Delhi District Court
Gyan Chand vs Mukul Grover on 1 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT CONTROLLER
(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
RC ARC No: 25951/16
CNR No. DLWT-03-001764-2015
Shri Gyan Chand
Since deceased through LRs:
a) Smt. Krishna Wanti
W/o Late Shri Gyan Chand
R/o Flat No. 230, A-4, Janta Flats,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
b) Shri Ashok Kumar
S/o Late Shri Gyan Chand
R/o Flat No. 230, A-4, Janta Flats,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
c) Shri Rajesh Kumar
S/o Late Shri Gyan Chand
R/o BG-5/17, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
d) Ms. Anita Malik
W/o Shri Rakesh Malik
R/o 236, Pragati Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi.
e) Ms. Suman Minocha
W/o Shri Kawal Nain Minocha
R/o G-45, Gali No. 12, G-Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
f) Anju Khaneja
W/o Late Shri Shyam Sunder
R/o B-68B, Majlis Park, Gali No.1, Delhi-110033. ......Petitioners
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.1 of 34
Versus
Sh. Mukul Grover
S/o. Late Sh. Om Praksh Grover
Sole Proprietor of M/s. Grover Garments
Shop Pvt. No.4, in Property bearing No. D-525,
Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027. .....Respondent
Date of Filing : 20.07.2015
Date of Judgment : 01.03.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying for passing an order for eviction in favour of the Petitioners and against the respondent in respect of the Shop No. 4, in premises No. D-525, Tagore Garden, New Delhi -110027, as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises or premises in question").
AVERMENTS BY PETITIONERS IN THE PETITION
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioners, that Late Sh. Gyan Chand was the owner and landlord of the premises bearing No. D-525, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, which had been given to him by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the year 1962. It has been averred, that late Sh. Gyan Chand was residing on the first floor of the property in question alongwith his wife and second floor was let out to Shri Bhubnesh Arora and Shri Gagan Arora. It has been averred, that he had two married sons namely Shri Ashok Kumar and Shri Rajesh Kumar and he also had three daughters namely Ms. Anita Malik, Ms. Suman Minocha ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.2 of 34 and Ms. Anju Khaneja, who are already married and residing in their matrimonial home. It has been averred, that Shri Ashok Kumar has been working as Accountant with M/S. Gupta Bartan Bhandar at Y-307, Camp No. 1, Sultanpuri Road, Nangloi, Delhi 110041 at a monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- and his family consists of his wife and sons namely Shri Shivam Pupneja and Vansh Pupneja. Shri Shivam Pupneja was also working and was getting a meager salary of Rs.6,000/- per month, whereas Shri Vansh Pupneja was studying in Class-8th and they have been residing at 2730 Janta Flat, A-4, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi. It has been averred, that Shri Rajesh Kumar, another son of the Petitioner has been working in Karol Bagh with the Money Exchanger, who is residing at 17-C, BG-5 Block, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi and he has two sons namely Shri Yash Pupneja and Sh. Naman Pupneja, who were both studying in first year and in 11 th class respectively.
3. It has been averred, that the sons of the late Sh. Gyan Chand do not have any commercial property in their names and they both were totally dependent on Sh. Gyan Chand. It has been averred, that the property consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor. It has been averred, that on the ground floor, there were Shops No. 1, 3 and 5 which had been sold by late Sh. Gyan Chand for his bonafide need to various persons and tenants.
4. It has been averred, that the premises in question / tenanted shop was let out to the late Shri Om Prakash, father of the Respondent and after the death of the father of the respondent, the tenanted shop is being run ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.3 of 34 by the respondent. It has been averred, that in shop no. 6, there was another tenant namely Late Manohar Lal and after his death, his wife Smt. Tara Devi is the tenant in the same and in Shop No.2, there is an ATM of Corporation Bank for the monthly rental of around Rs. 16,000/-. It has been averred, that both the sons of Late Gyan Chand require Shop No. 4 and 6 for starting their business. It has been averred, that Shri Rajesh Kumar requires Shop No.6 for starting business of General Store items, whereas Shri Ashok Kumar requires Shop No. 4, for which a separate petition for eviction.
5. It has been averred, that the tenancy was created in the year 1972 in favour of the father of the respondent for the monthly rent of Rs.1500/- per month besides electricity charges. After the death of his father, the respondent has attorned himself as the tenant.
6. It has been averred, that as the sons of the late petitioner have no other alternative suitable commercial accommodation and are solely dependent upon these shops for starting their business, accordingly, it is prayed, that an eviction order be passed in respect of the tenanted shown within red lines in site plan.
LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
7. After obtaining the leave to defend vide order dated 31.01.2019, written statement was filed by the respondent in response to petition filed by the Petitioner under Clause (e) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the D.R.C Act, 1958, praying to the court to dismiss the present petition with costs.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.4 of 34 AVERMENTS BY RESPONDENT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT
8. In the written statement, the respondent has inter-alia submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, as the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has suppressed and concealed the material facts from this Court, only with the intention to get the eviction order in his favour and against the respondent. It has been further stated, that the need of the petitioner / sons of the late petitioner is not bonafide.
9. It has been further stated, that the respondent is a tenant in respect of Shop. No.4 in property bearing No. D-525, Tagore Garden Extension, New Delhi-110027, as shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the respondent and the same had been let out for commercial purposes and respondent is doing business in the same. It has been contended, that the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect and same is not according to the site and the site plan filed by the respondent is the correct site plan of the property.
10. It has been denied by the respondent, that the monthly rent of the tenanted premises is Rs.1,500/- per Month. It is specifically submitted that the rent of the tenanted shop is Rs.500/- per month.
11. It has been denied, that the Late Sh. Gyan Chand, petitioner was the Owner and landlord of the premises bearing No.D-525, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. It has been further denied, that Sh. Ashok Kumar was working as Accountant with M/S Gupta Bartan Bhandar at Y-307, Camp No.1, Sultanpuri Road, Nangloi, Delhi-110041 at a monthly ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.5 of 34 salary of Rs.10,000/- and that his son namely Sh. Shivam Pupneja was also working and getting a meager salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. It has been further specifically denied, that Sh. Rajesh Kumar, another son of the late petitioner was working in Karol Bagh with the Money Exchanger.
12. It has been denied, that the sons of the Petitioner do not have any commercial property in their names and both were totally dependent on the late petitioner.
13. It has been further stated, that petitioner had filed incorrect, wrong and manipulated site plan, which is not as per the accommodation available at the site, according to his own convenience, by concealing the real facts from this Court, in as much as, there are eight Shops on the Ground Floor of the suit property and the petitioner willfully showed Six Shops on the ground Floor of the suit property in order to misguide and mislead this Court.
14. It has been further stated, that there are Eight Shops on the Ground Floor and Shop No.1 situated on the Ground Floor of the suit property which was earlier just before filing the present Petition has been let out by the Petitioner to the Corporation Bank. It has been further submitted, that after filing and during pendency of the present Petition, the petitioner had re-let the said shop No.1 to Axis Bank and the said bank had also vacated the said shop and thereafter, the said Shop No.1 had been again re-let to another tenant namely M/s. S. R. Jewellers at the monthly rent of Rs.15,000/-.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.6 of 34
15. It has been further stated, that as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Mohd. Illyas Versus Nooruddin and others, 184 (2011) DLT 590, that concealment of material facts itself deserves for dismissal of the Petition.
16. It has been further stated, that adjacent to the Shop No.1, there are stairs, leading to the First Floor and Second Floor and adjacent to the staircase, there is a shop having two shutters, which is a corner shop and son of the Petitioner namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar is in occupation of the said shop and he is carrying on the business of mobile phones. It has been contended, that deliberately, dishonestly and willfully, the said shop had not been shown in the site plan filed by the Petitioner and in its place, the entire area of stairs has been shown only with a view to show to this Court the paucity of accommodation. It has been contended, that the Respondent has also filed the photographs, in which in the shop No.2 / corner shop, the son of the late Petitioner namely Sh.Rajesh Kumar could be seen doing the business of mobile Phones and the shop No.2 is shown in Yellow Colour in the site plan filed by the Respondent.
17. It has been further stated, that in Shop No.3, there is one Tailor working under the name and style of M/S Jagdish Tailor and in the shop adjacent to shop no.3, there is Shop No.4, which is in occupation of Lucky Tailor. It has been further submitted, that adjacent to Shop No. 4, there is Shop No. 5, which is in occupation of the respondent Mukul Grover.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.7 of 34
18. It has been further submitted, that there is no bonafide need of the sons of the late Petitioner. It has been further submitted, that the equity is in favour of the respondent continuing in running garments shop under the name and style of M/s. Grover Garments. It has been further stated, that adjacent to Shop No. 5, there is one shop bearing No.6 in which the Son of the Petitioner namely Sh. Ashok Kumar has been running the business under the name and style of M/s Laxmi Properties along with one Mr. Sharma and Mr.Ashok Kumar is earning lucrative sum of money from this business, however the same has deliberately, willfully with malafide intentions now shown in the site plan with a view to show paucity of accommodation.
19. It has been further stated, that adjacent to Shop No.6, there is a shop of tailor, which is a corner shop and is having two shutters which bears the number 7 and adjacent to shop No. 7, there is a shop no.8 in which Tara Devi is tenant and is doing the work of embroidery. It has been further stated, that the sons of the petitioner are not entitled for the relief as claimed and the present petition deserves dismissal.
REPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE LRS OF THE PETITIONER TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/TENANT
20. The LRs of the petitioner have specifically denied all the preliminary objections raised by the respondent in the WS.
21. It has been submitted, that the need of the LRs of petitioner is bonafide ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.8 of 34 and not a malafide one. It has been submitted, that the site plan submitted by the petitioner is correct one and the shops which are on the site and which are existing are only depicted in the site plan whereas the site plan filed by the respondent is a camouflage exercise. It has been submitted, that the site plan so filed by the petitioner is correct one and there are only 6 shops on the ground floor, which have peen explained by the petitioner in the petition and have been shown in the site plan. It has been denied, that the petitioner had filed incorrect, wrong and manipulated site plan which is not as per the accommodation available at the site, only with misrepresentation and to obtain an order of eviction in respect of the demise premises by suppressing/ concealing the actual accommodation available with the petitioner in the suit property.
22. It has been specifically denied by the LRs of the petitioner, that there are eight shops on the ground floor and that shop no.1 situated on the ground floor of the suit property had been let out by the petitioner just before the filing of the petition to the Corporation Bank and thereafter, they have re-let the said shop no.1 to Axis Bank and said bank has also vacated the said shop and thereafter said shop no.1 has been again re- let to another tenant M/S S.R. Jewellers. It has been further denied, that adjacent to shop no.1, there are stairs leading to first floor and second floor and adjacent to stair case, there is a shop having two shutters which is a corner shop and son of the petitioner namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar is in occupation of the said shop and he is carrying on the business of the mobile phones.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.9 of 34
23. It has been further specifically denied, that in shop no. 3, there is one Tailor working under the name and style of M/S Jagdish Tailor and in the shop adjacent to shop no.3, there is shop No.4, which is in occupation of Lucky tailor.
24. It has been specifically denied, that adjacent to shop no.4 i.e., Lucky tailor shop, Shop No.5 is in occupation of the Respondent who is running garment shop under the name and style M/S Grover Garments and adjacent to shop no.5, there is one shop bearing no.6 in which the son of the petitioner namely Ashok Kumar is running the business under the name and style M/S Laxmi properties along with one Mr. Sharma and Mr. Ashok Kumar is earning lucrative sum of money from this business, however the same has deliberately, willfully with malafide intentions now shown in the site plan with a view to show paucity of accommodation.
25. It has been further specifically denied that adjacent to shop no.6, there is shop of tailor which is a corner shop and is having two shutters which bears the number 7 and adjacent to this shop no. 7, there is a shop no. 8, in which the respondent Tara Devi is doing the work of embroidery.
EVIDENCE LED BY PETITIONER
26. In the present case, the LRs of the petitioner had adopted the examination of Sh. Ashok Kumar, one of the son of the late petitioner Gyan Chand, who was examined as PW1 in the connected matter bearing RC ARC No. 25346/16.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.10 of 34
27. No other witness was examined on behalf of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioner's evidence was closed.
EVIDENCE LED BY RESPONDENT
28. The respondent has also led evidence by examining her wife Smt. Indu Grover as RW1, who tendered her affidavit as Ex.RW1/A. No documents were relied upon by the respondent. RW1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
29. Thereafter, the respondent's evidence was closed and the matter was listed for the final arguments.
30. Written synopsis have been filed by both the parties.
31. In support of their arguments, the petitioners have relied upon the judgment titled as Rajiv Mehra & Anr. Vs. Ravi Bhushan, RC Rev. No. 341/2018 decided on October 12th 2023 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
32. In support of his arguments, the respondent has relied upon the judgment decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court titled as Mohd. Illyas Versus Nooruddin and others, 184 (2011) DLT 590.
33. I have heard detailed arguments advanced by Learned counsels for the parties and have further gone through the record carefully. My findings are as under :-
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.11 of 34 ANAYLYSIS AND FINDINGS
34. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and the same is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction-
(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 court or any 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 recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord 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."
35. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a). The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b). The landlord or the family member has no ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.12 of 34 other reasonable suitable accommodation.
36. These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
37. The following are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act as culled out from the discussion above :
(i) There should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv) Landlord should not have other reasonable suitable accommodation.
(I) OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS (II) EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
38. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation as governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished from the one in title suit. In the case of M. R. Sawhney Vs. Dories Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was held that once a tenant always a tenant, unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law which is not so in the present petition.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.13 of 34
39. It is settled law, that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The petitioners have to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioners have to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
40. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.14 of 34 the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
41. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
42. In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court has specifically 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 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.15 of 34 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".
43.It is settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord , neither is the landlord required to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppel also bars the respondent herein from challenging the landlordship of the petitioners. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant. So, what has to be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.16 of 34 (2008) DLT 383.
44.Now, in light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts of the case in hand.
45.It is the case of the petitioner, that Late Sh. Gyan Chand was the owner and landlord of the premises bearing No. D-525, Tagore Garden, New Delhi, which had been given to him by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the year 1962. It has been submitted by the Lrs of the petitioners, that the tenancy was created in the year 1972 in favour of Late Sh. Om Prakash i.e. the father of the respondent for the monthly rent of Rs.1500/- per month besides electricity charges and after the death of Late Sh. Om Prakash, his son Sh. Mukul Grover i.e. the respondent stepped into the shoes of his predecessor in interest.
46.PW1 has placed on record the copy of the title documents marked as Mark A. Perusal of the same shows, that the the property in question i.e. Plot No. 525 in Block D at Najafgarh Road Colony, was allotted to Sh. Gyan Chand by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and a copy of the receipt no. 336730 dated 10.08.1998 was issued by the Delhi Development Authority under the Jhuggi Jhonpri Removal Scheme in favour of late Gyan Chand.
47.Inter-alia, RW1 Smt. Indu Grover, who is the wife of Sh. Mukul Grover / respondent, has not denied the relationship of tenant - landlord between Sh. Gyan Chand, late petitioner and Late Sh. Om Prakash Grover, father in law of RW1, who was the original tenant. It ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.17 of 34 has categorically admitted by the RW1 in her cross-examination, that the Late Gyan Chand let out the shop no. 5 to her father in law / erstwhile tenant namely Sh. Om Prakash Grover in the year 1960. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 are reproduced as under :-
"The shop no. 5 was let out by Late Gyan Chand to my father-in-law namely Late Om Prakash Grover in the year 1960."
48.In view of the above categorical admission made by the RW1 in her cross-examination, it can fairly be stated, that there is landlord - tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.
49. In view of the discussion above and in light of settled law, this Court has no hesitation in stating that the law with regard to the right of the tenant to challenge the ownership of the landlord is fairly settled as well as limited. In this context, what appears to be the meaning of term "owner" vis a vis the tenant is that the "owner" should be something more than the tenant.
50.Therefore, in view thereof, the ownership in favour of the petitioner and the landlord - tenant relationship stands duly proved for the purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act.
WHETHER THE NEED OF THE LRS OF THE PETITIONER IS BONAFIDE & WHETHER THE ALTERNATE SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION IS AVAILABLE WITH THE LRS OF THE ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.18 of 34 PETITIONERS ?
51.Before delving into the merits of the bonafide need of the landlord, this Court deems it fit to discuss the essence of term "bonafide" and the law settled in this regard.
52. The word "genuine" means "natural: not spurious: real: pure: sincere ".
In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean "good faith, without fraud or deceit". Thus the term bonafide refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra- distinction with a mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation, which treats the landlord with some sympathy.
53. The question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.19 of 34 premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer were in positive the need is bonafide.
54. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court distinguished between the genuine requirement and the reasonable requirement. It was held in case Damodar Sharma and an- other v. Nandram Deviram that:-
"It is wrong to say that "genuinely requires" is the same as "reasonably requires". There is distinction between the two phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the later to an objective standard. "Genuine requirement" would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he lives and thinks. Reasonable requirement belong to the "knowledge of the law" and means reasonable not in the mind of the person requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to the actual facts. In my opinion, in this part of Section 4 (g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises. His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was unreliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy."
55. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.20 of 34 otherwise be, has in-inevitably a subjective element in it and that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely "illusory or whittled down". The words "reasonable requirement"
undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. Mere desire of a landlord/owner cannot be equated with bonafide need.
56. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words " required bonafide by the landlord" signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore incorporate a concept, which is both objective as well as subjective. The statute makes both the motivations of the owner as indeed the reasonableness of the desire, justiciable and the law therefore requires not only that the need of the owner for the premises should be honestly and genuinely entertained but must also be the need of a reasonable person in the position of the owner having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as the extent of the family of the owner, the standard of living to which the family is used, its social status, the pattern of life relevant to that status, the social conditions and any peculiar requirement of the family. All these have to be considered in the wider context of the socioeconomic conditions obtaining in the country. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the claim of the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.21 of 34 landlord is result of honestly entertained need the court would not weigh the requirement in a fine scale, even while keeping the landlord confined within reasonable limits having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
57.It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Indian Insurance Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100, wherein it was held that :-
"..... the crux of ground envisaged in clause
(e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that the requirement of 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 the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a primafacie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. 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 bonafides of requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself..."
58. On the basis of the law as above, returning to the facts of the case in hands, it is apposite to note, that the principal contention of the petitioner vide the present petition, is that he is residing on the first floor of the property in question along with his wife. On the second ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.22 of 34 floor, the shops are let out to Sh. Bhuvnesh Arora and Sh. Gagan Arora, whereas the petitioner has two married sons namely Mr. Ashok Kumar and Sh. Rajesh Kumar. It is further contented, that Ashok Kumar is working as an Accountant with M/s Gupta Bartan Bhandar at a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- and one of the sons of Ashok Kumar namely Shivam is working and is getting a salary of Rs. 6000/- per month only. It is further averred, that the other son of the petitioner is working in Karol Bagh with the money exchanger, however, the amount of salary being drawn by Rajesh Kumar, latter being the son of the petitioner is not disclosed.
59. Before delving further into the merits of the case, it is material to state, that the averments made by the petitioner with regard to the respective employments in which his sons namely Sh. Ashok Kumar and Sh. Rajesh Kumar are engaged into are mere bald averments as no principal document has been proved on record to even prima facie substantiate, that the petitioner's son namely Sh. Ashok Kumar is earning only Rs. 10,000/- per month and his another son namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar is employed at meager income with some money exchanger, as this is the principal prayer under which the present petition has been preferred, stating that due to insufficient / meager earnings of his sons, latter require the tenanted premises in question for setting up their individual business ventures. With respect to the contention pertaining to his son Sh. Ashok Kumar, the petitioner has at the max has placed on record a document having the printing of one Gupta Bartan Bhandar, whereby vide the said document, the petitioner has averred to establish, that his son namely Sh. Ashok Kumar is the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.23 of 34 permanent employee of the said Gupta Bartan Bhandar since September 24, 2013 but since the purported employer of his is neither a government institution nor a public undertaking having a governmental recognition, it was imperative upon the petitioner to have proved and established by examining the said proprietor/owner of Gupta Bartan Bhandar to prove the following :-
firstly - the ownership / proprietorship of Gupta Bartan Bhandar, Secondly - the said document Ex. PW-1/4 is actually being generated by the proprietor of the said firm / proprietorship, thirdly - Sh. Ashok Kumar is employed with the said Gupta Bartan Bhandar since September 24, 2013 till date, fourthly - the payslip generated monthly in favour of Sh. Ashok Kumar.
The document Ex. PW-1/4 does not even mention the name of proprietor of the alleged Gupta Bartan Bhandar and it simply has appended upon it the signature being made as initials and vide the same, it cannot be deduced by any stretch of imagination that the alleged document in question i.e. Ex. PW-1/4 is being issued by the proprietor of the said Gupta Bartan Bhandar. Therefore, the factum of Sh. Ashok Kumar, son of the petitioner being employed with one Gupta Bartan Bhandar at a monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/- since September, 2013 remains unproved.
60. It is further contented vide the present petition, that the other son namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar is employed with a money exchanger and he is working at Karol Bagh. The said fact also remains unproved as neither there is any evidence adduced on record to incarnate the factum ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.24 of 34 of the son of the petitioner being employed with Money Exchanger at Karol Bagh nor any specific information has surfaced to prove as to since when the son of the petitioner is working with the claimed money exchanger or the salary/income that is being generated by him on monthly basis.
61. As a sequel to the above, it is reiterated at the cost of brevity, that the bona-fide requirement of the petitioner with regard to the tenancy of the premises is on the basis of need of his two sons and their financial hardships but this aspect of meager earnings and the asserted employment of both the sons stands unproved.
62. It is further asseverated vide the site plan relied upon by him and exhibited as Ex. PW-1/3, that the property no. 525 situated at JJ Colony, Raghubir Nagar has six shops in total. Per contra, it is avouched by the respondent, that total shops in question are not 6 but
8. Thus, it was peremptory upon the part of the petition to have firstly proved the site plan in question. No witness from the MCD/DDA or any other government authority has stepped into the witness box to prove the site plan i.e. Ex.PW1/3 relied upon by the petitioner.
At this stage, it becomes claimant to analyze the cross- examination of PW-1 i.e. Ashok Kumar, being one of the sons of the petitioner. He was subjected to litmus test of the cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent, whereby he categorically admitted, that one Tara Devi is running a tailoring shop under the name and style of Simmi Tailors as one of the tenants in the property in question. He further owned up, that just adjacent to Simmi Tailors, there is another ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.25 of 34 tailoring shop and the same is shop no. 5. Additionally, he also avouched that adjacent to shop no. 5 is Lakshmi Properties and thereafter, adjacent to Lakshmi Properties, there is one Grover Tailors. He further acknowledged, that the shop no. 3 is being run by Lucky Tailors and that next to shop no. 3 i.e. Lucky Tailors is Jagdish Tailors. He also averred to an ATM Corporation Bank being earlier run at Shop no. 2 and further adduced, that the said shop was vacated later on and was given on tenancy to one Axis Bank. He went on to clarify, that the said shop no. 2 was later on vacated by Axis Bank as well. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are as under :-
"It is correct that Ms. Tara Devi who is running a tailor shop under the name of Simmi Tailors is a tenant in property in question. It is correct just adjacent to Simmi Tailors, there is another tailor shop and it is shop no. 5. It is correct that there is Lakshmi Properties adjacent to Shop no. 5. Shop no. 5 had been sold by us in the year 1996 and thereafter, the buyer subsequently sold it to two different people and in today's date, half of shop no. 5 is being run by Grover Tailor and remaining is run under the name and style of Lakshmi Properties."
" It is wrong to suggest that shop no. 4 is being run under the name and style of ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.26 of 34 Lucky Garments. Vol. It is Grover Garments. It is wrong to suggest that shop no. 3 is being run under the name and style of Jagdish Tailors. Vol. It is Lucky Tailors. It is wrong to suggest that shop adjacent to Shop no. 3 is a mobile shop. Vol. The shop next to Lucky Tailors is Jagdish Tailors. It is wrong to suggest that next to shop no. 3, there is ATM Corporation Bank. Again said ; ATM Corporation Bank is a shop no. 2. It is correct that at shop no. 2, Corporation Bank ATM is no more there, as they vacated the premises and later on, the shop no. 2 was given on tenancy to Axis Bank. The Axis Bank has also vacated shop no. 2. I do not know if the said shop is presently vacant or not as the said fact is within the knowledge of my younger brother".
63. Thus, from the above pull out of the cross-examination of PW-1, it can be safely inferred, that avowedly, in the property in question, following shops are being run on tenancy i.e. 1. Simmi Tailors, 2. Lakshmi Properties, 3. Grover Tailors 4. Lucky Garments 5. Jagdish Tailors 6. ATM Corporations/Axis Bank.
64. Now, as per PW-1's own asseveration, shop no. 5 had been sold in the year 1996 and thereafter, the then buyer resold it to two different ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.27 of 34 people and in today's date, half of shop no. 5 is being run by Grover Tailor and remaining half is being run in the name and style of Lakshmi Tailors. Thus, admittedly, Grover Tailors and Lakshmi Tailors are operating from a single shop as per the variant of PW-1, meaning thereby that out of the 6 admitted tenancies elucidated as above by PW-1, one premises leaving aside the Axis Bank is lying vacant.
In improver to the above, as per the narrative of PW-1, whether the tenancy which was earlier in the occupation of Axis Bank had been re-let out or not is not within the knowledge of PW-1, meaning thereby, that clearly two shops out of the entire tenanted premises are presently lying vacant and no plausible explanation has been furnished by the petitioner as to why in the event of these two premises detailed as above being lying vacant, under what parameters the present petition has been preferred averring, that there is no vacant premises/suitable alternative accommodation lying vacant for the purpose of being usurped by the sons of the petitioner.
65. It has been predominantly contended by the respondent in her WS as well as in the arguments addressed before the Court, that the petitioner in question had re-let the shop that was under the initial tenancy of Corporation Bank to Axis Bank and eventually, had re-let it to M/s. S. R. Jewellers during pendency of the present Petition. This was the prime paramerter on which the Court had granted the leave to defend to the respondent, whereby it was observed, that during the pendency of the present petition, the vacant possession of the shop was made ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.28 of 34 available to the petitioner but despite that instead of availing the same for his own proposed bonafide need, he chose to relet the said shop in question, thereby putting a question mark upon his own bonafide need. Therefore, it was exigent upon the petitioner to have proved his case on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, that the shop was never vacant during the pendency of the present petition and that the present petition was most genuinely filed without concealing any material facts from the Court.
It is further not out of place to mention, that the petitioner had examined only PW1 namely Sh. Ashok Kumar, who is one of his sons and this witness has unconditionally stated in his cross-examination, that it is not within his knowledge if the shop that was earlier let out to Axis Bank presently stands vacated or not and that the said fact was within the specific knowledge of his brother namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar. Thus, in order to prove their claim and to further highlight their bonafide need, it was expected from the petitioner to have atleast proved this aspect, that the specific shop that was under the initial occupation of corporation bank was subsequently relet to M/s. S. R. Jewellers and was never lying vacant during the pendency of the present petition. Flatly Sh. Ashok Kumar i.e. PW1 had showed complete ignorance qua this aspect and Court finds no hesitation in deducing that PW1 tried to dodge the question with regard to the exact status of the shop that was in the initial occupancy of Corporation Bank and that he had passed the buck to his another brother namely Sh. Rajesh Kumar but the latter never stepped into the witness box to clear the air around this aspect.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.29 of 34 It was indispensable for the petitioners to have proved their bonafide requirement by examining Sh. Rajesh Kumar, second son of late Sh. Gyan Chand qua the aspect of the shop being relet to another tenant namely Ms. S. R. Jewelers and the same not lying vacant during the pendency of the petition, however Sh. Rajesh Kumar did not step into the witness box for the reasons best known to him and therefore this Court is constraint to place reliance and drawn strength from the presumption entailed under Section 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act (now Section 119 of the Bhartiya Sakshaya Adhiniyam, 2023) and the same reads as reproduced as under :-
"Section 114 - Court may presume existence of certain facts.
.......
(g) - That evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be favourable to the person, who withholds it."
66. One of the chief contentions vide the present petition is, that the property on the ground floor comprising of shop no.1, 3 and 5 stand sold by the petitioner and therefore, no more in his occupation or control. However, not even a single document has been placed on record by the petitioner to even prima facie substantiate and prove this averment of his regarding the sale of these three shops in question. The petition does not even whisper about the date, month or year in which the said shops were sold and to whom were they sold. The entire petition nowhere mentions about any kind of sale proceeds or sale ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.30 of 34 consideration made qua the sale of three shops. Neither any witness in this regard has been examined nor any sale deed or any other document duly executed by the petitioner has been proved. Mere bald averments have been made, whereby, it is simplicitor averred that these three shops have been sold without any iota of evidence being made in this regard.
67. Perusal of the entire petition as well as the evidence adduced on record on behalf of the petitioner categorically surfaces, that the petitioner has miserably failed to substantiate as to who all are in occupation in the capacity of the tenants in the six shops that are situated on the ground floor and stated to be given on rent by the petitioner to the respective tenants. No clarity has been adduced on the following aspects :-
firstly - on the aspect of the existing tenancies as to which shop is in possession of whom, Secondly - the exact space and measurement of the existing each of the six shops.
The entire petition is silent with regard to any averment being made in reference to the actual space / measurement of shops that are required by the sons of the petitioner for starting their respective business ventures.
68. In view of testimony of PW1, it is clear, that the petitioner has failed to satisfy the Court, that the three shops on the ground floor of the property in question are not available and were not available during the pendency of the petition with the petitioner as the alternate reasonable suitable accommodate for setting up the alleged business of his sons. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.31 of 34 As such, the petitioner has failed to prove that requirement as alleged by them is bonafide.
69. It is well settled that, the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court should place himself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. And the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
70. Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be whimsical or merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in favour of the landlord also and the courts should not impose their own wisdom forcibly upon the landlord/petitioner to arrange his/ her own affairs according to their perception carried away by the interest or hardship of the tenants and the inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of eviction.
71. I have placed myself in the place of petitioner to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and I have also applied a practical approach instructed by the realities of life on the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement.
72. In the teeth of the above analysis and in view of discussions as above and well settled proposition of law, I am of the considered view that :-
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.32 of 34 firstly - the petitioner has failed to prove the sale of three shops of which he was the owner, thereby further failing to prove that these three shops are no more available with him under his ownership and control. This was the principal ground on which the leave to defend was allowed to the respondent and was thereby given the permission to contest the present petition. The petitioner has shown his utmost miserability in placing on record the documents pertaining to the sale of the three shops out of the averred total six shops in question. On account of no clarity being adduced in this regard, the question remains as to whether the shops are in occupation of the landlord or not and thus the plea of the petitioner with respect to the three shops being sold, is not authentic and genuine and the same puts the entire claim of the petitioner under scanner.
Secondly - the aspect of the shop being given to the ATM Corporation Bank and subsequently to Axis Bank and thereafter its current status i.e. whether lying vacant or not, does not stands proved.
73.Therefore, in my considered view, the respondent has been able to prove on record that the Petitioner is having malafide intentions and has not approached the Court with clean hands and further is having suitable accommodation in hand.
Conclusion
74.Therefore, in the teeth of the above exhausted discussion and settled proposition of law, in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners have not been able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.33 of 34 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act. As such, the present eviction petition is dismissed.
75. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.03.01
Announced in the open Court 14:05:13
+0530
on 01.03.2025. Richa Sharma
SCJ-cum-RC (West)
THC / Delhi / 01.03.2025
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.34 of 34 RC ARC 37/2015 25951/16 GYAN CHAND Vs. MUKUL GROVER 01.03.2025 Present : Sh. Praveen Suri, Learned Counsel for the petitioner through VC.
None for the respondent.
Vide separate detailed judgment of the even date announced in the open Court today, the present petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) Delhi Rent Control Act stands dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.03.01
14:05:07
(Richa Sharma)
+0530
Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC
THC / Delhi / 01.03.2025
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No. 25951/16 Gyan Chand Vs. Mukul Grover Page No.35 of 34