his legal heirs become tenant in the premises. The respondent along with other legal heirs of Sh. Virsen Jain had been signing the rent receipts of the property hence the petition against the respondent is not maintainable and liable to rejected. The present petition has not been filed in the proper name and against the proper persons.
4.2. Respondent/legal heirs of Late Sh. Virsen Jain had been paying the rent to the petitioner regularly at the agreed rate of Rs.1650/- per month excluding electricity and other charges. However, the petitioner had now stopped issuing the rent receipt after 19.03.2020, however the rent stands paid up till 31.03.2021. The applicant demanded the receipts several times, but petitioner is not issuing the receipt with an intention to create a ground of eviction.
RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 4 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:36:49 +0530 4.3. Petitioner claimed that the said property is required for carrying out the commercial activities of opening of a shop of Glossary/ Gift for her son, whereas, the property in dispute is situated in a residential lane/street and is not permitted by the MCD for commercial purposes/opening a shop and cannot be used for carrying out the commercial activities under the MCD Act and bye-laws. Late Sh. Virsen Jain died on 14.03.2007 leaving behind Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain, Smt. Sarita Jain, Sh.
Parveen Kumar Jain, Sh. Deepak Kumar Jain and Sh. Umesh Kumar Jain as his legal heirs and all above said persons have inherited the tenancy and not only the respondent and this fact is well within the knowledge of the landlady and the landlady has malafidely chosen not to implead all the legal heirs as party to the petition but has impleaded only the respondent.
4.4. Petitioner is not the 'owner' of the property in question. The ownership of the property is a necessary ingredient for filing the bonafide requirement case. In the present matter since the petitioner is not the owner of the property, hence the present petition on the ground of alleged bonafide requirement is liable to be dismissed.
Reply to Leave to Defend
5. In her reply, petitioner stated that petition is liable to be succeeded because firstly the respondent had admitted that the petitioner is the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises because the respondent had admitted that initially the father of the respondent was the tenant of the petitioner and after death of father of respondent, the respondent is the tenant secondly and RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 5 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA Date: SATIJA 2025.03.18 17:38:00 +0530 respondent alone is in possession of tenanted shop as tenant and all the rent receipts issued regarding the tenanted shop had been signed by the respondent himself therefore there is no question of dispute in tenancy. Since the respondent is not paying anything as rent of tenanted shop to the petitioner, even then respondent is not vacating the tenanted premises.
6. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of respondent wherein it was stated that petitioner intends to sell the entire property after getting it vacated from the tenants or will reconstruct the same into multi-storey building and will then sell the shops and other portions. It was further stated that conversation in this regard of son and daughter of the petitioner with son of the respondent was recorded by the respondent and same was filed with the rejoinder. It was further stated that petitioner is in possession of entire ground floor of the property except the tenanted premises and hence, alternate suitable accommodation is available with the petitioner for her bonafide requirement.
7. Arguments were advanced on application seeking leave to defend. Written arguments were also filed on behalf of petitioner as well as respondent. Entire record is perused.
Applicable law and its application to present facts
8. Section 25-B of DRC Act provides for special procedure for the disposal of application for eviction on the ground of bona-fide requirement. The tenant on whom the summons are duly served in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 6 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:38:04 +0530 premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks leave to contest the application for eviction.
9. It is settled law that at this stage, the real test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action. It is to be seen whether there is some fact which, if proved, would affect the merits of the case or not. It is to be seen whether tenant is able to raise such pleas which make out prima facie case that requires appreciation by the Court.
10. The pleas raised by the respondent/tenant are to be examined vis-à-vis the ingredients of Section 14(1) (e). The three essential ingredients which are required to be proved by the petitioner for securing eviction under Section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act are as follows:
(i) That petitioner is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
(ii) That petitioner requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him;
(iii) That petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
11. Although, the respondent may dispute/ controvert all the pleas of the Petitioner; but for the purposes of leave to defend, the respondent has to show that the pleas raised in application for leave to defend are such which, if established by adducing evidence, would disentitle the Petitioner of the relief claimed.
Ingredient (i) Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlord- tenant between petitioner and Respondent:
RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 7 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:38:08 +0530
12. It is the case of Respondent that his father was inducted as a tenant in tenanted premises and after death of his father, tenancy devolved upon all his legal heirs and not upon respondent alone. Respondent is not the only tenant in tenanted premises and the present petition is bad for non-joinder of remaining legal heirs of Virsen Jain. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioner that respondent alone is in occupation of tenanted premises and hence, there is no requirement of making the remaining legal heirs of Virsen Jain a party to present petition.
13. The fact that father of respondent was inducted as a tenant in tenanted premises is admitted. It is claimed by the respondent that upon death of his father tenancy devolved upon all the legal heirs of his father. The fact that tenancy devolved upon respondent as well is not disputed. It is settled law that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants. Since all the legal heirs inherited the tenancy upon death of their father, they inherited the same as joint tenants and making any of joint tenants a party to eviction petition is sufficient. It is not necessary for the landlord to implead all the legal heirs of deceased tenant.
14. The petitioner claims her title to tenanted premises by virtue of WILL executed by her father-in-law in her favour. Copy of sale deed in favour of mother in law of petitioner was filed. English translation of said sale-deed was also filed by the petitioner. Although it was stated on behalf of respondent that translation has not been done by any authorized person however, RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 8 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:38:13 +0530 no translation to the contrary was filed by the respondent. Even otherwise ownership of petitioner with respect to tenanted premises is deemed to be admitted. On one hand respondent stated that petitioner may be the owner but she is not the landlord of the respondent whereas on the other hand respondent stated that petitioner was landlady of Virsen Jain but is not the owner. Denial of ownership is vague and vague denial is no denial.
15. Hence, the fact that petitioner was landlady of Virsen Jain i.e. father of respondent is admitted. Since the respondent has inherited tenancy from his father, landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent is established.
16. In view of the above, it is concluded that the petitioner is competent to have filed the present eviction petition as she is the owner as well as landlord in respect of the tenanted premises for the purpose of section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act.
Ingredients (ii) and (iii) Requirement of premises bonafide by the petitioner for himself and for members of his family dependent upon him and non- availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation:
17. It is not on the mere asking of the landlord that premises are required for his bonafide requirement that an eviction order is to be passed; rather it is to be seen whether the requirement of the landlord is genuine or not and whether the landlord is having another reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi.
RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 9 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:38:17 +0530
18. The petitioner's claim is that she bonafide requires the tenanted premises for her son for running glossary/gift shop.
19. It is the plea of the respondent that the property in dispute is situated in a residential lane/street and is not permitted by the MCD for commercial purposes/opening a shop and cannot be used for carrying out the commercial activities under the MCD Act and bye-laws.
20. As per written arguments filed by the respondent, more than three firms are registered at address of the tenanted premises. The said fact goes against the plea that area is entirely residential and cannot be used at all for commercial purpose. Further, obtaining necessary permission for opening of the shop is the matter between the petitioner and concerned authorities.
21. It is the plea of the respondent that the requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide and she wishes to sell the property after getting it vacated. It is further plea of the respondent that even otherwise petitioner is in possession of entire ground floor of the property except the tenanted shop and said portion can be used by her for her bonafide requirement.
22. Plea of availability of alternate accommodation was not taken by the respondent in his application seeking leave to defend. Vide order dated 29.11.2021, Ld. Predecessor had declined to take on record the documents filed with rejoinder. Even otherwise, in her petition itself, petitioner has stated that she for herself and her family needs entire ground floor of the said property which consists of two rooms and one shop i.e. the RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 10 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:38:25 +0530 tenanted premises because the petitioner and her husband are not able to use the stairs at their advance age. Hence, the requirement of the petitioner is of entire ground floor out of which she intends to use the tenanted premises as a shop for her son. Although during the pendency of the petition, husband of petitioner has died however, it has been clarified by the petitioner in her written arguments that only the tenanted shop can be used for her bonafide requirement of running gift shop as the same is a corner shop and remaining portion of the property is inside a gali and hence, not suitable.
23. Further, although no plea was taken by the respondent in his application seeking leave to defend regarding non-suitability of tenanted premises for bonafide requirement, the said plea was raised in written arguments wherein the respondent stated that the shop cannot be opened in tenanted premises as the same is situated in a narrow lane and is back portion of the property.
24. Every person is best judge of his requirements. It is well settled legal position that it is not for the respondent to dictate to the petitioner that how he should manage his business. It is for the petitioner to see what is suitable for him to start a business. It is the case of the petitioner and if the tenanted premises are suitable as per his needs, he has every right to possess the said premises and the respondent cannot contend that petitioner should manage his business otherwise or should not start a business at all.
RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 11 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:38:31 +0530
25. It is the case of the petitioner that the tenanted premises are bonafide required by the petitioner for her son for running glossary/gift shop. There is no reason to disbelieve the said averment. Also, if the Petitioner does not occupy the premises within the prescribed period for her bonafide requirement after obtaining its possession from the respondent, the respondent herein has the remedy of getting back the possession of the property under Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Conclusion
26. Taking into view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that petitioner has been able to establish that the tenanted premises are required bonafide for Petitioner to start a glossary/gift shop for her son and there is no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in her possession. The respondent has failed to raise any reasonable triable issue. The application for leave to defend is dismissed.
27. Since the application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed, the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. Shop at South-East Side, 1281, Ground Floor, Back of Chhipiwara, Wakeel Pura, Gali Guliyan, Delhi-110006, as shown in red colour in the site plan filed along with the petition in terms of Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The landlord however shall not be RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 12 of 13 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.03.18 17:38:35 +0530 entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
28. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court.
On this 18th day of March, 2023 Digitally signed by UPASANA This Order contains 23 pages UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
and each page is signed by me. 2025.03.18 17:38:38 +0530 (UPASANA SATIJA) SCJ-cum-RC, Central District Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi RC ARC No. 158/21 Urmila Jain Vs. Praveen Kumar Jain Page No. 13 of 13