Delhi District Court
Kanchan Kumar vs Roshan Lal on 29 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. TARUNPREET KAUR
ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC
SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
RC ARC 15/18
KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL
1. Smt. Kanchan Kumar
W/o Sh. Pramod Kumar
R/o 4/4, Kalkaji Extension,
New Delhi-110019
2. Mrs. Shilpa
W/o Sh. Vinod Kumar
R/o 3/3, Kalkaji Extension,
New Delhi-110019
Through Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Pramod Kumar
S/o Sh. Pratap Chand Rastogi
R/o 4/4, Kalkaji Extension,
New Delhi-110019
...........petitioners
versus
1. Sh. Roshan Lal (Since Deceased)
Shop Roshan Store,
K/1, Lajpat Nagar II,
New Delhi-110024
Through legal representatives :
i. Tajinder Kumar
R/o Block 1, H.No. 63, Nehru Nagar, Srinivaspuri,
South Delhi-110065
Also at : Shop No. K/1, Shop Roshan Store,
Lajpat Nagar II,
New Delhi-110024
RC ARC 15/18
KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 1 of 32
Digitally signed
Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet
kaur
kaur Date: 2026.04.29
16:30:23 +0530
ii. Jagdish Kumar
R/o Block 1, H.No. 63, Nehru Nagar, Srinivaspuri,
South Delhi-110065
Also at : Shop No. K/1, Shop Roshan Store,
Lajpat Nagar II,
New Delhi-110024
iii. Inder Pal Chug
R/o Block 1, H.No. 63, Nehru Nagar, Srinivaspuri,
South Delhi-110065
Also at : Shop No. K/1, Shop Roshan Store,
Lajpat Nagar II,
New Delhi-110024
iv. Neelam
W/o Jagdish Chander
R/o 136/1, 6, Krishna Nagar, Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029
Also at : Shop No. K/1, Shop Roshan Store,
Lajpat Nagar II,
New Delhi-110024
...........respondents
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION
14(1)(e) READ WITH SECTION 25B OF DELHI RENT
CONTROL ACT, 1958
Date of Institution : 22.02.2018
Decision : Allowed
Date of Decision : 29.04.2026
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC") wherein, the petitioner had RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 2 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:30:28 +0530 sought eviction of respondent Late Sh. Roshan Lal (since deceased), who is now being represented through his legal heirs/successor-in-interest namely, Sh. Tajinder Kumar, Sh. Jagdish Kumar, Sh. Inder Pal Chug and Smt. Neelam from property bearing Ref. ID 101098209050, i.e., shop admeasuring 121 sq. ft. (approx.), at Plot No. K-1, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024, as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted/suit property/premises").
Case of the Petitioner
2. The petitioners have filed the present petition through their Power of Attorney Holder Sh. Pramod Kumar, duly authorized in this regard vide POA dated 20.03.2017. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent had been inducted as tenant at the suit property by the erstwhile owner at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- and no rent agreement had been executed between the parties. It has been further averred that the petitioners became owners of the suit property in the year 2012 by way of registered Sale Deed dated 15.11.2012, executed in their favour by erstwhile owner Smt. Meera Batra. Further, there are five tenants in all at the property in question, which is a composite unit admeasuring 300 sq. yards, and the petitioners have filed five separate petitions to seek their eviction.
3. It has been averred that the suit property, which was constructed way back in 1960s, is in a dilapidated condition and it is not in conformity with the building bye-laws. Further, the remaining part of the property in question is in possession of the RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 3 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:30:32 +0530 petitioners. It has been further averred that the respondent has caused substantial damage to the suit property by carrying out illegal alterations thereat and the same has caused damage to its walls and flooring. It has been further averred that the petitioners require the suit property as they seek to open a café and restaurant at the ground floor of the entire property in question, in order to cater to their growing financial needs. It has been added further that, as per the exiting bye-laws, provision for stilt parking and a hall would have to be made and running the restaurant/café at the existing structure would not be permissible. It has been further averred that the petitioners do not have any other property on a commercial road to be suitable for the aforesaid purpose and they could not afford to start the aforesaid work at a rented place.
4. It has been averred that the requirement of petitioners, to have their business of restaurant and café, is bona fide and genuine and they do not have any other reasonably suitable premises, particularly in central market area of Lajpat Nagar, which is a hub of restaurants.
5. With the above-stated averments, it has been prayed by the petitioners that respondent be evicted from the suit property. It is pertinent to note that the respondent had expired during the pendency of proceedings in the present matter and vide order dated 14.05.2024, his legal heirs had been impleaded as parties. Further, on behalf of said legal heirs, the present matter is being pursued by Sh. Tajinder Kumar.
RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 4 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:30:36 +0530 Written Statement
6. After the application seeking leave to defend had been allowed, written statement had been filed on behalf of the respondent, wherein it has been stated that the present case does not pertain to bona fide requirement of petitioners as it has been averred in the petition itself that the petitioners seek to demolish the entire structure at the property in question as the same is in dilapidated condition and they seek to reconstruct and re-built the entire plot. Thus, the present petition rather falls within ambit of section 14 (1)(f) and (g) DRC Act. It has been added further that, in view of these facts, the need of petitioners is not genuine and they are trying to get eviction of respondent under section 14 (1)(e) DRC. It has been further stated that, after evicting the respondent, the petitioners are intending to reconstruct the entire property in question upto third floor, through a builder, and the same is evident from the Power of Attorney filed by the petitioners. It has been added further that, after raising fresh construction at the suit property, petitioners seek to sell out the same at a higher price or they would let out the same at a higher rent and thereby have monetary gain.
7. It has been further stated that the petitioners have made contradictory averments, as they have pleaded that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition and the construction thereat is old, and the same attracts provision of section 14(1)(f) DRC Act. It has been further stated that, in case eviction order against the respondent is passed under section 14(1)(e) DRC, he would not be left with any remedy under section 19 DRC.
RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 5 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:30:40 +0530
8. It has been further stated that the petitioners have filed an incorrect site plan wherein, the dimensions of the suit property have not been mentioned correctly and they have not shown the construction at remaining portion of the property in question, admeasuring 214 sq. yards, which is admittedly in their possession. The correct site plan, showing suit property in red colour, the remaining portion of property in question in green colour and the construction at said remaining portion in yellow colour, has been filed on behalf of the respondent. It has been further stated that the petitioners have intentionally concealed the construction of 5 rooms, WC, bathroom and kitchen at the remaining portion of property in question which is in their absolute possession and the said portion is ample and sufficient space/accommodation for the petitioners to run the business as alleged by them. It has been further stated that the said remaining portion is situated at commercial road which is 45 ft. wide.
9. It has been further stated that the present petition filed by the petitioners through their Power of Attorney holder (who is husband of petitioner no.1 and brother-in-law of petitioner no.2) is not maintainable as a Power of Attorney holder, being an agent, cannot depose about the bona fide requirement of his principal. It has been added further that, for petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC, bona fide requirement is to be established by the petitioner himself/herself- who has a personal knowledge about it. Further, Power of Attorney clearly shows that the petitioners have already entered into a Collaboration Agreement with a builder to reconstruct/rebuilt the entire property in question, upto third floor and that they intend to sell out all the floors falling into their RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 6 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:30:45 +0530 share, after giving out the share of the builder. It has been further stated that the petitioners have deliberately concealed about construction of other floors as per their collaboration agreement and they have only mentioned in the petition about constructing ground floor with stilt parking. Further, the petitioners have not mentioned in their Power of Attorney, about their intention to open restaurant or café at the property in question.
10. Further, the petitioners are having various businesses and earnings to support themselves and their family's financial needs. Besides that, they are having the following properties at their disposal :-
i) A medical agency by name of "Lucknow Medical Agencies", being run at Basement and First Floor of premises bearing no. L-37, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-
110024. The husband of petitioner no.2 Sh. Vinod Kumar is a partner in the said firm.
ii) Factory by name of Grandeur, being run at C-158, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. This business is being controlled by the petitioners.
iii) Medicine business being run at basement of property bearing no. 4/12, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. This property and business are being owned husband of petitioner no.1, who is Power of Attorney holder in the present matter.
iv) A school by name of Ashoka Memorial School, at Ashok Enclave, Faridabad, Haryana, being run by husband of petitioner no.1.
RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 7 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:30:49 +0530 v) A basement admeasuring 200 sq. yards, at B-25, Lajpat
Nagar-III, New Delhi, is lying vacant and the same is owned by husband of petitioners.
11. Lastly, the petitioners are neither owners of the suit property nor are they landlords of the respondent. The respondent never recognized petitioners as his landlord.
12. Thus, in addition to denying the averments raised by the petitioners through the present petition, the above-mentioned grounds have been put forth on behalf of the respondent to seek dismissal of the present petition.
Replication
13. Replication had been filed on behalf of the petitioners wherein, the contentions raised by respondent through the written statement have been denied and the averments as made in the petition have been reiterated.
Petitioner's Evidence
14. In support of their case, petitioners got their Power of Attorney holder, Sh. Pramod Kumar, examined as PW-2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW-2 and reiterated and reaffirmed the averments stated in the present petition on oath. Also, he relied upon certain documents which are as following :-
(i) Site Plan of the suit property, Ex.PW-2/1.
(ii) Property tax receipt, Mark A.
(iii) Copy of legal notice dated 03.12.2017, alongwith original RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 8 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:30:53 +0530 postal receipts, Ex. PW-2/2 (Colly).
(iv) Reply dated 15.01.2018, to legal notice, Ex. PW-2/3.
(v) Copy of Power of Attorney in his favour, Ex. PW-2/4 (OSR).
(vi) Copy of Sale Deed dated 15.11.2012, Ex.PW-2/5 (OSR).
(vii) Copy of partnership deed of Lucknow Medical Agency, Ex.PW2/6 (OSR).
(viii) Copy of lease agreement with respect to basement floor, L-37, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, Mark-B.
(ix) Copy of registered lease deed with respect to 1st floor of L-37, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi, Mark-C.
(x) Copy of master data of Grandeur Interiors Pvt. Ltd., Mark-
D.
(xi) Copy of agreement to sell dated 14.11.2000 with respect to 3/12, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi, Ex.PW-2/7 (OSR).
(xii) Copy of printout taken from Ashok Memorial Public School, Mark-E. PW-2 was duly cross examined by the Learned counsel for the respondent.
15. The petitioners also summoned and gotten examined an architect (namely, Sh. Harsh Sharma) as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1 and he relied upon documents i.e., Copy of certificate issued by Council of Architecture, Ex.PW1/1 (OSR) and copy of empanelment in MCD, Ex.PW-1/2. PW-1 too, was duly cross examined on behalf of the respondent.
RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 9 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:30:58 +0530
16. Further, Ms. Anju, Senior Assistant, Sub-Registrar, Mehrauli, New Delhi, was examined as PW-3, who brought the record pertaining to registered Sale Deed dated 15.11.2012, Ex.PW-3/A (OSR).
17. Thereafter, no further witness was examined on behalf of the petitioners and accordingly, PE was closed.
Respondent's Evidence
18. In support of their case, legal heir/son of respondent, Sh.
Tajinder Kumar, got himself examined as RW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and he reiterated and reaffirmed the averments mentioned in the Written Statement, on oath. Further, he relied upon the following documents :-
(i) Site plan of suit property, Ex. RW-1/1.
(ii) Copy of Bakery and confectionary products license issued by MCD, Ex.RW-1/2 (OSR).
(iii) Copy of receipt dated 05.05.2017, Mark A (Colly).
(iv) Copy of one-time parking receipt dated 31.08.2010, Ex.RW-1/4 (OSR).
(v) Copy of conversation charges receipt dated 13.06.2017, Ex.RW-1/5 (OSR).
(vi) Copy of rent deposit challan upto 30.06.2017, Ex.RW-1/6 (OSR).
(vii) Copies of rent deposit challans, Ex.RW-1/7 (Colly).
(viii) Copy of receipt dated 05.05.2017, Mark B.
(ix) Copy of legal notice dated 03.12.2017, Mark C.
(x) Reply dated 15.01.2018, Ex.RW-1/9.
(xi) Postal receipt dated 15.01.2018, Ex.RW-1/10.RC ARC 15/18
KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 10 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:04 +0530 RW-1 was duly cross examined by the Learned counsel for the petitioners.
19. Sh. Ashok Puri, the photographer who had taken photographs of the suit property, Ex.RW2/1 (Colly), which have been relied upon by the respondent, was summoned and examined as RW-2. Further, Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Engineer Architect, who had inspected the suit property was examined as RW-3. He filed the inspection report Ex.RW-3/1. Both of these witnesses had been duly cross examined on behalf of the petitioners.
20. Thereafter, no further witness was examined by the respondents and accordingly, RE was closed.
Final Arguments
21. Final arguments addressed on behalf of both the parties have been heard at length and the record has been perused. It was submitted by Ms. Sanyukta Gupta, Learned counsel for petitioners that the respondent denied ownership of petitioners in the written statement however, there is admission in cross examination as to payment of rent and that the petitioner are owners of the suit property. She further submitted that the contention of respondent is that the petitioners own six alternate properties, however, in their cross examination, it could not be established on behalf of the respondent that as to how the said properties are owned by the petitioners. She further submitted that the factory namely, Grandeur is a company and it has eight RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 11 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:09 +0530 directors. She added further that the said property has been stated by respondent to belong to petitioners however, the master data of the same does not reflect names of petitioners and there is no document to show that the petitioners own the same.
21.1 She further submitted that the basement property at Kalkaji does not even exist and a random property number has been stated by respondent to contend that the petitioners own the same. She further submitted that website printout of Ashok Memorial School has been placed on record and no person stated in it is related to the petitioners. She further submitted that the basement at Lajpat Nagar has been stated in written statement to be vacant however, in cross examination, it was deposed on behalf of the respondent that a medical store is being run from there and it was also admitted that the same is not in name of the petitioners. She further submitted that the properties that have been cited as alternate accommodation by the respondent, nothing has been stated as to if the said properties are commercial or residential and as to how they are having any relation with the petitioners.
21.2 She further submitted that the petitioners are two senior citizen ladies, who are housewives and the property in question is the only commercial property owned by them. She added further that the said property is in a dilapidated condition since the year 1972 and the same had never been renovated. She added further that the petitioners are only seeking to have a source of living from the said property. She further submitted RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 12 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:14 +0530 that the respondent summoned an architect in their evidence and the said architect had not done any technical inspection of the suit property.
22. On the other hand, it was submitted by Sh. Satyendra Kumar, Learned counsel for the respondent that the property in question had been sold to the petitioners in the year 2012, by its erstwhile owner Smt. Meera Batra and the petitioners are the third purchasers of the same. He added further that the petitioners are in possession of remaining portion of property in question, which forms a considerable part of it. He further submitted that the petitioners are seeking to open a café at the complete ground floor of the property in question and the space of suit property is required by them for parking. He further submitted that the petitioners have given power of attorney in favour of husband of petitioner no.1 and the said power has been given to reconstruct the property in question. He further submitted that the petitioners have concealed from the court that they have already entered into a collaboration agreement for raising construction at the suit property. He added further that the interest of petitioners is not regarding any bona fide requirement and they are rather desirous of constructing new shops.
22.1 He further submitted that, in the site plan, the petitioners have not shown that there is construction at the remaining portion of the property in question. He added further that the respondent has brought on record his site plan which is Ex.PW-1/R1, which reflects five rooms constructed at the remaining portion. He RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 13 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:18 +0530 further submitted that the bona fide requirement is to be established by the petitioners as the site plan filed by respondent shows that the petitioners are having sufficient space at the remaining portion of property in question. He further submitted that the petitioners have not even proved their site plan, which is an unsigned document.
22.2 He further submitted that the SPA holder for petitioners had been examined to prove the bona fide requirement, and he had replied to almost all the question put to him in cross examination, in denial and he has no knowledge about the property in question. He added further that no reason has been stated by the petitioners as to why they have not pursued the present matter personally and why they have not appeared before the court. He further submitted that the collaboration agreement has been admitted by SPA holder for petitioners, in his cross examination and the intention of the petitioners to construct the property in question uptil third floor and then to give it on rent, is clear. He further submitted that the Power of Attorney of petitioners does not disclose about opening any café or restaurant at the property in question. He further submitted that since 2012, the remaining portion of property in question is lying vacant and the same has not been used by the petitioners for any purpose and this shows that their requirement is not genuine. He further submitted that mere desire of petitioners to get the respondent evicted from the suit property could not be considered to be bona fide requirement.
RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 14 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:22 +0530 22.3 He further submitted that there is concealment at part
of the petitioners. He further submitted that there is a specific provision for eviction on ground of reconstruction i.e., section 14(1)(g) DRC however, the petitioners have pursued the summary procedure provided for petition under section 14(1)
(e).
23. In rebuttal, it was submitted by counsel for petitioners that the property in question, including the suit property, is required to be reconstructed as the same is in a very bad and dilapidated condition and the bona fide requirement of petitioners could not be doubted for this reason. She added further that, as per MCD byelaws, stilt parking is required for opening a café at the property in question and that could not be done at the remaining 80% of the property in question which is in possession of the petitioners. She added further that, for that purpose, suit property is required by the petitioners. With respect to pursuing of present matter by SPA holder for the petitioners, she submitted that the legal heirs of respondents have come before the court to pursue the matter on behalf of other legal heirs and no NOC of the said other legal heirs have been filed on record. She further submitted that, when on particular legal heir of respondent could pursue the matter on behalf of the other legal heirs, why could the petitioners not do the same. She further submitted that there is no bar on pursuing a petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC by a power of attorney holder. She further submitted that the respondents/their legal heirs have made changes in the suit property even after filing of the present RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 15 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:26 +0530 petition. She concluded her submissions by stating that the purpose is not only to reconstruct the suit property and the requirement is to have a source of living from it by opening a café/restaurant.
24. Authorities have been relied upon on behalf of both the parties and the same have been perused. Besides that, submissions in writing filed on behalf of the respondent have also been perused.
Bona Fide Requirement
25. The present petition for eviction has been filed under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958, which after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Satyawati Sharma Versus Union of India", on 16.04.2008 reads as under :-
14.(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 any court or 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 the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
***
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation :
26. Thus, to establish his case under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, the petitioner is required to prove the following ingredients:RC ARC 15/18
KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 16 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date:
2026.04.29 16:31:31 +0530
(i) That he is the owner of the tenanted shop and there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent.
(ii) That tenanted shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
(iii) That the petitioner does not have any other alternate, reasonable and suitable accommodation.
In light of defence taken by the respondent, it shall now be examined as to whether the petitioner has been successful in establishing the above stated ingredients.
Ownership and Landlord-Tenant Relationship Between the Parties
27. With respect to ownership of petitioners to the suit property and landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, there are no reservations in saying that both the aforesaid factors are duly admitted at part of the respondent and there is no dispute regarding the same. At the same time, the sequence adopted by the respondent to present his version with respect to these factors is also relevant to be discussed. In his application seeking leave to defend, respondent had denied the ownership of petitioners to the suit property as well as the landlord-tenant relationship between them. It is further relevant to state that, vide order dated 05.08.2020, the application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of respondent had been allowed nevertheless, it was held that there is no triable issue in the present matter with respect to ownership of petitioners to the suit property and landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The said finding was never challenged by the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent again RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 17 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:35 +0530 denied these factors, albeit in a very evasive manner, in his written statement and eventually, legal heir of respondent, though his testimony as RW-1 duly admitted the factors under discussion in his cross examination.
28. Thus, in view of material available on record, evidence led and the above discussion, it has been established by the petitioners that they are the owners of the suit property and also that, there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the respondent.
Bona Fide Requirement
29. Respondent has disputed the bona fide requirement of the petitioners by contending that the actual intention of petitioners is to get them evicted, raise a fresh construction at the property in question uptil third floor and then, to sell of the same at higher price or to give them away on a higher rate of rent. It has been further contended that the said intention of petitioners is evident from the fact that the petitioners' own version is that they seek to raise fresh construction at the property in question and that they have admittedly, already entered into a collaboration agreement with respect to the same. It is also the version of the respondent that the petitioners are already having several businesses to cater to their financial needs and their alleged requirement of opening café/restaurant at the property in question is not genuine.
30. Per contra, the version of the petitioners is that they are required to raise new construction at the entire property in question, including the suit property space, as the construction at RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 18 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:40 +0530 the same is old, in a dilapidated condition, dating back to year 1959-60. It has also been averred that no renovation was ever carried out at the suit property since the date of its construction.
31. In order to prove this contention, that the suit property is not in dilapidated condition and it is not required to be demolished, suggestions were given on behalf of the respondent, to PW-2 in his cross examination that- "It is also incorrect to suggest that the suit shop still exist in the same condition as it was taken on rent." and, "It is incorrect to suggest that the suit shop is not in dilapidated condition and is having enough strength in the walls and roof of the said shops and adjust in the same condition when it was taken by the respondent on rent." There has been no denial at part of the respondent to the contention that no renovation was ever carried out at the suit property since the date of its construction in the year 1959-60. Thus, by putting the aforesaid suggestion, the respondent is seeking to serve a version that the suit property is in the same condition as it was at the date when the same was given on rent to him in the year 1960? Indeed, this version could not be held to hold substance as a property with around 75-year-old construction could not reasonably be said to be in same condition as it was at the date when the construction was new.
32. Further, to establish that the suit property is in a good condition, respondent summoned an engineer/architect, namely, Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, and got him examined as RW-3. In his cross examination, RW-3 deposed that he is only an engineer, and he does not have any degree of architect. He further deposed that RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 19 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:45 +0530 the construction at the suit property is old and he could not tell as to how old the same is. He further deposed that the shops in question could stand for another 10-15 years whereas, the rear portion of the property in question could also stand for the same period but with minor repairs. He further deposed that the premises in question have not been constructed as per bye-laws of MCD and looking at its condition, it is apparent that the structure is at least 35-40 years old. He further deposed that he recommends changes in the property in question as per its condition and that he has no evidence to support the fact that the shop in question is structurally sound and in a good condition, with no visible cracks and signs of structural distress. He further deposed that he had only done a visible inspection of the suit premises and no instrument had been used to conduct the inspection.
33. The testimony of RW-3 does not suggest that the condition of suit property as stated by him, could be taken as a report of an expert. Further, the respondent could not establish by way of cross examination of PW-1 that the suit property is not in a dilapidated condition. Besides that, it belies reason that a property constructed in 1959-60 could be believed, by any stretch of imagination, to remain in the same fit condition as it was at the time of its construction.
33.1 Now, even if it is assumed that the suit property is in a perfect condition and the same is not required to be demolished, it would be wrong to say that the petitioners could be expected to open a café at the property in question in the same condition as RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 20 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:49 +0530 it is. To start a new café, indeed, a fresh construction, keeping in account the requirement and the bye-laws, would have to be raised. Further, the bona fide requirement of the petitioners could not be questioned and doubted for the reason that they seek to raise a fresh construction after eviction of respondent from the suit property, which admittedly, is an old construction.
34. It has further been contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioners have already entered into a collaboration agreement with a builder for raising construction at the property in question and that their Power of Attorney clearly reflects that the petitioners are intending to raise construction uptil three floors and then they would either sell out the property or they would give it on rent and would thereby, have monetary gain. RW-1 had been asked in his cross examination if he could specify or show any document which could reflect that the petitioner would sell the entire property after getting it reconstructed as pre MCD laws, and RW-1 had replied that the petitioners have written that they would make a café or restaurant thereat.
35. As per the petitioners, they both are senior citizens, and they require the suit property so that they could raise construction at the entire ground floor of the property in question, with a stilt parking, and thereby, have a source of living and have income to cater to their financial needs. On the other hand, it has merely been contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioners are having several businesses and they are not in need of any financial source, however, no material whatsoever, has been RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 21 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:54 +0530 brought on record to prove this version. The respondent miserably failed to prove by way of cross examination of PW-1 or by leading own evidence that the petitioners are having several businesses or that they are in no need to have a source of income. Further, RW-1 deposed about partnership business of Vinod Kumar, husband of petitioner no.2, however, the same could not be considered as a conclusive finding that the petitioners are not in need of a financial source.
36. It is relevant and pertinent at this point to discuss certain authorities regarding the issue under discussion. It is the established position of law that a landlord is the best judge of his requirement. 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".RC ARC 15/18
KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 22 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:31:58 +0530 36.1 Also, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507 that "convenience and safety of landlord and his family members would be relevant."
36.2 It is also the settled law that the petitioner is not required to state the exact business which is proposed to be carried out from the tenanted premises. Further, even if the purpose is stated in the petition, petitioner is not bound by the same and can later use the premises for some other purpose. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Sunder Singh Talwar Vs. Kamal Chand Dugar, 2018 SCC Online Del 8376.
36.3 Further, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled "Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 SC 100 that-
"the crux of the ground envisages 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 Bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on presumption that requirement is not bona-fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when landlord shows a prima-facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that requirement of the landlord is bona-fide. It is often said by the Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona-fides of RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 23 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:32:02 +0530 requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
37. Thus, the tenant could not dictate as to how the landlord should be using and enjoying his property. If the landlord states that he seeks to use the tenanted premises for a particular purpose, the tenant could not question and put his own suggestions that the said premises could not reasonably be used for the purpose as sought by the landlord. Further, the respondent failed to establish that the petitioners are not in need to have a source of income, the bona fide requirement would not be questioned for the reason that there is no mention of opening café in the collaboration agreement or in the power of attorney. Also, when the requirement of the petitioner has been established, he/she could not be denied eviction on the mere assumption of the tenant that he might later rent out the property to third person or that the landlord would not use the property himself or that he would sell off the same.
38. Considering the above discussion, assessment and appreciation of evidence that has come on record, there are no reservations in saying that the petitioners have sufficiently established that they require the tenanted premises/suit property for bona fide purpose.
Availability of Alternate Reasonable Accommodation
39. The last ingredient to be discussed with respect to the provision under discussion is availability of alternate suitable accommodation with the petitioners. The respondent has stated RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 24 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:32:07 +0530 that the petitioners are having several other properties available with them, which they could utilize for their alleged requirement, and the said properties are-
i) A medical agency by name of "Lucknow Medical Agencies", being run at Basement and First Floor of premises bearing no. L-37, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi- 110024. The husband of petitioner no.2 Sh. Vinod Kumar is a partner in the said firm.
ii) Factory by name of Grandeur, being run at C-158, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi. This business is being controlled by the petitioners.
iii) Medicine business being run at basement of property bearing no. 4/12, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi. This property and business are being owned husband of petitioner no.1, who is Power of Attorney holder in the present matter.
iv) A school by name of Ashoka Memorial School, at Ashok Enclave, Faridabad, Haryana, being run by husband of petitioner no.1.
v) A basement admeasuring 200 sq. yards, at B-25, Lajpat Nagar-III, New Delhi, is lying vacant and the same is owned by husband of petitioners.
40. With respect to medical agency by name of "Lucknow Medical Agencies", situated at Lajpat Nagar, RW-1 deposed in his cross examination that the said medical agency might be related to family of petitioners. For factory by name "Grandeur", he deposed that the same is a family business of petitioners, RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 25 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:32:11 +0530 however, he could not tell as to what kind of work it deals with. He further deposed that he had no proof that family business of petitioners is being run at "Grandeur". The master data of Grandeur had been put to RW-1, and he could not specify name of any of the petitioners in it. Further, regarding, medicine business at a basement in Kalkaji as well as for Ashoka Memorial School at Faridabad, he deposed that the same are family business of the petitioners, without providing any proof or evidence on record, with respect to the same. On being shown the copy of management of the aforesaid school, he could not point out name of the petitioners therein. He further deposed that Vinod Kumar and Pramod Kumar (who are husbands of petitioners) are owners of basement at B-25, Lajpat Nagar, however, he did not have any proof to support this contention and he also deposed that he was not aware as to what kind of work is being conducted thereat. When RW-1 was asked as to if he could produce any document to show that the petitioners have any other commercial property in their name from which they are making monetary gain, he replied that he has no business except the shop in question to earn his livelihood from.
41. In this manner, the respondent could not prove that the aforementioned properties either belong to the petitioners or that they are readily available with them to cater to their requirement under question. Very vaguely, it was deposed on behalf of the respondent that family businesses are being run at the said properties, without being least aware about the work done there or having any knowledge, whatsoever, about them. One RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 26 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:32:15 +0530 of them has been stated to be partnership business of husband of one of the petitioners. How could such an accommodation be considered to be available to the petitioners, even if the contention raised by respondent is taken to be correct on the face of it? All of the aforementioned properties/accommodations, except one, are admittedly occupied and the same are not vacant. In such a case, how could the petitioners be assumed to utilize them for their requirement, even if it is believed that the same belong to the petitioners?
42. Further, it has strongly been agitated on behalf of the respondent that possession of the remaining portion of the property in question is with the petitioners and they may use the same for opening their café. It has been contended that the said portion at rear part of the property, is also located on a commercial road and it forms a considerable 80% portion of the entire property in question, thus sufficient to cater to the alleged requirement of the petitioners. Firstly, it has been discussed already that the tenant cannot tell and dictate as to how the landlord should modify his need and as to how he could use the tenanted premises when the bona fide requirement has been established. The tenant/respondent could not be allowed to say that the remaining portion is also located at a commercial road and the landlord/petitioner may modify his need as per convenience of the tenant. Secondly, contradictory versions have come on record with respect to availability of said remaining portion. At one point, it has been stated by respondent in his pleadings that the said remaining portion is lying vacant and unused since the time of its purchase by petitioners in 2012, RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 27 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:32:19 +0530 while RW-1 deposed in his cross examination that 4-5 persons are residing there.
43. It must also be appreciated that availability of "alternate accommodation" and "suitable alternate accommodation" are two different concepts. The suitability of the accommodation is to be checked as per the requirement of the landlord. There is no exaggeration in saying that the respondent has failed to bring any material on record to establish that other properties are available with the petitioners and, even if it is assumed that they have other property available with them, it must be appreciated that the tenanted premises/suit property is best suited to their requirement, as combining the remaining portion (which is in their possession) with the suit property, they could open a café/restraunt with stilt parking, as per bye-laws. Another factor to be considered is that the suit property located at the one of the famous commercial markets in Delhi, thus suitable to requirement of petitioners.
43.1 It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Metropolitan Book Company Ltd. Vs. Ajay Rastogi that-
"Even assuming other properties available, and which actually they are not as stated below, these other properties situated far from the present residence of the respondent no.1/landlord, and his family members, cannot be considered as alternative suitable accommodation."
43.2 It must also be appreciated that it has not even been averred by the respondent that the properties, list of which has RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 28 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date:
2026.04.29 16:32:23 +0530 been stated, are suitable to the requirement of petitioners, let alone providing any proof for the same.
44. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the respondent miserably failed to establish that the petitioners have any other suitable accommodation available with them for their bona fide requirement in question.
Other Arguments/Objections Raised on Behalf of the Respondent
45. It has been put forth on behalf of the respondent that the present petition filed by the petitioners through their power of attorney holder is not maintainable, as the petitioners never came forward themselves to explain, agitate and prove their bona fide requirement. During the final arguments, it had been submitted by Learned counsel for respondent that a landlord himself/herself is the best person and suitable person to tell about the bona fide requirement and the same could not be done through an agent.
45.1 It was held in case titled "Om Prakash Vs. Vaid Shyam Sunder", 1992 (1) RCJ 26, that "the law does not require that the petitioner himself must appear in Court to support his case". Further, it was held in case titled "C. Karunakaran Vs. T. Meenakshi" (2005) 13 SCC 99, that, mere non-examination of a person for whose need the building is required by itself is no ground to non-suit the landlord. In case titled "Sushila Devi & Ors. Vs. Raghunandan Pershad & RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 29 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:32:28 +0530 Ors.", 1996(1) RCR 359, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that, in case of bona fide requirement, non-examination of the landlord would be of no consequence where there are facts and circumstances available on record in support of the case of the landlord. Where the father appeared as a witness to prove the need of his son, who was practicing as a medical doctor at some other place, it was held that father's statement was sufficient and non-appearance of son as witness was not fatal. Besides that, it was held in case titled "H.T. Primlani Vs. Shanta Malhotra", 1994(2) RCR 469, that, a petition for ejectment filed by the Attorney of the owner-landlord would be taken as having been validly filed.
46. Further, it has been contended on behalf of the respondent that wrong and unsigned site plan, Ex.PW2/1, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners and the correct site plan Ex.RW-1/1, showing the construction at the remaining portion of the property in question has been filed on record by the respondent. The site plan filed by the petitioners has been put to dispute as the same does not reflect the construction at remaining portion of the property in question. From the pleadings of the parties, it emerges that there is no real dispute about the position and identity of the tenanted premises/suit property and the same has been correctly described in the petition. The prime ground for respondent to have objected to site plan is that the construction at the remaining portion at property in question has not been shown in it and the same is not relevant to be considered when there is no dispute with respect to identity of the suit property. The RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 30 of 32 Digitally signed Tarunpreet by Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:32:32 +0530 purpose of the site plan is to correctly identify the tenanted premises and the case of petitioners would not fail for the mere reason that the construction at remaining portion of property in question has not been shown in the site plan.
47. Another point of objection raised on behalf of respondent is that the petitioners should have a filed petition under section 14(1)(f) and (g) DRC as the version of the petitioners is that the suit property is in a dilapidated condition and that they seek to raise fresh construction thereat. It has been further contended that the petitioners have wrongly chosen to file the present petition under section 14 (1)(e) DRC just for the sake of having a summary procedure to evict the respondent.
47.1 Firstly, it has been sufficiently pleaded and established by petitioners that they require the tenanted premises for their bona fide requirement and, for the mere fact that the construction at property in question is old, dating back to year 1959-60, and the petitioners have clearly put forth their version that they seek to raise fresh construction thereat, does not mean that they should have filed eviction petition under other provisions of DRC Act which are applicable in cases of raising new construction. Secondly, the application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent had been allowed and now, after leading evidence, respondent could not say that any benefit of summary procedure has been availed by the petitioners.
Conclusion
48. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the RC ARC 15/18 KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 31 of 32 Digitally signed by Tarunpreet Tarunpreet kaur kaur Date: 2026.04.29 16:32:37 +0530 considered opinion that the petitioners have proved that they are owners of the tenanted premises/suit property, that there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between them and the respondent, that their requirement is bonafide and also, that they do not have any other alternate accommodation available with them for the purpose as stated.
49. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to order of eviction in their favour and against the respondent under section 14(1)(e) DRC qua the tenanted premises. Accordingly, the present petition for eviction under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B DRC filed on behalf of petitioners stands allowed. The legal heirs of respondent namely, Sh. Tajinder Kumar, Sh. Jagdish Kumar, Sh. Inder Pal Chug and Smt. Neelam are accordingly, directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e., property bearing Ref. ID 101098209050, i.e., shop admeasuring 121 sq. ft. (approx.), at Plot No. K-1, Ground Floor, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024, as shown in red colour in the site plan. The petitioners shall not file execution petition for eviction of legal heirs of respondent from the tenanted premises/suit property before expiry of period of six months from the date of this order.
50. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by Tarunpreet kaurTarunpreet Announced in open Court Date:
kaur 2026.04.29
16:32:41
on 29th of April, 2026 +0530
(TARUNPREET KAUR)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (South - East)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
RC ARC 15/18
KANCHAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. ROSHAN LAL Page No. 32 of 32