Delhi District Court
Chander Mohan Chopra vs Nand Kishore (Since Deceased) on 16 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
& RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL )
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT No. 43/2022
CNR No. DLCT01-007285-2022
Chander Mohan Chopra
S/o Sh. Amar Nath Chopra
R/o 7/38, Single Storey,
Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
...........Appellant
Versus
Sh. Nand Kishore (since deceased)
through his LRs
1. Smt. Laxmi Devi
W/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore
7/38, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
2. Sh. Bhim Sen
S/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore
r/o WZ-145/A77,
Tihar Hari Nagar,
New Delhi
3. Sh. Heera Lal
S/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore
R/o 7/38, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
4. Sh. Laxman
S/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore
R/o 7/38, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
5. Smt. Dolly
D/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.10.16
16:52:53 +0530
RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 1 of 15
W/o Sh. Uma Shanker
R/o B-51, Sharda Puri
Ramesh Nagar
New Delhi-110015
............Respondents
Date of filing of appeal : 18.04.2022
Date of arguments : 23.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 16.10.2025
AND
RCT No. 08/2023
CNR No. DLCT01-000348-2023
Chander Mohan Chopra
S/o Sh. Amar Nath Chopra
R/o 7/38, Single Storey,
Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
...........Appellant
Versus
Sh. Nand Kishore (since deceased)
through his LRs
1. Smt. Laxmi Devi
W/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore
7/38, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
2. Sh. Bhim Sen
S/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore
r/o WZ-145/A77,
Tihar Hari Nagar,
New Delhi
3. Sh. Heera Lal
S/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore
R/o 7/38, Ramesh Nagar, Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
New Delhi-110015 VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR
BANSAL
Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.16
16:53:00
+0530
RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 2 of 15
4. Sh. Laxman
S/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore
R/o 7/38, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015
5. Smt. Dolly
D/o Late Sh. Nand Kishore
W/o Sh. Uma Shanker
R/o B-51, Sharda Puri
Ramesh Nagar
New Delhi-110015
............Respondents
Date of filing of appeal : 18.11.2022
Date of arguments : 23.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 16.10.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. These two appeals have been preferred challenging the orders dated 29.03.2022 vide which the Ld. ARC allowed the petition under section 14 (1) (a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1959 in short, the DRC Act and the order dated 22.10.2022 vide which the court passed the eviction order holding that the appellant is not entitled to the protection under section 14 (2) of DRC Act. As the two appeals are arising out of the same case between the same parties, hence taken together.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that Sh. Nand Kishore (hereinafter referred as petitioner/respondent) filed the eviction petition under section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act against Sh. Chander Mohan Chopra (hereinafter referred as respondent/appellant) with respect to one room with in built, laterine and bathroom on first floor of 7/38, single story, Ramesh Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.16 16:53:10 +0530 RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 3 of 15 Nagar, New Delhi -18, shown red in the site plan hereinafter referred as tenanted premises.
3. It is alleged that it is an old tenancy created in August 2001. The monthly rent is Rs. 2300/- excluding electricity and water charges. The respondent is in arrears of rent since November, 2002. A legal demand notice dated 13.10.2005 was served on the respondent, but respondent has not sent any reply to the same. He has also neither tendered nor paid the entire legally recoverable rent, hence the petition.
4. Notice of the petition was sent to the respondent who filed the written statement taking preliminary objections that no relationship of landlord tenant exists between the parties and hence the petition is not maintainable. The respondent is under no obligation to pay any rent to the petitioner/respondent as there is no privity of contract.
5. It is alleged that petitioner/respondent is not the owner of the tenanted premises. The wife of the respondent/appellant has purchased the tenanted premises from Sh. Kishan Lal the owner of the premises.
6. In reply on merits the relationship of landlord tenant is denied. It is alleged that the wife of the answering respondent/appellant has purchased the tenanted premises from the erstwhile owner Sh. Kishan Lal. At the time of purchase the premises was kachha, it was demolished and re-built by the wife of the respondent/appellant. The service of notice is admitted. All other facts are denied. The rate of rent is also denied. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed. Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.10.16 16:53:16 +0530 RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 4 of 15
7. The petitioner/respondent filed the replication to the written statement denying the averments made therein. It is specifically denied that Smt. Swaraj Chopra wife of the respondent/appellant has purchased the property from Sh. Kishan Lal. It is alleged that Sh. Kishan Lal was not the owner of the tenanted premises. The documents are forged and fabricated. There is no question of demolition and reconstruction of the tenanted premises. The petitioner/respondent re-asserted the facts mentioned in the eviction petition.
8. The order under section 15 (1) DRC Act was not passed and was deferred.
9. Thereafter the case was fixed for evidence of the parties. The Ld. ARC after taking the evidence heard the arguments and passed the order dated 21.02.2015 dismissing the eviction petition.
10. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency the petitioner Nand Kishore died and his five LRs were brought on record.
11. The order dated 21.02.2015 was challenged in appeal no. RCT No. 15/2015 titled Nand Kishore (since deceased) through LRs v Sh. Chander Mohan Chopra. The appeal was allowed vide order dated 27th April 2016 and the case was remanded back to the Ld. ARC to proceed further in accordance with law.
12. The appellate court has observed as follows while allowing the appeal:
"13. Ld. ARC (West) did not feel inclined to believe oral testimony of the petitioner in absence of any documentary Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.16 16:53:22 +0530 RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 5 of 15 evidence in the nature of rent receipt or rent agreement to show that he is landlord of respondent. Petitioner is admittedly a co-owner of the suit property and therefore having locus standi to file the petition under the Act.
14. it is not understandable as to why petition would confer the title of a tenant on the respondent qua the suit property and thereby make his task of seeking eviction of the respondent from the suit property difficult under stringent rent legislation which is meant for protection of the tenant and not pursue easier civil remedy of seeking his eviction from the suit property as an unauthorised occupant.
15. it is also important to note that petitioner admittedly sent a legal notice dated 13.10.2005 Ex. PW1/C vide registered AD Ex. PW1/D which was admittedly received by the respondent but the respondent chose not to respond and not rebutting the claim of the petitioner as stated in the said legal notice that petitioner is the landlord of the respondent in respect of the suit property at rental of Rs. 2300/- per month due w.e.f. November, 2002 lends credibility to the case of the petitioner."
13. The parties appeared before the Ld. ARC after remand back. The respondent/appellant herein moved application for calling additional witnesses. The application was dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2017.
14. The order dated 03.05.2017 was challenged in appeal no. RCT no. 09/2017. The appeal wad dismissed vide order dated 01.04 2021.
15. The order dated 01.04.2021 and the order dated 27.04.2016 were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM (M) 354/2021 and CM (M) 355/2021 titled Chander Mohan Chopra v Nand Kishore since deceased through LRs. The petitions were dismissed vide order dated 29th April 2021 observing in para 7 as follows:
"7. Reliance of the petitioner on the remand of the Eviction Petition by the impugned order is also unfolded. The learned Additional Rent Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 6 of 15 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.16 16:53:28 +0530 Controller by its order dated 21.12.2015 had dismissed the Eviction Petition filed by the respondent under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act, observing that the respondent has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This finding of the learned ARC was set aside in appeal by the impugned order and therefore, the petition was remanded back to be proceeded in accordance with law with the said finding. The impugned order did not leave the issue of the claim of the petitioner to the ownership of the subject property through his wife, and/or the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, open to be re-adjudicated by the learned ARC."
16. The order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi was challenged before Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 10754/2021 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.07.2021.
17. Ld. ARC reheard the arguments and passed the order dated 29.03.2022 vide which the petition under section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act was allowed. The order under section 15 (1) DRC Act was passed directing the respondent to pay or deposit the legally recoverable arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 2,300/- p.m. w.e.f. 18.05.2003 (legally recoverable rent) along with simple interest at the rate of 15% p.a. with in one month from today and respondent is further directed to continue to pay or deposit rent at the same rate on or before 15th of each succeeding English Calendar month. The petition was kept pending for deciding as to whether the respondent/appellant is entitled to the benefit under section 14 (2) of DRC Act.
18. This order is under challenge in appeal no. RCT no. 43/2022.
19. Ld. ARC vide order dated 22.10.2022 considered the issue of benefit under section 14 (2) of DRC Act and held that he is not entitled to the benefit of section 14 (2) of DRC Act. The eviction Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 7 of 15 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.16 16:53:34 +0530 order was passed with respect to the tenanted premises, which is under challenge in the appeal no. RCT no. 08/2023.
20. Notices of the appeals were sent to the petitioner/respondent who put appearance. Trial court record was requisitioned. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent/appellant, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/respondent and perused the record.
21. Ld. Counsel for the respondent/appellant argued that there is no relationship of landlord tenant between the parties. The wife of the respondent/appellant has purchased the property and they are in occupation of the property in their own right as owner. As there is no relationship of landlord tenant and the respondent/appellant has never paid any rent to the petitioner/respondent hance the jurisdiction of the Ld. ARC is itself barred. Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld. ARC has not considered these arguments and also the documents, resulting in to miscarriage of justice. Under the circumstances as the wife of the respondent/appellant is owner of the tenanted premises there is no question of his paying the rent of the premises which are owned by his wife. Ld. Counsel submitted that as the respondent/appellant is not under obligation to pay rent hence the question of default in payment of rent does not arise at all. The petition itself is not maintainable. The Ld. ARC has failed to consider these facts and the law on the issue. Ld. Cousel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgments cited as Prem Pal Singh v Jugal Kishore, 1993 (50) DLT 49; Rekha Yadav v Shyama, 2017 (0) Supreme (Del) 1794; Devender Bhati v Chander Kanta, 2016 (226) DLT 378; Kedar Nath Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 8 of 15 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.16 16:53:40 +0530 (deceased) through LRs v Rajinder Tiwari, 2016 (0) Supreme) Del 3996; Raj Sandhu v Rauhl Anand, 2016 (0) Supreme (Del) 2829; International Computers Consultants v Home Computers Services Private Limited, 1997 (68) DLT 407; Lachman Das v Ved Prakash, 1975 RLR (N) 7; Shamim Bano v Jalaluddin, 2018 (0) Supreme (Del) 2273; Gurmeet Kaur v Harbhajan Singh & Anr., 2017 (241) DLT 339; Hardip Kaur v Kailash & Anr., 2012 (193) DLT 168; Asha M Jain v Canara Bank, 2002 (2) AD (Delhi) 734; Shrimati Shamrao Suryanshi and another v Pralhad Bhairoba Suryavanshi (D) by LRs, (2002) 3 SCC 676; R. K. Mohammed Ubaidullah & ors. v Hajee C. Abdul Wahab (D) by LRs, (2000) 6 SCC 402; Ravinder Kaur Grewal v Manjit Kaur, AIR 2019 SC 3827; Balraj v Rajbir, 2016 (0) Supreme (Del) 2334; Prem Singh & Ors. v Birbal & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 3608; Minu Chibber v Col. Retd. S. S. Chibber, 2014 (0) Supreme (Del) 2192; Seema Thakur v Union of India, 2015 (223) DLT 132; Har Narain (dead) by LRs v Mam Chand (dead) by LRs, 2010 (7) Supreme 1; Hardey Singh v Gurmail Singh, AIR 2007 SC 1058; Jugal Kishore v Roshan Lal, 2017 (0) Supreme (Del) 1816; Naval Kishore Mehta v Shahshi Bansal, 2014 (208) DLT 64; Sanjeev Gupta v DDA & Ors., 2018 (0) Supreme (Del) 592; Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh v Randhir Singh, AIR 2010 SC 2807; Jhang Biradari Housing Resident Society v Bharat Bhushan Sachdeva & Ors., 2015 (0) Supreme (Del) 240; Smt. Dilboo (dead) by LRs v Smt. Dhanraji (dead) by LRs. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3146; Rakesh Juneja v Baba Chakravorty Darvesh 1998 (76) DLT 681;
Satya Pal Agarawal v Rajinder Kumar, 2012 (0) Supreme Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 9 of 15 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.16 16:53:49 +0530 (Del) 1284; Pal Singh v Dharshan Singh, 2011 (176) DLT 719;
Amarjeet Lal Suri v Moti Sagar Suri, 2005 (119) DLT 295; P. S. batra v S. Anoop Singh, 2008 (155) DLT 431; Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah v Muddasani Sarojana, AIR 2016 SC 2250; Anil Rishi v Gurbaksh Singh, AIR 2006 SC 1971; Harish Mansukhani v Ashok Jain, (2009) 109 DRJ 126; Rahul S. Shah v Jinendra Kumar Gandhi & Ors, (2021) 6 SCC 418; Ramvir Singh v Sangeeta Aggarwal & Ors., 2022 (289) DLT 672; Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. v Regency Convention Centre and Hotel's Private Ltd., (2010) 7 SCC 417; Rohit Dhankard v Sandhya Gupta & Ors., CM (M) 1356/2019, D.O.D. 28.01.2020; Mangal Builders & Enterprises Ltd. v. Williamson Magor & Company Ltd., 2020 (1) RCR (Rent) 116; M/s Karta Ram Rameshwar Dass v Ram Bilas & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 362; Navin Chander Anand v Union Bank of India, 2018 (253) DLT 224; Sh. Ranbir Yadav v Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors., 2018 (253) DLT 611; M/s Narain Jewellers v Col. Sohan Singh & Ors., RFA no. 712/2018, D.O.D. 11.12 2018; Dalip Singh v State of UP, (2010) 2 SCC 114; Shanmugam v Ariya Kshatriya Rajkula Vamsathu, AIR 2012 SC 2010; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1; Kanchan Kapoor v Sarwan Singh, 2014 Supreme (Delhi) 2439; Vinod Industries Pvt. Ltd. v Suraj Kumari, 1993 (51) DLT 360; Ramesh Chander Sahni v Geeta Mandok, 1999 ( 82) DLT 485; Jai Singh Rana v M. M. Goel, 1994 (4) AD ( Del) 582; Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernades v Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (dead) through LRs., (2012) 3 SCALE 550; Ashwani K Patel v Upendra J Patel, AIR 1999 SC 1125; Ravi Setia & Anr. v Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 10 of 15 2025.10.16 16:53:55 +0530 Som Nath Setia & Ors., 2011 (125) DRJ 305; Kartar Singh v Rameshwari Kela (deceased) through LRs, AIR 1995 Del 73; Tulsa Bai Gond v The State of MP, 2024 Supreme (MP) 65; Sarwan Singh Lamba v Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 546; Nohar Lal Verma v District Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. Jagdalpur, (2008) 14 SCC 445; National Insurance Company Ltd. v Mosmat Jhubri Devi & Ors., 1996 Supreme (Patna) 671; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 383; Behere Brothers v DDA, 1994 (56) DLT 37; Christian Louboutin Sar v Abubaker, 2018 (250) DLT 475; Bhupinder Singh v Unitech Ltd., 2023 INSC 283 and Jang Singh v Brij Lal & Ors., AIR 1966 SC 1631.
22. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the law as settled by the Supreme Court of India and the various High Courts the order of the Ld. ARC be set-aside and the appeal be allowed.
23. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no merit in the appeal. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties has already been decided up to the High Court. Even the SLP filed by the appellant herein against the order of the Hon'ble High Court has been dismissed. The only issue to be decided was the rate of rent and whether the respondent/appellant was in arrears of rent. in this case the respondent/appellant has denied all the facts. There is no rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the petitioner/respondent. He has specifically state that the monthly rent was Rs. 2300/-. He has also deposed that the respondent/appellant is in arrears of rent from November 2002. Legal demand notice dated 13.10.2005 was duly served upon the respondent/appellant. The service of notice is admitted.
Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 11 of 15 Date: 2025.10.16 BANSAL 16:54:02 +0530
Admittedly despite service of notice he has neither paid nor tendered the entire legally recoverable rent. ld. Counsel submitted that under the circumstances the Ld. ARC has rightly passed the order allowing the petition under section 14 (1) (a) of DRC Act. It prayed that there is no merit in the appeal, the same be dismissed.
24. After hearing the arguments, I found that the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/appellant is that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. He has relied upon number of judgments, mentioned above. There is no dispute with respect to the law as settled in these judgments. In the present case the Ld. RCT while hearing the appeal no. RCT 15/2015 titled Nand Kishore (since deceased) through LRs v Sh. Chander Mohan Chopra vide order dated 27th April 2016 has held that their exists relationship of landlord tenant between the parties. The petitioner/respondent is the landlord and the respondent/appellant the tenant. This order was not challenged. Later on when the respondent/appellant moved application for examining additional witnesses, the Ld. ARC dismissed the same vide order dated 03.05.2017. The appeal preferred against this order before Ld. RCT was also dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2021. The order dated 01.04.2021 and the order dated 27.04.2016 were challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM (M) 354/2021 and CM (M) 355/2021 titled Chander Mohan Chopra v Nand Kishore since deceased through LRs. The petitions were dismissed vide order dated 29th April 2021 observing in para 7 as follows:
Digitally signed by VIRENDERVIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.16 16:54:07 +0530 RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 12 of 15 "7. Reliance of the petitioner on the remand of the Eviction Petition by the impugned order is also unfolded. The learned Additional Rent Controller by its order dated 21.12.2015 had dismissed the Eviction Petition filed by the respondent under Section 14 (1) (a) of the Act, observing that the respondent has failed to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This finding of the learned ARC was set aside in appeal by the impugned order and therefore, the petition was remanded back to be proceeded in accordance with law with the said finding. The impugned order did not leave the issue of the claim of the petitioner to the ownership of the subject property through his wife, and/or the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, open to be re-adjudicated by the learned ARC."
25. It is important to note here that the SLP filed challenging this order was also dismissed. In view of the above legal position and the facts, the respondent/appellant herein cannot be allowed to re-agitate the issue that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is also important to note that the suit for specific performance filed by the wife of the respondent/appellant titled Smt. Swaraj Chopra v Shanti Devi and others have also been dismissed by the Ld. Civil Judge vide order dated 04.07.2019. The appeal has been preferred challenging the order by the wife of the respondent/appellant as told by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent/appellant.
26. The evidence is there on the record that the rent of the tenanted premises is Rs. 2300/- per month and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the same. No evidence has been brought on record that monthly rent was not Rs. 2300/-. The Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 13 of 15 2025.10.16 16:54:14 +0530 petitioner/respondent has deposed that the respondent/appellant is in arrears of rent since November 2002. There is no denial from the same. The argument is that as there is no relationship of landlord tenant, hence he has no liability to pay the rent. But once the court has already decided that there is relationship of landlord tenant between the parties, he has to pay the rent.
27. The service of notice is admitted. There is admittedly no rent paid even after receipt of demand notice. In view of these facts and the evidence in my opinion the Ld. ARC has rightly decide the matter and allowed the petition under section 14 (1)
(a) of DRC Act and passed the order under section 15 (1) of DRC Act directing the respondent/appellant to pay or deposit the arrears of rent and continue to pay or deposit the future rent. I do not found any merit in the appeal no. 43/2022 challenging the order dated 29.03.2022, the same is dismissed.
28. So far as the RCT appeal no. 08/2023 is concerned the record shows that despite passing of order under section 15 (1) DRC Act by the Ld. ARC the respondent/appellant has not complied with the same. It is important to note here and as also reflected in the order sheet that the respondent/appellant was asked to take steps to deposit the rent vide order dated 01.06.2022. The Ld. ARC called for the report of the Nazir about compliance of the order passed under section 15 (1) of DRC Act.
As per the report the respondent/appellant has not deposited the rent in terms of order dated 29.03.2022.
29. The court has observed in its order date 22.10.2022, which is under challenge, it reads as follows: Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.16 16:54:19 +0530 RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 14 of 15 "Further, on query by the court, the respondent has refused to pay or tender the rent to the petitioner in terms of order dated 29.03.2022 as the respondent is claiming himself to be the owner of the property."
30. In view of these facts, it is clear that the respondent/appellant has wilfully and contumaciously disobeyed the order under section 15 (1) of DRC Act and has not deposited the rent despite direction and provided an opportunity to take steps for deposit of rent. In view of the above position in my opinion the Ld. ARC has rightly decided that the respondent/appellant is not entitled to the benefit under section 14 (2) of DRC Act and passed the eviction order. There is no merit in the appeal no.08/2023, same is dismissed.
31. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. ARC along with the record.
32. Appeal files be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open Court KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date: on 16th day of October, 2025 2025.10.16 16:54:25 +0530 (Virender Kumar Bansal) Principal District & Sessions Judge Central District, Tis Hazari Court Delhi(D) RCT No.43/2022 & 8/23 Page 15 of 15