Delhi District Court
Mohd. Imran vs Shiva Sharma on 17 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. MRIDUL GUPTA:
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE- CUM- ADDITIONAL
RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
E-248/2021
CNR No.: DLCT03-002955-2021
In the matter of :-
Mohd. Imran
S/o Late Sh. Mohd. Umair
R/o H.No B-1/303, Punjabi Saudagar
Apartments, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I
Extension, Delhi - 110091.
....Petitioner
Versus
Shiva Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Sunil Sharma
C/o Shree Ram Saree Center,
Shop No. 5648, Kothi Haji Ali Jaan,
Ward No. VI, Nai Sadak,
Delhi-110061.
Also at:
11/16, Gali No. 1,
West Azad Nagar, Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051
....Respondent
Date of Institution : 19.07.2021
Date of order when reserved : 06.12.2022
Date of order when announced : 17.01.2023
ORDER:
1. Vide this order, the undersigned shall dispose of an application U/s 25-B (4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for the sake of convenience) of E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 1/19 the respondent seeking leave to defend to the petition filed by the petitioner U/s 14 (1) (e) of Act seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises i.e. One shop bearing no. 5648, Ground Floor, Ward No. VI, Kothi Haji Ali Jan, Nai Sadak, Delhi-110006 admeasuring 9' x 7' (hereinafter referred as 'tenanted premises'), as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition.
2. The averments as mentioned in the petition are reproduced in brief here as under:-
(a) That the petitioner is the owner/landlord of entire shop on the Ground Floor bearing no. 5648, situated at Ward No. VI, Kothi Haji Ali Jan, Nai Sadak, Delhi-110006. Earlier, the petitioner was the joint owner of the tenanted premises alongwith his brother Mohd. Mousab, however as per family settlement and partition, the said tenanted premises fell into the exclusive share and ownership of the petitioner by virtue of registered Partition Deed dated 05.06.2016 duly registered as Doc. No. 5500, in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 2653, on pages 112 to
119. The said tenanted premises has also been duly mutated in the name of the petitioner in the House Tax record of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation.
(b) That the respondent is a tenant in respect of the tenanted premises @ Rs. 2,928.20/- per month which was let out for commercial purpose and is being used as such till date. Earlier, the father of the respondent was a tenant, however, after his death, respondent stepped into the shoes of his father and E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 2/19 became the tenant by operation of law and also attorned the petitioner as his owner/landlord and started paying rent to the petitioner. The counterfoils of the rent receipts duly signed by respondent are annexed by the petitioner.
(c) That the petitioner requires the tenanted premises bonafidely for himself and his family members dependent upon him for residential as well as commercial purpose. However, the present petition is specially filed for the requirement of the eldest son of petitioner namely, Mr. Ali Jan for commercial purpose as the tenanted premises is situated in the commercial hub of Delhi City where daily large numbers of customers, tourists and other persons from every walk of life visit the said Nai Sadak Market for shopping to fulfill their needs as such any kind of business can be run profitably, efficiently and easily from the said premises in case of its eviction.
(d) That family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife Sahiba Imran aged about 48 years and two sons namely Ali Jan aged about 20 years and Mohd. Aman aged about 13 years and daughter namely, Atufa Imran aged about 18 years. The eldest son Ali Jan pursuing Bachelor of Business Administration from Guru Govind Singh Indraprastha University and he intends to carry out his own business from the tenanted premises in case of its eviction and wants to open a ready made garment cloth business from the said shop. Similarly, the daughter of the petitioner Atufa Imran is also major and she has passed her Senior School Certificate Examination in the year 2020 and the youngest son of the petitioner namely, Mohd Aman is in 8th E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 3/19 standard in ASN Senior Secondary School, Mayur Vihar, Phase- 1, Delhi-110091 and for the younger children, the petitioner will be filing separate eviction petition for their bonafide requirement.
(e) That there is no other reasonable, suitable alternate accommodation available to the petitioner for opening a shop for the requirement of the eldest son of the petitioner who wants to open a readymade garment cloth business as the other shop from where the petitioner is carrying out his own business is a half portion of shop bearing no. 5649 which is quite inadequate and insufficient for both the petitioner and his son to carry out their separate businesses and petitioner is passing the days in very great difficulty, inconvenience and in a very congested manner in the said half portion shop bearing no. 5649. The said son of the petitioner wants to carry out his own separate business as he is very sharp person and he is doing BBA course which is for management, administration of running a business entity.
(f) That apart from the said shop, there are two other shops on the Ground floor bearing no. 5647 & 5649 (other half portion). The shop no. 5647 is under occupation of old tenant namely, M/s Kabul Emporium and similarly the other half portion of shop no. 5649 is under tenancy of old tenant Mohd. Naseem. Apart from the said shops on the Ground Floor, the petitioner is also the owner of the Second Floor which also bears no. 5647 but the same is under the old tenancy of one Mr. Tushar Mandir and M/s Sari Sansar. However, the entire mezzanine floor of property no. 5649 is under ownership and possession of E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 4/19 brother of petitioner namely, Mohd. Mousab to which petitioner has no concern. The shop in possession of the petitioner which is on the backside of the main road towards the passage is shown in the green colour and other shops which are occupied by tenants are shown in black colour.
(g) That apart from the said requirement for the elder son of the petitioner, there is also requirement of the petitioner to carryout the business towards the main gali, Katra Anup Singh as the present half shop bearing no. 5649 available to the petitioner is towards the backside in passage and is not visible from the main gali / katra Anup Singh. However, the tenanted premises is comparatively near towards the main gali Katra Anup Singh towards the front which can be easily seen and visited by the persons coming to the said area as such from every four corners, the need of the petitioner is very genuine, bonafide and urgent.
3. The summons of the petition were served upon the respondent who has filed application for leave to contest the petition seeking permission to contest the petition mainly on the following grounds :-
(a) That in the said petition, the petitioner has referred various documents of property in Urdu language which are not readable properly and further submitted that photocopies of the said documents are not clear. Petitioner has referred various portions in various colour but the site plan sent by the petitioner is black and white which is also not clear.
E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 5/19
(b) That the respondent is in the tenanted premises since 1980 and earlier father of the respondent was tenant, after the death of the father of the respondent, the respondent became the tenant. The premises is tenanted since last about 40 years and respondent is doing his business therein.
(c) That father of the respondent has taken the said tenanted premises form the father of the petitioner, somewhere in the year of 1980 on Pagri.
(d) That the present eviction petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner has not come with clean hands. The requirement produced by the petitioner is not bonafide requirement rather it is generated by the petitioner with malafide intention as the petitioner has sufficient accommodation available with him to fulfill his requirement.
Property bearing no. 5649 (half portion), on ground floor, Ward no. VI, Kothi Haji Ali Jan, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006 and entire second floor of property bearing no. 5647 is in possession of the petitioner. Moreover, petitioner has deliberately not given the complete and true description of the properties available with him.
(e) That the present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner with ulterior motives, to harass and humiliate the respondent by dragging him in false and frivolous litigations as petitioner has always been harassing and pressurizing the respondent in one way or the other to illegally and forcibly dispossess respondent from the tenanted premises hence, the E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 6/19 petitioner also filed the suit for permanent injunction against the respondent which pending before Ms. Kirandeep Kuar, Ld. Civil Judge, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(f) That respondent is a 40 years old tenant and is the only male member to take care of his family and he has no support from any corner. If the present eviction petitioner is allowed, he would suffer irreparable loss and would not have any business to look after his family.
4. Reply to application for leave to defend was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has denied the allegations of the respondent and has reiterated the same facts as averred in the petition.
5. The respondent has filed rejoinder and allegations leveled by the petitioner have been controverted and rebutted. The averments made in application for leave to defend have been reiterated and reaffirmed.
6. The undersigned has heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. Ld. counsel for respondent has relied upon Aggarwal Papers Vs. Mukesh Kumar Decd. Thr. LRs, 194 (2012) DLT 605.
7. The essential ingredients which a landlord/ petitioner is required to prove for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide needs are (i) the petitioner is the owner/ landlord of the suit premises (ii) the suit premises are required bona fide by E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 7/19 the landlord for himself or any of his family members dependent upon him (iii) the landlord or such other family members has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
Ownership as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship :-
8. In the affidavit of leave to defend filed by the respondent, the respondent has admitted that the subject premises is a tenanted premises since 1980 and earlier the father of the respondent was the tenant and after the death of father of the respondent, the respondent became the tenant. It is also stated in the leave to defend that the respondent is a 40 years old tenant in the premises. It is further stated that the father of respondent had taken the suit property from the father of the petitioner somewhere in 1980s on "Pagri". In regard to his ownership, petitioner has averred in the petition that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of entire shop on the Ground Floor bearing no. 5648, situated at Ward No. VI, Kothi Haji Ali Jan, Nai Sadak, Delhi-110006. Earlier, the petitioner was the joint owner of the tenanted premises alongwith his brother Mohd. Mousab, however as per family settlement and partition, the said tenanted premises fell into the exclusive share and ownership of the petitioner by virtue of registered Partition Deed dated 05.06.2016 duly registered as Doc. No. 5500, in Book No. 1, Vol. No. 2653, on pages 112 to 119. The said tenanted premises has also been duly mutated in the name of the petitioner in the House Tax record of the North Delhi Municipal Corporation.
E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 8/19
9. It is thus stated that the petitioner and his brother Mohd. Mousab were earlier the joint owners of the property in question, however as per the Family Settlement and partition, the shop in question i.e. tenanted premises fell to the exclusive share and ownership of the petitioner. The petitioner has also placed on record the copies of rent receipts in Urdu/English as regards the tenanted premises stated to be signed by the respondent/tenant.
10. Upon perusal of the record and submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it is revealed that the averments made by the petitioner in the petition regarding the ownership and landlordship have not been denied by the respondent. Though, the rent receipts placed on record by the petitioner have been objected to by the respondent in the leave to defend stating that same are in Urdu language and not legible, however, at the same time, the respondent has admitted being tenant in the said premises and has nowhere denied the landlordship of the petitioner to the premises. Hence, there is clear admission of tenancy by the respondent. As regards the averment of respondent that the tenanted premises were taken on Pagri by father of respondent from father of petitioner, same has been specifically denied in the reply to the leave to defend. No document or receipt whatsoever has been placed on record by the respondent to substantiate his averment regarding property being taken on Pagri or its consequences thereof.
11. As discussed above, the respondent has admitted tenancy under the petitioner. The landlord is only required to establish that he/she has some more rights in the property in E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 9/19 question vis-a-vis the tenant. Once the respondent has admitted their tenancy under the petitioner, as discussed above, he is estopped from challenging the title of the petitioner. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, wherein it was 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".
12. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. 155 (2008) DLT 383, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that "landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than tenant."
13. The petitioner has specifically pleaded in the petition that though earlier his brother Mohd. Mousab was the joint E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 10/19 owner of the shop in question, however, vide the Family Settlement and partition, the tenanted premises. i.e. the shop came into the exclusive ownership of the petitioner. It is trite law that once the tenant has admitted the tenancy under the petitioner, it does not lie with the tenant to dispute the factum of any such family settlement or partition between the petitioner and his family members. Only the family members of the petitioner can raise dispute regarding the same. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is considered that Mohd. Mousab is also co-owner, it is admitted position of law that one co-sharer/ co- owner can file eviction petition against the tenants, reliance being placed upon the judgment in case titled as M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & Ors. Vs. Bhagabandel Agarwalla (dead) by LRs & Ors., AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1321 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed inspite of their disagreement.
14. In view of the same, the Court holds that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises and he is the landlord in respect of the tenanted premises, qua the respondent.
E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 11/19 Non-availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in Delhi
15. The respondent has averred that petitioner has sufficient accommodation available with him to fulfill his requirement. It is averred that following properties are in possession of the petitioner:
(a) Property bearing no. 5649 (half portion), on ground floor, Ward no. VI, Kothi Haji Ali Jan, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006.
(b) Entire second floor of property bearing no.
5647.
Moreover, it is averred that petitioner has deliberately not given the complete and true description of the properties available with him.
16. However, as regards the property at S. No. (a), the petitioner has himself disclosed in the petition itself that the half portion of shop bearing no. 5649 is the shop from which he is carrying out his own business which in itself is quite inadequate and insufficient and also inconveniently located on the backside of the main road and not visible from the main gali Katra Anup Singh. It has been specifically pleaded in the petition that the said shop is not sufficient for both the petitioner and his son as the son for whose bonafide need, the present petition is filed, wants to carry out his separate business of readymade garments from the tenanted shop. Thus, in these facts and circumstances, the shop of the petitioner cannot be stated to be suitable alternative accommodation available to the petitioner for E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 12/19 bonafide requirement of separate shop for the major son of the petitioner.
17. As regards the premises at S. No. (b) i.e. Entire second floor of property bearing no. 5647, in the same premises, it has been specifically pleaded in the petition that same is under an old tenant and thus not available to the petitioner. Alongwith the reply to the leave to defend, the petitioner has also placed on record, copy of registered lease deed qua the said premises no. 5647, Second Floor, Kothi Haji Ali Jan, Ward No. VI, Nai Sarak, Delhi dated 03.09.2016 wherein the premises has been leased out to one Kapil Magnani for a period of nine years. Thus, the said second floor of the premises cannot be stated to be vacant or available to the petitioner.
18. Even if for the sake of arguments, the second floor of premises no. 5647 is considered as alternative accommodation, the requirement of the son of the petitioner is for opening a readymade garment shop and he cannot be compelled to open the same on the second floor when the tenanted premises on the ground floor can be available to him. Furthermore, the premises at ground floor is most suitable for running business activities as compared to upper floors, or basement. Reliance placed upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Udai Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari, (2010) 1 SCC 503 and Dhanna Lal Vs. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16 wherein it was held that it is in common knowledge that commercial premises have different value depending upon the location and the floor at which they are situated and shops E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 13/19 situated at an inconvenient location do not attract customers and no lucrative business can be carried on therefrom as from a shop located strategically. Thus, the accommodation available to the petitioner at second floor of the property cannot be stated to be suitable alternative accommodation for the bonafide requirement of running garment shop.
19. It is also averred in the leave to defend that petitioner has referred to various portions of the property in various colours in the site plan, but the same site plan sent by the petitioner is black and white and unclear. However, perusal of the site plan filed by the petitioner reveals that even though the separate colours of various premises except the tenanted premises marked in red have not been marked, however the numbers of the different premises have been clearly indicated in the different portions in the site plan and there is no ambiguity in this regard in the site plan. Furthermore, respondent did not file any rival site plan to dispute the site plan filed by the petitioner. It is trite law that if no site plan is filed by tenant, the site plan filed by the landlord is deemed to be correct. Reliance placed upon V.S. Sachdeva Vs. M.L. Grover 1997 (2) RCR 302 and Rishal Singh Vs. Bohat Ram & Ors. 2014 (144) DRJ 633.
20. Regarding the averment of petitioner deliberately not giving the complete and true description of the properties available with him, the same has only remained a bald averment as respondent did not specify or mention any other vacant accommodation available to the petitioner. No document has been placed on record to show any vacant accommodation in the E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 14/19 ownership or control of the petitioner. Thus this averment of alternative vacant accommodation is not tenable. Reliance being placed upon judgment delivered in case titled as Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, (supra) wherein it has been clearly held that:
"A tenant who alleges that landlord has at his disposal other accommodation has to place before the Ld. ARC some material to show that the landlord has a specific alternative accommodation at his disposal. Mere bald allegation with respect to availability of additional accommodation with the petitioner does not hold any basis and cannot be a basis to deny the petitioner of his right to vacate the tenanted premises for his bonafide requirement".
21. In view of the above-stated discussions, it can be safely held that the petitioner does not have any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in Delhi for the shop of son of the petitioner, except the tenanted premises.
Bonafide Requirement
22. The averment of the respondent in the leave to defend is that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner with ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the respondent and that the alleged requirement of the petitioner is only fanciful desire and not bonafide need. It is further stated that the present case is not of bonafide requirement but of additional requirement.
23. However, these averments in the leave to defend of the respondent are also not tenable. As already discussed above, the petitioner has specifically pleaded in the petition that the bonafide requirement is for his son to open a separate and E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 15/19 independent shop of readymade garments and the existing shop of the petitioner is not sufficient for said purpose. Thus, other than a bald averment that the requirement of the petitioner is only fanciful desire, no averment or argument has been made on behalf of the respondent to support said submission. The requirement of a father to settle his young son in independent business cannot be stated to be a mere desire. In this regard, the requirement of son of the petitioner for carrying out his own business separate from that of his father, renders the averment of the respondent regarding present case being that of additional requirement, as meritless.
24. Furthermore, it is settled law that the petitioner cannot be dictated terms by the respondent when it comes to the bonafide necessity. Landlord is the best judge of its requirement. The same ratio has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prativa Devi Vs. T.V. Krishnan, (supra).
25. Furthermore, the requirement of landlord is to be presumed bonafide as held in following cases :-
(i) In Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash, 167 (2010) DLT 80 = 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252, observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, VIII (2005) 12 SCC 778, have been quoted as under :-
"It was held that the legislative intent is of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of tenant filed on the ground of requirement by the landlord of the premises for his own occupation; a special category of landlords requiring the premises for their own use has been created; if there is any E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 16/19 breach by the landlord, the tenant is given a right of restoration of possession; the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only. It was held that these restrictions and conditions inculcate inbuilt strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the landlord make it virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant, unless his need is bonafide - no unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the landlord would approach the Court his requirements shall be presumed to be genuine and bonafide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine. The tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine."
(ii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde, (1999) 4 SCC 1 held that the phrase "reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord" is not to be tested on par with "dire need" of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need. Similarly, in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 it was held that the word "reasonable" connotes that the requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a "compelling" or "absolute" or "dire necessity". A reasonable and bonafide requirement was held to be something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other hand.
E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 17/19 Hardship of tenant is no consideration
26. The contention of the respondent is that the respondent is a 40 years old tenant and is the only male member to take care of his family and he has no support from any corner. If the present eviction petitioner is allowed, he would suffer irreparable loss and would not have any business to look after his family. However, this argument is not tenable as it is also settled law that the hardship, the petitioner would suffer by not occupying their own premises would be far greater than the hardship the respondent would suffer by having to move out to another place. Whenever the tenant is asked to move out of the premises some hardship is inherent. Hence, this would be hardship of tenant is no consideration. The same has been upheld in case titled as Mohd. Ayub Vs. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC
155.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has proved all the necessary ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
28. Accordingly, the application under Section 25-B (4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, filed by the respondent is dismissed. The petition is allowed and an eviction order is passed U/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of tenanted premises i.e. One shop bearing no. 5648, Ground Floor, Ward No. VI, Kothi Haji Ali Jan, Nai Sadak, Delhi-110006 admeasuring 9' x 7' as shown E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 18/19 in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/s 14 (7) of DRC Act. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to record room after due
compliance. Digitally
signed by
MRIDUL
MRIDUL GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2023.01.17
15:16:16
+0530
Announced in the open court (MRIDUL GUPTA)
on 17.01.2023 Administrative Civil Judge-cum-
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi
E248/2021 Mohd. Imran Vs. Shiva Sharma 19/19