Delhi District Court
Narinder Nath vs Rajesh Raturi on 18 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT No.:- 111/2022
CNR No.:- DLET03-001939/2022
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Narinder Nath
(Deceased through his LRs)
(i) Satya Kumari Gund
W/o Late Sh. Narinder Nath
(ii) Rajesh Gund
S/o Late Sh. Narinder Nath
(iii) Manish Gund
S/o Late Sh. Narinder Nath
All Resident of :
167A, J&K Block, Laxmi Nagar,
Delhi-110092
(iv) Anjali Vaid
D/o Late Sh. Narinder Nath
W/o Sh. Ajay Vaid
R/o 11A, Ram Nagar Extn-1,
Behind Hari Nagar Gurudwara,
Near Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051 ..........Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Rajesh Raturi
S/o Late Sh. S.R. Raturi
R/o J-3/A, Gali No.6,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 1 of 19
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.25
16:13:16 +0530
Also at:
Royal Caterers and Decorators,
Shop at ground floor, 167 A,
J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 ..........Respondent
Date of Institution: 23.11.2022 Date on which Judgment was reserved: 16.05.2025 Date of Judgment: 18.08.2025
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION 14(1)(e) R/W SECTION 25-B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application under Section 25(B)(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRC Act") for seeking leave to defend in the present eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the DRC Act filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent on 23.11.2022.
Eviction petition of the Petitioner
2. The submissions made out in the petition are that the Petitioner is the owner / landlord of the premises bearing no. 167 A, J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092. Initially, the Petitioner had purchased a plot bearing no. 167, J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 admeasuring 189.1 sq. yards vide sale deed dated 11.09.1970 bearing registration no. 7504 in Addl book no. 1, Vol. no. 233 on pages 175 to 177 dated 15.09.1970 registered with Sub-Registrar IV, Delhi. On 07.09.1988, the Petitioner transferred area admeasuring 90 sq. yards out of the aforesaid plot in favour of his wife namely Smt. Satya Kumari Gund, which was subsequently sold by her. Now, the plot RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 2 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:13:26 +0530 admeasuring 99.1 sq. yards is under the ownership and possession of Petitioner and numbered as 167 A, J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 comprising of Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor. Accordingly, the Petitioner is the absolute owner of the entire premises bearing no. 167 A, J & K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092.
3. In the year 1988, one shop on the ground floor of the aforesaid premises i.e. 167A, J&K Block, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092 (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenanted Premises") as clearly shown in red colour in Site Plan was let out to the Respondent at a monthly rent of Rs.300/- exclusive of electricity charges and rent amount was enhanced from time to time over the year. Now, at present, the rent of the shop is Rs, 1,000/- per month.
4. There are two shops on the front side of the ground floor, one shop is in the possession of the Respondent and other shop is in the possession of younger son of the Petitioner namely Manish Gund, who is operating his business from the said shop for his livelihood. The remaining back portion of the ground floor consisting of two rooms, kitchen, toilet, store and parking space for two wheelers is already in occupation of another tenant.
5. The Petitioner and his wife are also owners of two shops bearing no. 2 and 4, at J-9, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi-110092, which are already on rent to tenants for a monthly rent of Rs. 8,000/- per month. Apart from the above, the Petitioner does not have any accommodation at any other place and as such the said Tenanted Premises is required bonafide by Petitioner.
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 3 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:13:32 +0530
6. The Tenanted Premises are required by the Petitioner for his bonafide requirement as he is aged about 78 years and his wife namely Satya Kumari Gund (also SPA of Petitioner) is aged about 74 years. Presently, both Petitioner and his wife are staying on the first floor of the said premises. The Petitioner is a patient of Parkinsons and prostatitis/ prostate gland enlargement and is bed ridden. The wife of the Petitioner namely Satya Rani Gund is suffering from high diabetes, anxiety, hyper tension and is on medication. Moreover, she has also enormous pain in her knees due to which she is unable to climb stairs to first floor from ground floor and vice-versa. The Petitioner is required to be taken to doctor for his regular check-ups and has to be lifted in arms and taken upstairs and downstairs from the small and steep staircase in the premises leading from ground floor to upstairs. Further, the Petitioner also suffered a shoulder dislocation due to a slip disc from stairs while he was being brought downstairs from first floor to ground floor. In these circumstances, the Petitioner and his wife want to shift to the ground floor. The Tenanted Premises can very well be converted into a bed room and both Petitioner and his wife can reside in the same. It will facilitate better medical treatment to the Petitioner and for easy movement of the wife of the Petitioner, suffering from knees pain. It is submitted that there is a bonafide need for the Tenanted Premises and in this background, the present petition has been filed.
Course of Proceedings.
7. It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner expired on 08.12.2024. Accordingly, an application for impleadment of LRs of Petitioner was moved, which was allowed vide order dated 10.02.2025.
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 4 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:13:38 +0530
Leave to defend application of the Respondent
8. The Respondent filed his application for grant of leave to defend under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act and submitted in his application that he had received the summons on 27.11.2022. The following averments are made by the Respondent in the application:
a) The petition, in its present form, is not maintainable because the Petitioner has not filed affidavit under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in support of alleged photographs of the ground floor of the Tenanted Premises. Moreover, the Respondent has not received the complete paper book. Accordingly, he was not served as per law.
b) No complete site plan of the premises filed by the Petitioner/SPA. Moreover, the site plan of the Tenanted Premises is not coloured and coloured site plan has not been supplied to the Respondent. Further, there is no measurement given on the portions mentioned on the ground floor, first floor and second floor. Even the site plan does not bear the original signature of Petitioner/SPA and therefore, the alleged site plan is no plan in the eyes of law. Petitioner also not filed the ownership document of the property i.e. Shop no. 2 and 4 in property no. J-9, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.
c) It is averred that Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed or in the alternative, leave to defend be granted to contest the present petition because the present petition is gross misuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed.
In support of his averment, he also relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Tilokchand and RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 5 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:13:47 +0530 Motichand and others vs. H.B. Munshi and another [(1969) 1 SCC], State of Haryana and others vs. Karnal Distillery Company Limited and another [(1977) 2 SCC 451], Abdul Rehman vs. Prasony Bai and another [(2003) 1 SCC], S.J.S Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vs. State of Bihar and others [(2004) 7 SCC 166], and Oswal Fats and Oil Limited vs. Additional Commissioner [(2010) 4 SCC]. It is averred that the superior courts have held that the whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to process the relief further.
d) The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner just to fulfil his desire and is not bonafide because the ground floor portion consists of residential two rooms, kitchen, toilet and a big hall apart from the two shops on ground floor, meaning thereby the Petitioner has two rooms which is admittedly residential and before filing of the present petition, the said two residential rooms have been let out to one Mr. Manish at a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- excluding other charges because prior to that it was under tenancy of one Mr. Sanjay and just to create scarcity of accommodation, the Petitioner has re-let the same to Mr. Manish. Petitioner has established his famous/roaring business of tailoring material in one shop under the name and style of M/s Modern Tailoring Material Store and is earning approximately Rs.1,00,000/- per month due to this reason, he has not filed his income tax return just to conceal his source of income though the said business is run by the Petitioner since 1970.
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 6 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:13:52 +0530 e) It is averred that it is commonly understood that the
maxim "ex dolo malo non oritur action" which means that a claimant should be deprived of all Court-based remedies because of dishonesty, misrepresentation, illegality or unfairness. Further, the Petitioner submitted that he is suffering from various old age ailments but the documents allegedly placed alongwith the petition are pertaining to the prescription and medicines prescribed by the doctor and there is nothing on record such as X-ray, ultrasound/echo or other tests to prove the disability of petitioner in walking properly. It is also averred that the Tenanted Premises is a small shop and has no other basic facility such as latrine, bathroom and opening towards road as such the Tenanted Premises cannot be used as residence in the absence of basic facilities. In support of his averment, the Respondent also relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case title as Dalpat Kumar & Anr vs. Prehlad Singh & Ors (1991) 1 SCC, 717.
f) It is averred that despite the Petitioner having residential premises, which he recently re-let to one Sh. Manish, he wants to vacate the Tenanted Premises which cannot be used as residential purpose. Moreover, the rate of the Tenanted Premises is Rs. 1,000/- per month excluding other charges as such after getting the same vacated, the Petitioner wants to re-let on higher rent because in October 2022 the Respondent was asked to increase the rent the tune of Rs.5,000/- per month but the said proposal was denied by the Respondent.
g) Initially, in the year 1988, the Respondent was inducted as a tenant in the Tenanted Premises for a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 7 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:13:58 +0530
and a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was given to the Petitioner as Pagri money/security by the Respondent. Moreover, the Petitioner has also given the NOC to the Respondent for installation of separate electricity connection in the Tenanted Premises. Since the Respondent was good paymaster, he was not asked by the Petitioner to vacate the Tenanted Premises. But since October, 2022, the son of the Petitioner has completely overpowered the Petitioner and his business and to give colour to his illegal design, he has filed the present eviction without the knowledge of the wife of the Petitioner/SPA.
h) It is averred that SPA is not maintainable because it is not a procured document and that SPA never visited at Tis Hazari Court for attestation. Moreover, the petition is not signed by the Petitioner as the Petitioner was not interested to file a case.
i) It is averred that the malafide requirement of the Petitioner can be seen as he has not filed the site plan of the property no. J-9, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, wherein two shops are situated. It is denied that Petitioner has no other reasonably suitable commercial accommodation available to him.
j) It is averred that due to the aforesaid conduct of the Petitioner, the right of livelihood of the Respondent under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been hindered.
k) The Petitioner has made false statement that he has no other suitable commercial accommodation as the Petitioner also owns two other properties which are either in his name or in the name of his son in Ashok Nagar and two residential flats in Nihal Vihar.
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 8 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:14:03 +0530
9. An application was filed by the Respondent for taking on record subsequent developments / new facts as additional ground for leave to defend. It is averred that apart from two shops on the ground floor, there is a residential portion consisting of two rooms, kitchen, toilet and a big hall. On 01.11.2023, it was seen by the Respondent that the hall has been converted for running a tuition center by one Mrs. Srivastava and the said fact has been concealed by the Petitioner. The said Mrs. Srivastava tenders rent of Rs. 8,000 per month. In this context, it is submitted that the Petitioner has deliberately concealed the said fact which shows that the present petition has been filed for enhancement of rent by re-letting the property.
10. An additional affidavit was also filed by the Respondent bringing on record new facts/ subsequent development alleging that the Petitioner has executed a sale deed in the favour of his daughter-in-law on 27.01.2013 w.r.t. Upper ground floor in property no. J-98, Laxmi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110092. Along with the affidavit, the Petitioner also filed additional documents i.e. Sale Deed of property i.e. Upper ground floor in property no. J-98, Laxmi Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110092 executed in the name of his daughter-in-law by the Petitioner on 27.01.2023 soon after filing the present eviction petition, which was subsequently let out to one tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-. It is averred that the said property is alternate suitable property of the Petitioner but he has not disclosed this fact in his entire petition.
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 9 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:14:10 +0530 Reply to the leave to defend application
11. The Petitioner in his reply to the leave to defend application has averred that:
a) No triable issues have been raised by the Respondent.
b) It is settled law that certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act can be filed at any stage of the proceedings and the same has been filed by the Petitioner on 08.02.2023.
c) It is submitted that the Respondent has been supplied complete paper book containing the documents along with coloured site plan. Even the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has been supplied on 08.02.2023 to the Respondent.
d) The two rooms on the back portion of the ground floor are already in possession of another tenant Manish since long and it is not a fresh tenancy. The Petitioner intends to shift on the front portion of the ground floor as it suits his needs and requirements.
e) It is denied that the Tenanted Premises cannot be used as residence in the absence of basic facilities. The alleged stand of the Respondent is self-contradictory as in Paragraph no. 5 of the leave to defend application the Respondent has admitted that there is a facility of kitchen, latrine and bathroom on the ground floor of the premises. The Tenanted Premises can be easily converted into a bed room and will facilitate better treatment of the Petitioner and his wife.
f) It is denied that the medical documents are procured documents.
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 10 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:14:17 +0530
g) It is denied that pagri / security of Rs. 1,20,000 was paid by the Respondent to the Petitioner at the time of taking the Tenanted Premises on rent.
h) It is averred that no new tenant has been inducted by the Petitioner on the ground floor of the property after filing of the present suit. The two rooms on the back portion of the ground floor are already in occupation of Mr. Manish and his wife namely Mukti Srivastava, who is running a tuition centre as a part time job. Moreover, the Respondent has also failed to file any document to establish a fresh tenancy between the Petitioner and the lady namely Mrs. Srivastava.
i) It is denied that the Petitioner is interested in enhancing the rent of the Tenanted Premises and after getting the Tenanted Premises vacated, re-let the same to other tenant at an exorbitant price.
j) The Petitioner has every right to enjoy his property as per his will and wish as well as enjoy the fruits of the property himself and for his family. It is submitted that the landlord's family members/dependants have also the right to livelihood and right to life and they cannot be kept in the mercy of the tenant for meeting their demands of accommodation for starting a business for their livelihood and maintaining their right to life.
Arguments
12. Arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties. The Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has submitted that the Respondent has not raised any triable issues and therefore, his application for leave to RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 11 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.25 16:14:25 +0530 defend ought to be dismissed. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Respondent has averred that the Petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has manufactured / concocted a false case of bonafide requirement and therefore, the leave to defend application ought to be allowed.
13. The Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has relied upon Sarla Ahuja vs. United Insurance Company [(1998) 8 SCC 119], Dev Raj Bajaj vs. R.K. Khanna [1996 SCC OnLine Del 150], Kuldip Mahajan vs. Krishna Uppal and others [2002 SCC OnLine Del 326] and Om Prakash vs. Dev Raj Kohli [1997 SCC OnLine Del 501]. All these decisions have been read and duly considered.
14. The Ld. Counsel for Respondent has relied upon Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh [89 (2001) DLT 27], Narender Kumar Manchanda and another vs. Hemant Kumar Talwar [2013 (1) CLJ 189], Ramesh Chander Agarwal and another vs. Jagan Nath and another [2012 (4) CLJ 462 Del], Khem Chand and others vs. Arjun Jain [202 (2013) DLT 613], Aggarwal Papers vs. Mukesh Kumar Through LRs [194 (2012) DLT 605] and Kashi Ram and others vs. Anita Garg [Decision dated 18.09.2019 in CM (M) 1376/2019]. All these decisions have been read and duly considered.
Law relating to leave to defend application in Rent Control matters
15. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the Petitioner must establish that:
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 12 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:14:31 +0530
a) He is the owner and landlord in respect of the Tenanted Premises;
b) He requires the premises bona fide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him; and
c) He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
16. The scope of the said Section has been enlarged in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satyawati Sharma vs. Union of India [AIR 2008 SC 3148], so as to include premises let out for commercial purposes within the scope and ambit of a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
17. It is pertinent to note that in a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Kanahaiya Lal Arya vs. Mohd. Ehshan and others (decision dated 25.02.2025 in SLP No. 21965 of 2022), it has been observed that the law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord is well settled. It was held that the need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. It was also observed in the aforesaid judgment that the landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need and the tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction. The said judgment has been relied by the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.25
16:14:35 +0530
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 13 of 19
Findings
18. The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties has been admitted by the Respondent. The Respondent has also admitted the Petitioner's ownership of the Tenanted Premises. Therefore, the first essential requirement re: existence of landlord-tenant relationship stands admitted and hence, established.
19. The second requirement is that the Petitioner requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him. The eviction petition was initially filed for the requirement of the Petitioner and his wife. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Petitioner passed away. However, the requirement of the Petitioner's wife subsists and hence, the LRs of the Petitioner were impleaded as the right to sue survived against the Respondent on account of need of the Petitioner's wife.
20. It is averred by the Respondent that the requirement is not bonafide on the following grounds:
a) Firstly, the Tenanted Premises are not suitable for residence of the Petitioner's wife as it is a shop without any basic facilities and is not suitable for residential purpose.
b) Secondly, before filing the petition, the two rooms in the back portion were tenanted to one Mr. Manish at a monthly rent of Rs.10,000/- excluding other charges in order to create scarcity of accommodation.Digitally signed by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.25
16:14:40 +0530
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 14 of 19
c) Thirdly, the medical documents have been procured to
obtain sympathy of the Court.
21. The Respondent has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Narender Kumar Manchanda and another vs. Hemant Kumar Talwar [2013 (1) SLJ 189] and Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahmanand [(1983) 1 SCC 301].
22. To these averments, the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has argued that a tenant cannot dictate terms upon the landlord and it is the choice of the landlord as to which space is ideal and suitable for his need and requirement. It is also argued that there is basic facility of kitchen and toilet on the ground floor which can be used by the Petitioner's wife. It is further argued that the two rooms on the back portion have been on tenancy to Mr. Manish since long and it is not a fresh tenancy. It is further argued that the Tenanted Premises can be converted into a bedroom and a bed can be easily accommodated in the same. It is also argued that medical documents have been placed on record which show the ailments suffered by the Lt. Petitioner and his wife cannot be said to be concocted.
23. The Petitioner's wife is admittedly a senior citizen who is 72 years old. The medical documents appear to be genuine and therefore, this Court is not in agreement with the Respondent's averment that the medical documents have been concocted for the purpose of concocting a requirement. Similarly, there is no basis to say that the two rooms in the back portion have been given on tenancy only to create an artificial paucity of available accommodation especially in light of the RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 15 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:14:46 +0530 Petitioner's averment that the said rooms have been given on rent since long.
24. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deena Nath vs. Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705] has held that:
"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 praesenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire."
25. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222], in which it was held, inter alia, that "the term 'bonafide' or 'genuinely' refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much higher than in mere desire. The phrase "required bonafide" is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is 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 a mere pretence 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".
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 16 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:14:52 +0530
26. On the issue of that the Tenanted Premises are not suitable for residential purpose and hence, the demand is not bonafide, it is pertinent to note that the Petitioner has admitted that the two rooms on the back portion of the ground floor are in occupation of another tenant Mr. Manish. The Petitioner has not mentioned whether the kitchen and the toilet on the ground floor have also been given on rent to the said Mr. Manish along with the two rooms on the back portion. The photographs placed on record by the Respondent indicate that the hall, kitchen and toilet are also in the possession of the tenants of the two rooms. The Respondent has stated that the kitchen and toilet do not constitute part of the Tenancy Premises as the shop does not have basic facilities of bathroom and kitchen. This is an admitted fact that the Tenanted Premises consist of a shop alone without any other facilities. Further, perusal of the site plan reveals that there are no attached bathrooms / toilet or kitchen with the two rooms on the back portion. Therefore, it is safe to presume that the tenants on the back portion (Mr. Manish) (who have admittedly taken the two rooms on rent for residential purpose) must also be using the kitchen and the toilet on the ground floor. It is unclear whether the Petitioner intends to share the kitchen and toilet with them after re-locating to the Tenanted Premises. In the absence of clarity regarding this, it appears that the submission of the Respondent that the Tenanted Premises is not suitable for residence of the Petitioner's wife and therefore, the requirement averred by the Petitioner is not bonafide appears to be plausible. The requirement of the Petitioner does not appear to be sincere or honest. Therefore, a triable issue has been raised by the Respondent as to whether the requirement averred in the petition is bonafide or not, RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 17 of 19 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.25 16:14:57 +0530 especially in light of the prima facie finding that the Tenanted Premises does not appear to be suitable for residential purpose.
27. The last issue is whether alternative accommodation is available with the Petitioner. The Respondent has averred that alternative accommodation i.e. two rooms on the back portion along with bathroom and kitchen is available as alternative accommodation. However, the said portion already being in tenancy cannot be said to be "available alternative accommodation". In M.M. Quasim vs, Manohar Lal Sharma [AIR 1981 SC 1113] it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the landlord does not have an unfettered right to choose the premises but merely showing that the landlord has some other vacant premises in his possession may not be sufficient to negative the landlord's claim if the vacant premises were not suitable for the purpose for which he required the premises. The premises quoted as alternative accommodation by the Respondent i.e. the two rooms in the back portion are not vacant and are under tenancy, hence, they cannot be termed as alternative accommodation. The Respondent has also averred that the Petitioner has shops in Laxmi Nagar, however, those shops cannot be considered as "alternative accommodation" as the Petitioner requires a room for residence within the same premise she is already deciding. It is an established position of law that convenience and safety of the landlord is a factor for deciding whether there is alternative accommodation. Hence, no triable issue has been raised in this regard.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.25
16:15:03 +0530
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 18 of 19
Conclusion
28. It is well settled that in case a tenant is able to raise any triable issue, he is granted leave to defend the eviction petition. It is also settled law that the burden of showing that the need of the landlord is not bonafide or that alternative accommodation is available with the landlord lies on the tenant. In the present case, the tenant / Respondent has been able to raise a prima facie triable issue that the requirement of the Petitioner is not bonafide as the Tenanted Premises is not suitable for residential purpose in the absence of basic facilities. Therefore, the leave to defend application is allowed.
Announced in open court Digitally signed on this 18th day of August, 2025 T by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.25 16:15:09 +0530 T. Priyadarshini Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
This judgment consists of 19 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
RC ARC No. 111/2022 Narinder Nath vs. Rajesh Raturi 19 of 19