Delhi District Court
Ram Nath Saini vs Safeed Ur Rehman on 18 November, 2025
RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No. 493/2024
In the matter of:-
Ram Nath Saini
S/o Late Sh. Bishan Chand
R/o Flat No. 24, Rajdhani Nikunj
Plot No. 94, I.P. Extension, Patparganj
Near Madhu Vihar, Delhi-110092.
.................... Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Safeed Ur Rehman
S/o Haneef Ur Rehman
2. Rafiq Ur Rehman
S/o Haneef Ur Rehman
3. Nafees Ur Rehman
S/o Haneef Ur Rehman
All three R/o
677,Chandi Mahal
Darya Ganj, Delhi-110006
................ Respondents
ORDER
1. The application for eviction of tenant u/s 14(1)(e) R/w section 25(B) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 for seeking leave to contest against the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1) (e) with section 25(B) of Page no. 1 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:01:24 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "DRC Act") for seeking eviction of tenant/respondent, in respect of First floor except one room having an area of approx. 110 Sq. yards and portion of the second floor having an area of approx. 110 Sq. feet in property bearing no. 677, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, Delhi 110006 as shown in red color in site plan(s) (hereinafter referred as tenanted premises).
THE PETITION:-
2. As per the eviction petition, the case of petitioner is that subject premises was let out to the respondents in the year 2008. That no written agreement was executed, however, there was acknowledgment on the rent receipts. That the Subject premises was purchased by Sh. Bhishan Chand (father of the Petitioners herein), Sh. Hukam Chand, Sh. Hari Chand and Sh. Jai Chand S/o Chaudhary Juhttar Mal vide sale Deed dated 01.02.1965 duly registered vide document No. 4185, Addl. Book No.1, on paged 188 to 197, volume No. 3360 by Sub-Registrar Delhi. That at the time of purchase except one room on ground floor the entire ground floor and one room on the first floor of the property bearing no.677, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, Delhi 110006 was under the tenancy of Mithan Lal and after his death the legal heirs of Mithan Lal became the tenants in the aforesaid mentioned portion and the same is still in their occupancy. That Late Sh. Bishan Chand died intestate on 13.03.1993 leaving behind his Wife Tara Devi, two sons namely Sh. Ram Nath Saini Page no. 2 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:01:43 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman and Sh. Amar Nath and four daughters namely Smt. Saroj, Smt. Prabha, Smt. Panna and Smt. Rajni as his only legal heirs.
Thereafter, all the legal heirs executed a Relinquishment Deed wherein the wife of Sh. Bishan Chand and the four daughters of Bishan Chand relinquished their share in the suit property to the sons of Bishan Chand namely Ram Nath Saini (Petitioner herein) and Amar Nath Saini vide Relinquishment Deed dated 04.02.2000. That thereafter a Release Deed with consideration was executed by Sh. Jai Chand S/o Juhttar Mal for his share in the property in favour of Sh. Harichand S/o Juhtta Mal and Ram Nath S/o of Bishan Chand (Petitioner herein) vide registered document No. 2196, Additional Book No. 1, Volume No. 10228 pages 32 to 37 dated 01/05/2001 by Sub Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi.
2.1. That sometimes in the year 2008, the Respondents were inducted as tenants in First floor except one room having an area of approx. 110 Sq. yards and portion of the second floor having an area of approx. 110 Sq. feet in property bearing no.677, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, Delhi 110006 (as marked as red color in Site Plan) at a monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month. The rent receipts and the acknowledgment by the Respondents is attached with the present Petition. That as on date the Petitioner is one of the co-owners of the property vide Relinquishment Deed dated 04.02.2000 in favour of the Petitioner and his brother namely Amarnath Saini and vide Release Deed dated 04.02.2000 in favour of Petitioner and his paternal uncle namely Hari Chand.
Page no. 3 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:01:51 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman That the disputed property is bonafidely required for the use of Petitioner and his family members who are dependent on the Petitioner for residential purposes. That the family of the Petitioner consist of his wife, One daughter, who is a divorcee and her major daughter, who reside with the Petitioner. That two married daughters are happily married and lives with their husband. It is stated that at present, the Petitioner lives with his wife and one divorcee daughter and grand-daughter who are dependent on Petitioner reside at 24, Rajdhani Nikunj, Plot No 94, IP Extension-110092. That the Petitioner has one shop bearing No. 277, at Katra Peran Tilak Bazar, Delhi-110006 from where he works for gain and the same is near to the Suit property. 2.2. That the family of the Petitioners is growing a the Divorcee daughter and major granddaughter also need need private space for themselves. Therefore, it is stated that the Petitioner want to reside at the Suit property with his wife as the same is near to his shop and it would be convenient for him if the petitioner lives nearby to his workplace. At this old age it is very inconvenient for the Petitioners to do daily traveling to his workplace from his house where the Petitioner is currently residing as the sane is tit from his workplace. The Petitioner further want his daughter and granddaughter to reside at the house wherein the Petitioner and his family are currently residing to fulfill their bonafide need of privacy and personal residence. Therefore, the tenanted premise is required bonandely by the petitioner for himself and his family as he doesn't own any other Page no. 4 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.18 16:05:46 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman accommodation to live.
2.3. It is further stated that there is only one room without any bathroom or washroom on the ground floor, which is in occupancy of the brother of the Petitioner namely Amaranth Saini. That at the time of purchasing the property in the year 1965 except one room on the ground floor the entire ground floor and one room on the first floor of the property hearing no. 677, Chandni Mahal. Darva Gani. Delhi 110006 was under the tenancy of Mithan Lal and after his death the legal heirs of Mithan. Lal became the tenant in the aforesaid mentioned portion and the same is still in then occupancy. That the portion as shown in the green colour was sold out sometime in the year 1997 by the father of Petitioner. Accordingly, present petition has been filed.
THE LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION:-
3. The application for leave to defend has been filed within 15 days from date of service of summons. As per the application for leave to defend and as per the supported affidavit, the relevant facts as per the case of respondent is that the petitioners has no locus standi to file the present petition as the petitioner and the answering respondents have no relationship of landlord and tenant even the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the suit property. That there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents and the same proved by petitioner itself as the petitioner does not know Page no. 5 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:06:32 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman the name of the respondent no.1 as petitioner mentioned the name of the respondent no.1 as Safeed ur Rehman but the actual and correct name of the respondent no.1 in Saeed-ur-Rehman. That the site plan attached with the petition is false and incorrect and the petition is otherwise dismissed for want of true and correct description of the suit property.
3.1. That it is submitted that the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord qua suit property even the present answering respondents or their father never petitioner paid rent or attorned in favour of the petitioner or any other person qua the suit property. That the answering respondents also denies the validity legality and genuineness of the sale deed of the suit property, the copy which has been supplied to the answering respondent by the petitioner. That the father of the petitioner namely Sh. Hanif-ur-Rehman along with his two brothers (the uncles of the answering respondents) namely Abdul Rehman and Hafiz-ur-Rehman jointly purchased the part portion of the property bearing no. 677, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, Delhi i.e. the suit property situated on first floor and second floor and were residing in the suit property along with their family members and these facts are already in the knowledge of the petitioner as the another part portion of the property no. 677. Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj Delhi i.e. ground floor to fifth floor, recently constructed by the petitioner and the same is in under finishing and is in under finishing and in possession of the petitioner. That the electricity, meter installed in the suit property is also in name Page no. 6 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.18 16:06:40 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman of the uncle of the respondents namely Abdul Rehman. That the respondents are residing in the suit property since 1995 with their own right, title and interest, thus there is no relationship is landlord and tenant between the parties to the present eviction petition.
3.2. It is further stated that the petitioner never issued any notice or letter in respect of the ownership of the suit property never issue any demand notice in respect of the rent of the suit property co the respondents or their late father during his life time. That the rent receipts of the suit property filed by the petitioner are forged and fabricated and handwritten text as alleged the same is written by one of the respondent on the back side of the rent receipt is false and frivolous, any of the respondent never written the same text at any point of time. That the version of the petitioner that his divorcee daughter and grand daughter are residing with the petitioner is false and frivolous the annual facts are the divorcee daughter alongwith her daughter is residing in Ganesh Nagar. Shakarpur, New Delhi and the respondents are in the efforts to disclose the address of the same.
That the present petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary party because the petitioner has not include Sh. Abdul Rehman the uncle of the respondents being a necessary party in the present eviction petition. That the averments made in the petition are self-contradictory and self-destructive which clearly shows that the petitioner does not have any bonafide requirement Even otherwise all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act are Page no. 7 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:06:52 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman not made out. That without admitting claim and allegation of the petitioner, the respondent submitted that the petitioner has several other properties in Delhi including another part portion of the suit property consist on ground to floor to fifth floor recently constructed by the petitioner and the same is under the possession of the petitioner but he is concealing the same from this Hon'ble court to misuse the process of law and the respondents are doing efforts to brought the whereabouts of the other properties of the petitioner before this Hon'ble court, but now the time is short to file leave to defend as such the respondents will brought the aforesaid whereabouts of the other property before this Hon'ble Court at later stage. That without admitting the claim of the petitioner, the respondents are submitted that the shop of the petitioner as per his version is situated at Katra Peeran, Tilak Bazar, Delhi from where he work for gain and the same is too far from his residence i.e. situated I.P. Extension, Patparganj in reply to this, it is submitted that the best transportation system is in Delhi including metro, services of 24 hours of buses and auto- rickshaws and the Tilak Bazar is a thickly populated area and the petitioner will reach in the suit property from the said area in too much time than to reach Patparganj, as such it in a cooked up story that the suit property is bonafidely required to the petitioner. That the petitioner has evil eyes upon the suit property of respondents because it is adjacent with the property of the petitioner and he want to grab the suit property of the respondents with the purpose to construct the same upto fifth floor and Page no. 8 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:07:00 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman thereafter sell out the same and earned heavy profit from there with the help of local property dealers and builders. The present Petition has been Filed just to tease and torture the respondent and blackmail them and to sell out the possession of the suit property to the petitioner.
3.3. It is further stated that the respondents have a very good defence There are so many triable issues involve in the present ejectment petition. If the respondents allowed to contest the petition, the petition will be dismissed and the petitioner shall be non suited and us such the respondents are entitled to leave to contest the suit. That there is no actual and bonafide need made out by the petitioner for resident of himself or his dependents at suit premises and therefore the petition as filed is not required in law thus this desire of the petitioner is no substitute for the need as required in law and all the averments of the petition is denied.
THE REPLY:-
4. Reply to leave to defend application has been filed by the petitioner alongwith supporting affidavit wherein the allegations raised in the application for leave to defend are denied. Again averments of eviction petition are reiterated. It is prayed to dismiss the said application of the respondent and to pass the eviction order. It is submitted that the Respondent No.1 himself has told the Petitioner that his name is Safeed Ur Rehman and accordingly the rent receipts were issued under the said name. The validity and genuineness of the rent receipt is Page no. 9 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:07:09 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman proved by the fact that despite the name of Respondent No.1 was written as Safeed Ur Rehman instead of Saced Ur Rehman, the signature of Respondent No.1 on rent receipt is exactly same as on his Affidavit filed by him along with his leave to defend application. It is submitted after the passing of the judgment for Suit for specific performance with regard to the sale of the property i.e. right side of the entire first floor and second floor bearing no. 667 situated Chandni Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi - 110002, by the Court of Ajay Pandey the then Civil Judge, Delhi, registered sale deed, was registered as document no. 8414, in addl. Book No. 1, Vol No. 14338, on pages 32 to 39 on 09.09.2011 registered in office of Sub Registrar- III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi which was executed by the Court through civil nazir namely Sh. Tara Singh of the Court of Sh. Ajay Pandey the then Civil Judge, Delhi. Thus, it clearly proves that the aforesaid property is not owned by the Petitioner and therefore, the plea of the Respondents that the Petitioner has alternate accommodation has no substance and hence, the Application of the Respondent for leave to Defendant is liable to be dismissed.
ARGUMENTS :-
5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner.
Respondent failed to advance arguments despite opportunity, however, written submissions were filed on behalf of respondent. Perused the records of the case very carefully including the written submissions filed on behalf of respondent.
Page no. 10 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:07:18 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman THE LAW:-
6. The present petition for eviction is under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of DRC Act, 1958 which after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "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 :
7. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish the following ingredients:-
(I) That he is the owner of the tenanted property and there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent. (II) That tenanted property 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.
8. The facts and circumstances of the present case are being analyzed hereunder keeping in view the principle of law as Page no. 11 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:07:28 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman discussed above. However, before adverting to the appreciation of ingredients of section 14(1) (e), the contention with respect to the identification/area of the property in question is being dealt with.
Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises & Landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent :-
8.1. It is observed that in the application of leave to defend, the respondent has denied the ownership of the petitioner and has also denied the relationship of land-lord and tenant between both the parties.
8.2. On the contrary, the respondents have claimed their own ownership in the subject premises stating that father of petitioner (seems to be a typographical error) namely, Hanif-Ur Rehman alongwith his two brothers namely Abdul Rehman and Hafiz Ur Rehman had jointly purchased the part portion of the property bearing no. 677, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj Delhi i.e. the subject premises situated on first floor and second floor. That same was already in the knowledge of the petitioner, as another part portion of the said property from ground floor to fifth floor was recently constructed by the petitioner. Now, the respondent has failed to place on record even a single document in support of said plea of ownership. The respondents has filed copy of one electricity bill, allegedly issued in name of the uncle of the Page no. 12 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.18 16:07:36 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman respondent namely Abdul Rehman, however, said document is not legible / visible. Even if said document is taken into consideration, it merely establishes the possession and not the ownership. Accordingly, the said plea raised on behalf of respondent with respect to their ownership is completely baseless and seems to be an effort just to create a false ground for seeking the leave to contest the present eviction petition. 8.3. Now, on the other hand, the petitioner has placed on record the previous sale deed dt. 01.02.1965 alongwith its translated copy, which shows that entire building bearing no. 677, was sold by the previous owner to Sh. Hukhum Chand and Hari Chand, Bishan Chand, Jai Chand sons of Chaudhary Jhuttar Mal.
Again petitioner has also placed on the record the relinquishment deed and release deed dt. 04.02.2000 executed by the other successor in interest of the said purchasers and that on the basis of said relinquishment deed the petitioner alongwith his brother namely, Amar Nath became the co-owner of the property in question. Accordingly, the petitioner has placed on record sufficient material to establish his ownership in the subject premises. The law is very well settled that in the proceedings u/S 25(B) of DRC Act, the status of the ownership of the land-lord has to be more than that of the tenant. In the present case, on the one hand, the petitioner has placed on record the sale deed as well as relinquishment deed to establish his co-ownership, on the other hand the respondents have taken a vague plea with respect to their ownership without being supported by any document.
Page no. 13 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:07:44 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman Again it is also settled position of law that any co-owner can file in eviction petition against the tenant. 8.4. It is also pertinent to mention that respondents have also taken the plea that actual name of respondent no. 1 is not Safeed ur Rehman but the actual and correct name of the respondent no.1 in Saeed-ur-Rehman. In this regard, it is observed that its seems to be a bonafide misunderstanding as both the said names sound similar and moreover the signatures on the rent receipts are in the name of Saeed, which is a reliable document, as discussed below.
8.5. Regarding the relationship of land-lord and tenant between both the parties, it is observed that on the one hand the petitioner has placed on record the rent receipts issued in the name of the respondents dt 01.01.2008 on the other hand, the respondents have simply denied the said relationship claiming the said rent receipts being a forged document. As observed above, the respondents have failed to support their plea of ownership and they have further failed to explain in what capacity they were residing in the subject premises if not as a tenant. Accordingly, the version of respondents is not reliable in any manner. On the contrary, perusal of said rent receipts clearly provides that same was issued on 01.01.2008 for the period of rent of three months from January 208 to March 208 for amount of Rs. 600/- in total, as rate of rent being Rs200/- per month. Said rent receipts also bears the signature of one of the tenant and on comparison of the said signatures with the signatures of Page no. 14 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:07:51 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman respondent no. 1 on his affidavit as well as on the application for leave to defend, I am of the view that they are apparently of the same person. Accordingly, I do not find any reason too question the genuineness of the said document.
8.6. Accordingly, it is concluded that for purpose of present eviction petition, the petitioner has duly established his co-ownership in the property in question and the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties and that the respondents have failed to raise any triable issue with respect to ownership of the petitioner in the property in question and with respect to landlord and tenant relationship between both the parties.
Bonafide requirement and suitable alternate accommodation.
8.7. It has been submitted by counsel for petitioner that as mentioned in the para 18 (A) of the eviction petition and also in the reply to application for leave to defend, the petitoner requires the property in question to be vacated for residence of himself and his family. That petitioner is running a shop at Tilak Bazar and the subject premises are very near to his shop and it would be convient for him to live nearby to his workplace, as his current residence is too far from his shop. Again the petitioner also wants his divorcee daughter and major grand-daughter to reside at the said house, who are dependent upon the petitioner only. It is further submitted that petitioner has no other Page no. 15 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:07:57 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman alternative accommodation in his possession for his requirement of property in question.
8.8. On the other hand, as per the application for leave to defend and as per the written submissions, no specific denial has been made to the said requirement of the petitioner. 8.9. It is observed that the law is very well settled that the requirement of the landlord is to be presumed as genuine and in this regard, reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Abid-Ur-Islam Vs Indersen Dua dated 07.04.2022, wherein it was observed as follows :-
".........when a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that requirement of the landlord is bonafide......".
8.10. Again, it is further observed that the legal position is very well settled that it is not the tenant but the landlord himself who has to decide the suitablility of his requirement with respect to the tenanted premises. 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 Page no. 16 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:08:04 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman 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".
Again in the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC
353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
8.11. Now in view of this legal position, let me advert to the facts of the present case. It is observed that on the one hand petitioner has stated his requirement of the tenanted premises in specific terms, on the other hand the respondent has failed to deny the said requirement and only vague denial had been made. Accordingly, the presumption of bonafide requirement has to be drawn in favour of the petitioner only.
8.12. It is observed that as per the case of petitioner, he has his wife and divorcee daughter alongwith his grand-daughter, who are dependent upon the petitioner. Again the shop of the petitioner is also near to the tenanted premises. Said facts are not denied on behalf of respondent in the application of leave to defend. It is further observed that if the petitioner wants to live with comfort in his own house, same cannot be called a mere Page no. 17 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:08:11 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman wish of the petitioner and it is certainly a bonafide requirement. Again it is also settle preposition of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord in what manner he should use his own property. Accordingly, I am duly satisfied that the petitioner needs the tenanted premises in question for her bonafide requirement.
8.13. Now regarding the plea of alternate accommodation avaiable with the petitioner, it is observed that the respondent has not stated any property to be an alternate accommodate available with the petitioner. In the eviction petition, the petitioner has specifically stated that he is not having any other suitable residential accommodation as an alternate to the tenanted premises. Regarding the other portion of the building in which subject premises is situated, the petitioner has placed on record the copy of sale deed executed in favour of some other persons through the court officials in view of judgement and decree passed by the court. Accordingly, I am further satisfied that the petitioner does not have any other alternate property available with him to fulfill his requirement, as discussed above.
8.14. After analysis of the present factual situation in backdrop of the law discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent has failed to raise any triable issue in respect of bonafide need of petitioner and alternate accommodation available with the petitioner.
Page no. 18 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:08:17 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman CONCLUSION:-
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, the present petition for eviction is allowed and an application for leave to defend stands disposed of accordingly as dismissed. The Petitioner is held entitled to recover the possession of tenanted premises i.e. First floor except one room having an area of approx. 110 Sq. yards and portion of the second floor having an area of approx. 110 Sq. feet in property bearing no. 677, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, Delhi 110006 as shown in red color in site plan i.e. Mark A (Marked for sake of identification). However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
10 It is further observed that the present eviction petition was filed in the August 2024 and the was pending before the court for more than one year. As reflected from the ordersheets the delay was caused for the reasons to be assigned to both the parties, however, the fact remains that for more than one year, the petitioner was deprived of the enjoyment of his own property. It is the case where the respondent falsely denied the ownership of the petitioner and relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties. Accordingly, I am of the view that it is a fit case where realistic amount of cost should be imposed upon the respondent. Even otherwise, the imposition of cost goes a longway in controlling the tendency of introducing Page no. 19 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:08:27 +0530 RC ARC 493/24 Ram Nath Saini Vs. Safeed Ur Rehman false pleadings by the litigants. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Ram Rameshwari Devi & Ors Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors dated 04.07.2011 and also on the celebrated case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3353. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is imposed the cost of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand Only) to be paid to the petitioner.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
Date: 2025.11.18
AGARWAL 16:08:38 +0530
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Announced in open court On 18.11.2025).
Note: This order contains 20 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signedVIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.18 16:08:47 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 18.11.2025 Page no. 20 of 20 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 18.11.2025