Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar Kathuria vs Madan Lal Anr on 30 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF LD. ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-
CUM- ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) :
DELHI
Presided Over By: Sh. Bharat Aggarwal
Petition No.: RC ARC 77478/2016
CNR No.: DLCT03-000366-2015
Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Ashok Kumar Kathuria
s/o Sh. Wazir Chand Kathuria,
r/o C-320, Mianwali Colony,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Madan Lal (deceased)
through his legal heirs:
(a) Sudha Kakkar
w/o Late Sh. Madan Lal
(b) Ankit Kakkar
s/o Late Sh. Madan Lal
(c) Nehar Kakkar
d/o Late Sh. Madan Lal
All presently at
C-587, Majlis Park,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033.
2. Naresh Kumar
s/o Sh. P.C. Kakkar,
r/o 33/210, Second Floor,
Vikram Vihar, Lajpat Nagar. IV,
New Delhi-110024.
....RESPONDENTS
RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 1/33
Digitally signed
by BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30
17:31:46 +0530
Date of Institution : 07.01.2015
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 30.10.2025
Final Decision : Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide the eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, the 'DRC Act'), seeking eviction of the respondent from one shop, admeasuring 8'3" x 8'9", known as 5744, GF, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006. The said premises shall hereinafter be adverted to as the 'tenanted premises'. The tenanted premises are more clearly shown in red colour in the site plan i.e. Ex.PW-1/1 filed by the petitioner along with the eviction petition.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE EVICTION PETITION:
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that the tenanted premises are non-residential in nature and respondents are carrying on their work of tailoring from there. It is further stated that about two to three tailors are also working there alongwith respondents. It is stated that the construction in question is an old one even prior to the partition of the country. It is further stated that respondents are joint tenants in the tenanted premises and the last paid monthly rent of the same is Rs.50/- exclusive of other charges.
RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 2/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:31:55 +0530
3. That the premises were let out to the respondents around the year 1987 and are bonafidely required by the petitioner for his own occupation. It is stated that the petitioner is without any job and lastly, he was doing cloth business around 20 years back and as the property was joint and partition had not taken place amongst the legal heirs, he did not have any particular place to do his business or work.
4. It is stated that the property no. 5744-5750, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006, was jointly owned by the petitioner to the extent of 50 %, Sh. Subhash Chand to the extent of 25% and Sh. Ved Prakash to the extent of 25%. That vide partition deed dated 24.03.2014, petitioner got five regular shops on the ground floor, three shops on the first floor and three shops on the second floor to his share. It is stated that portion shown in the red colour in the site plan with the partition deed on all the floors came to the share of Mr. Ved Prakash Kathuria, portion shown in green colour came to the share of Mr. Subhash Chand Kathuria and the portion shown in blue colour came to the share of Mr. Ashok Kumar Kathuria and the terrace was jointly owned by all the co- owners in the same ratio.
5. It is stated that the shop no. 5745/1B on the ground floor has been settled by the petitioner upon his wife who is enjoying rental income from tenant M/s. Saree Sagar. Shop no. 5750 is with the tenant Mr. Partap Mal and shop no. 5750-A is with tenant Mr. Jodha Ram. That one small shop bearing no. 5745/1F, measuring 5 ft. x 4 ft. is deep inside and cannot be put RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 3/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.10.30 17:32:00 +0530 to commercial use. Further, all three shops on the first floor and three shops on the second floor, are with the tenants. It is stated that the petitioner is a senior citizen aged about 62 years and not in a position to climb the stairs and hence, the shop in question, situated at ground floor, is most suitable and is needed for carrying out his regular business and earning his livelihood. Accordingly, petitioner has filed the present eviction petition seeking eviction of the respondents from the tenanted premises in order to carry out his own business.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
6. Summons of the petition in the prescribed format were issued to the respondent vide order dated 09.01.2015. Thereafter, an application under Section 25B of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend was filed on behalf of respondents on 16.03.2015. Such application filed by the respondents seeking leave to defend was allowed by this court vide order dated 07.08.2019 and an extensive trial took place in the present eviction petition. It is pertinent to note that Ld. Counsel for petitioner submitted his no objection to the application seeking leave to defend filed by the respondents and accordingly, such application was allowed.
Thereafter, a written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents on 26.08.2019.
7. In the written statement so filed by respondents, they have controverted most of the allegations of the petitioner and RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 4/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.10.30 17:32:06 +0530 denied the claims made in the eviction petition. Respondents have admitted their capacity as tenants in respect of the shop in question. The respondents have alleged that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition as the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises and the petition has been filed on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. It is stated that the petitioner has sought the relief of declaration of title under the garb of the present eviction petition.
8. It is further stated that there are several claimants of the title to the suit premises and the remedy available with the petitioner and the alleged claimants is to seek declaration of title qua the suit property.
9. It is alleged that petitioner has filed a wrong site plan of the suit property and he has not described the premises properly and has not shown availability of other commercial accommodations on different floors with intention to mislead the court. It is stated that the entire building is commercial in nature, having shops from ground to second floor as shown in the site plan filed by the respondents.
10. It is alleged that the petitioner has concealed about other portions of the property which were in his possession and have been recently let out to new tenants and he has also concealed about other shops available to the petitioner in different portions of the suit property. It is alleged that the petitioner was in possession of two shops on the ground floor of the suit property as shown in green colour in the site plan filed by RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 5/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:32:11 +0530 the respondents. It is stated that one of such shops bearing no. 5745/1B was let out to Mr. Narender Sharma at a monthly rent of Rs.12,760/-. It is alleged that in November, 2018, he vacated and a new tenant Mr. Shamvir Singh took the possession of the shop from 01.01.2019 at a monthly rent of Rs.38,000/- and pugree of Rs.40,00,000/-. It is alleged that petitioner is in possession of shop shown at point 'B' on the ground floor in the site plan filed upon by respondents. It is alleged that petitioner's wife has no right, title or interest in such shop bearing no. 5745/1B.
11. It is further alleged that the petitioner is in possession of three shops on the first floor shown in green colour in respondent's site plan and said shops were let out to different tenants and petitioner has been minting money in the form of rent from the said tenants. Similarly, it is alleged that petitioner was in possession of four shops on the second floor as shown in green colour in the respondents' site plan and he let out one shop shown as mark-C to Ms. Nirmal Gauri at a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/-. It is alleged that he again let out such shop after accepting huge pugree of Rs.25,00,000/-. That shop shown as mark-D was let out to tenant Mr. Vishal Garg at a monthly rent of Rs.4,500/- in August, 2014, after accepting pugree and huge security amount. Then again, he let out such shop to a tenant namely Kisto Singh w.e.f. 15.09.2018 at a monthly rent of Rs.11,500/-. It is stated that petitioner was having two shops on the second floor from where he was doing his cloth business at the time of filing the present petition.
12. It is alleged that petitioner has also concealed about RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 6/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:32:15 +0530 other commercial accommodations bearing property no. C-320, Mianwali Gali, Gurgaon which consists of two shops on the front side on the ground floor are being used for commercial purpose by the petitioner and the upper floors are used for residential purpose.
13. It is further alleged that petitioner has also concealed about property no. J-4, Near Alakhnanda, Kalkaji, New Delhi, having commercial first floor from where he is running his cloth supply business and accounting services office. Lastly, it was alleged that petitioner does not require the tenanted premises bonafidely or otherwise for the alleged purpose.
REPLICATION:
14. Petitioner thereafter filed a replication to the written statement of the respondents, on 10.10.2019. In such replication, the petitioner has controverted all the allegations of the respondents in their written statement and reiterated his version in the eviction petition. It was inter-alia stated by the petitioner that the entire property bearing no. 5744-5750, Jogiwara, was purchased by Mr. Wazir Chand Kathura alongwith his four sons including the petitioner by means of sale deed dated 20.01.1967 and later, after his death on 24.03.2014, legal heirs of Mr. Wazir Chand Kathuria partitioned the entire property and the shop in question fell to the share of the petitioner.
15. It is stated that the site plan filed by the respondents is RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 7/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:32:22 +0530 not different from the site plan filed by the petitioner except that the shop having mark-B on the ground floor is shown as one, whereby it is owned by three owners. Petitioner further denied that the documents filed with the petition are forged and fabricated.
16. It was averred that shop no. A on the ground floor is the entitlement of the wife of the petitioner who has been letting the said shop as its landlady from time to time and retaining the rent income to herself and as regards shop no. B on the ground floor, it is stated that the same is jointly owned by three brothers and its size is too small. Letting and re-letting of shop no. A by the wife of the petitioner is not disputed, however, the receipt of the alleged pugree amount was disputed. As regards the shops on the first and second floor, it is stated that all such shops are with the tenants and it is reiterated that the petitioner requires the shop on the ground floor on account of his old age.
17. In respect of property no. 320, Mian wali Gali, Gurgaon, it is stated that the said house is in the name of petitioner's wife and the family is living in the said house. Qua J-4, Alakhnanda, Kalkaji, it is stated that such property is neither owned nor occupied by the petitioner or any other member of his family.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE:
18. Petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and he tendered RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 8/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:32:27 +0530 his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 further relied upon the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW-1/1 being the site plan;
(ii) Ex.PW-1/2 being the original rent
receipt; and
(iii) Ex.PW-1/3 (OSR) being the
certified copy of partition deed.
He was cross-examined and discharged on 28.09.2022 and no other witness was examined on behalf of petitioner.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
19. On behalf of the respondents, Ms. Sudha Kakkar, wife of deceased respondent no.1, examined herself as RW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.RW-1/A. She did not rely upon any document.
She was cross-examined and discharged on 03.07.2024 and no other witness was examined on behalf of respondents.
ARGUMENTS:
20. It was argued on behalf of petitioner that with the evidence of PW-1, petitioner has duly proved all the ingredients RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 9/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:32:31 +0530 of proviso (e) of Section 14 (1) of the DRC Act. It was pointed out that the tenanted premises are required for the bonafide need of the petitioner as the same are situated on the ground floor and hence, most suitable for carrying out the business of the petitioner considering his old age.
21. It was argued that the tenanted premises are required by the petitioner for his own use and the shop no. 5745/1B on the ground floor was settled by the petitioner prior to the year 2014 on his wife and she has been enjoying rental income from such shop. It was vehemently argued that during the pendency of the present petition, on 07.08.2019, petitioner offered a shop to the respondents on the second floor but the respondents refused to accept such offer despite admitting that shops on the second floor are doing flourishing business.
22. It was pointed out that the shop on the ground floor i.e. shop no. 5745/1B was settled upon his wife by the petitioner prior to filing of the present petition and petitioner has no right in such shop. Lastly, it was argued that all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act have been proved by the petitioner and the respondents have failed to lead any evidence to the contrary.
23. Per-contra, it was argued on behalf of respondents that petitioner has concealed material and relevant facts from this court. Ld. Counsel for the respondents conceded to the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant and he RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 10/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:32:35 +0530 further submitted that respondents admit the petitioner to be the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises.
24. It was argued that the petitioner has relied upon incorrect site plan and the respondent's site plan Ex.PW-1/R1 is true and correct and the petitioner has admitted such site plan. It was further argued that petitioner has not filed and medical documents to substantiate his requirement for ground floor shops.
Further, it was argued that no documents have been filed by the petitioner to show as to how his wife is entitled to deal with the shop no. 5745/1B and petitioner, during his cross-examination, also admitted that his wife is not the owner of any portion of the building in question.
25. It was vehemently argued that during his cross- examination, PW-1/petitioner admitted that new tenants were inducted in different portions of the property on a hefty rental and vacant possession of such portions was given to the tenant during pendency of the present petition. Ld. Counsel for respondents pointed out that vide lease deed dated 30.08.2014 Ex.PW-1/R2, a shop on the second floor was let out to Mr. Vishal Garg and three shops on the second floor were let out to Mr. Kisto Singh vide lease deed dated 03.10.2018 Ex.PW-1/R4 and another shop on the second floor was let out to Ms. Nirmal Gauri vide lease deed dated 13.10.2014 Ex.PW-1/R7.
26. As regards the shop on the ground floor, it was pointed out that the same was let out by petitioner's wife vide RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 11/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:32:40 +0530 lease deed dated 30.05.2019 Ex.PW-1/R3 and then to Mr. Shamvir vide lease deed dated 31.12.2018 Ex.PW-1/R5 and to Mr. Narender Sharma vide lease deed dated 11.02.2015 Ex.PW-1/R6. It was argued that through such lease deeds, physical possession of the portions were given to the tenant and if there was any bonafide requirement, new tenants would not have been inducted by the petitioner or his wife. It was also argued that the petitioner has also failed to offer any explanation regarding status of such let out shops after expiry of the lease deeds.
27. Lastly, Ld. Counsel for the respondents argued that conduct of the petitioner and his admissions regarding various lease created in the building in question of different portions, particularly on the ground floor, shows that there was never any bonafide requirement for the need alleged in the eviction petition.
ANALYSIS WITH REASONS:
28. In order to setup a case under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner/landlord has to establish the following ingredients:
(i) Existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties;
(ii) That the landlord/petitioner is the owner of the property;RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 12/33
Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:32:45 +0530
(iii) That the premises are required bonafidely for his use or for the use of any other family member dependent on him; and
(iv) That he does not have any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation available with him.
In Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India, [AIR 2008 SC 3148], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has extended the scope of the provision to include areas for which an eviction petition can be filed which are commercial in nature.
29. It is well settled that the petitioner need not be an absolute owner of the tenanted premises. In a landlord-tenant dispute, the owner is the one who has better rights than that of the tenant and it is not incumbent upon the landlord to prove beyond shadow of doubt that he is the owner of the property as is rather required if he was contesting a suit whereby his title was challenged. A person who may not be the absolute owner but exercises rights of the property more than that of a tenant, is also recognized to be petitioner/owner under the DRC Act. The petitioner may be a lessee of a land/property from the government, a mortgagee with possession or even a prospective purchaser of the property put into possession in part performance of the agreement of sale for valuable consideration with a will and an irrevocable power of attorney. The law with regard to concept of ownership in context with Clause (e) of Section 14 (1) is well settled and leaves no doubt that the 'ownership' contemplated in this provision is viz-a-viz the tenant and an RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 13/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.10.30 17:32:49 +0530 owner means that his ownership over the subject premises is something more than the tenant. Mere denial of ownership is no denial and when the respondent denies the ownership of the petitioner, he must state as to who is the owner of the property occupied by him. The tenant cannot be allowed to convert the eviction petition into a title suit by raising unnecessary objections about the title of the petitioner.
30. The bonafide requirement must be a sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere and honest desire rather than mere pretense. Such need must be conceived in good faith and the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession howsoever honest has inevitably a subjective element in it and such desire to become a requirement in law must have an objective element of need. As regards the bonafide requirement of the petitioner, it is settled that it is not open for the Court or to the tenant to dictate the petitioner in what manner he should live nor can the Court impose its own standards upon the landlord. Such bonafide need of the landlord is to be considered on the date of filing of the petition and the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined when the petition was filed.
31. The Courts have time and again observed that landlord is the best judge of his requirements and he has complete freedom in the matter. It is not the concern of the Court or the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live or conduct his business, unless the requirement of the landlord is shown to be totally malafide or not RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 14/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:32:54 +0530 genuine. As regards the alternate accommodation alleged by the respondent/tenant, the same must also be suitable to fulfill the need of the landlord in comparison to the premises from which eviction is sought.
32. The factual matrix of the case shall be examined through prism of legal position enunciated above.
Ownership of the petitioner over the demised premises & Subsistence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
33. These two criteria shall be discussed together, as they are interlinked. To substantiate his ownership and landlorship over the tenanted premises, petitioner has primarily relied upon rent receipt Ex.PW-1/2 issued in favour of the respondents by the petitioner. Petitioner has further relied upon the registered partition deed dated 24.03.2014 Ex.PW-1/3 executed between him, his brother Mr. Subhash Chand Kathuria and legal heirs of his brother Mr. Ved Prakash Kathuria to show that the tenanted premises bearing no. 5744 falls within the share of the third party in such partition deed i.e. petitioner herein.
34. It is pertinent to mention here itself that such documents relied upon by the petitioner have remained uncontroverted throughout the trial. Furthermore, it is noticeable that the respondents have admitted themselves to be tenant in respect of the shop in question in their written statement. Further, RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 15/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:32:59 +0530 tenants have raised several objections regarding the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises in the written statement. However, it is noticeable that in the written submissions filed by the respondents on 06.06.2025, they have specifically averred that they admit the petitioner to be the owner as well as landlord of the tenanted premises.
35. Hence, it is quite apparent that there is no dispute over the ownership and landlorship of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. Even otherwise, from the bare perusal of the documents relied upon by the petitioner, it becomes evident that he is the owner as well as landlord qua the tenanted premises and from the perusal of the written statement also, no meritorious defense has been raised by the respondents in this regard. All the objections taken in written statement pertains to availability of alternate accommodation as well as need of the petitioner being malafide. Hence, comprehensive perusal of the documents relied upon by the petitioner and the contentions of the respondents in the written statement shows that there is no dispute over the relationship between the parties as that of landlord and tenant.
36. No substantial doubt was raised by the respondents upon the veracity of aforesaid title documents relied upon by the petitioner. No questions challenging the genuineness and authenticity of such documents were put on behalf of respondents to the petitioner's witness and even otherwise, no meritorious doubt over the authenticity of such documents has been raised by the respondents. More so, respondents have not alleged any RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 16/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:04 +0530 interest or rights in the tenanted premises to be more than that of a tenant.
37. Respondents themselves admit their capacity as a tenant of the petitioner in several paras of the written statement. It appears that objection regarding lack of ownership of petitioner over the tenanted premises has been taken by the respondents in their written submissions only for the sake of raising some dispute as essentially no meritorious or significant defense regarding the landlordship of the petitioner was raised during the trial.
38. In such circumstances, it is a well settled position of law that tenant has no locus to challenge the ownership of the landlord under Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is trite that in proceedings under Section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act, petitioner is not required to demonstrate a perfect title over the tenanted property but is only required to show that he/she is somewhat more than a tenant therein. Be that as it may, in the present case, the relationship between the parties as landlord- tenant has been clearly established and it is also established that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises for the purposes of the present eviction petition.
39. It is well settled that the petitioner is not required to show his/her absolute title over the tenanted premises and the ownership has to be considered qua the tenant. It is settled that if the landlord was receiving rent for himself/herself and not on behalf of someone else, he/she will be considered as the owner, RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 17/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:09 +0530 howsoever imperfect his/her title may be over the property. A tenant can only challenge the title of the landlord after vacating the premises and not prior to that. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi [2008 SCC OnLine Del 1187].
40. In view of the above, as the petitioner has been able to show better title than that of the respondents in the tenanted premises, his ownership over the tenanted premises stands established only for the purpose of present petition and it also stands established that there subsists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
Bonafide nature of the requirement disclosed by the petitioner & Availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner
41. These criteria shall be considered together as well. It is a well settled proposition of law that in a petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the bonafide nature of the requirement disclosed by the landlord has to be presumed, and the onus is upon the respondent/tenant to bring on record 'facts' within the meaning of Section 25-B(4) of DRC Act to refute this presumption. Reliance at this juncture can be placed upon the seminal pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1998) 8 SCC 119]. It shall now be examined if the respondent has been able to bring on RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 18/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:14 +0530 record any such 'facts' within the meaning of Section 25-B(4) to refute the presumption which arises in favour of the petitioner.
42. Bonafide requirement disclosed by the petitioner in the present petition is that petitioner is a senior citizen of about 62 years of age as on 2015 when the petition was filed and the tenanted premises are required by him for his own occupation and for doing cloth business, which he has experience in as he was earlier carrying out such business.
43. Furthermore, it is the case of the petitioner that considering his old age and his knee problems and the fact that he cannot comfortably climb the stairs, tenanted premises, being situated on the ground floor, are most suitable for the need of the petitioner. Petitioner has further submitted that no other shop in the entire building can be construed as alternate accommodation for the need of the petitioner as all such shops on every floor are in possession of various tenants and one small shop bearing no. 5745/1F is deep inside the building and not suitable for his business.
44. Need of the petitioner is opposed by the respondents by alleging that petitioner has sufficient space available with him in the building in question and the entire building is commercial in nature. It was also argued that need of the petitioner is malafide as he has been repeatedly letting out the shops in the tenanted premises after its vacation to new tenants. It was pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the respondents that the shops situated on the ground floor i.e. shop no. 5745/1B has been let out by the RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 19/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:18 +0530 wife of the petitioner vide lease deeds Ex.PW-1/R3, Ex.PW-1/R5 and Ex.PW-1/R6. Similarly, he argued that the shops on the second floor of the building in question were also let out to different tenants by the petitioner vide lease deeds Ex.PW-1/R2, Ex.PW-1/R4 and Ex. PW-1/R7.
45. Accordingly, the primary contest to the present eviction petition by the respondents is on the ground that even during pendency of present eviction petition, the petitioner has been letting out various commercial shops in the same building which reflects that he does not need the tenanted premises bonafidely and his only intention is to let out the same at a higher rent after getting the same vacated to increase his rental income.
46. It was inter-alia argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner has let out several shops on the second floor of the building in question vide lease deed dated 13.10.2014 Ex.PW-1/R7, lease deed dated 03.10.2018 Ex.PW-1/R4. It was further argued that the physical possession of such portions were given to the tenant by the petitioner. However, I do not find any merit in such arguments of the respondent as such facts per se do not show any malafides on the part of the petitioner. Such shops/portions located on the second floor of the property cannot be construed as an alternate accommodation, especially in light of the old age and medical condition of the petitioner. It is his case that the premises in question are required for doing his own cloth business and in such circumstances, the shop located at the ground floor would obviously be preferred over those located on the upper floors.
RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 20/33
Digitally
signed by
BHARAT
BHARAT AGGARWAL
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30
17:33:23
+0530
47. Petitioner is admittedly a senior citizen and he has specifically averred that he has difficulty in climbing the stairs. Respondents, on the other hand, have alleged that petitioner has not filed any medical documents showing his ailments. In the opinion of this court, there is no legal requirement of filing such medical documents by the petitioner to show his medical condition as any senior citizen would prefer a premises located on the ground floor over those located on the upper floors for the sake of convenience and comfort. This is more so when such premises are rather required for commercial purpose as the same would have more visibility on the ground floor.
48. Even otherwise, such alternate shops being on the upper floors cannot qualify as 'suitable' alternate accommodation. Here, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta [MANU/SC/0432/1999] are relevant to the controversy at hand and are reproduced below:
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 21/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:28 +0530 landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14, which speaks of non-availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come." (emphasis supplied)
49. It was argued that need of the petitioner is also malafide only for the reason that the first floor and the upper floors in the area are commercial and sufficient space is available on the upper floors. It is common knowledge that commercial shops and more specifically cloth business is preferred on the ground floor as the customers can easily reach there and the articles can also be easily displayed by the shopkeeper for sale. The factors of convenience, comfort, visibility and commercial RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 22/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:32 +0530 viability cannot be ignored. In a case, where the landlord wants to set up his business on the ground floor of the property as it is suitable for the business in question, neither the tenant nor the Court can dictate the landlord to use the upper floors or shop located deep inside the building and not having separate access from the road for conducting his business. The same is well settled position of law and also reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday Shankar Vs. Naveen Maheshwari [(2010) 1 SCC 503].
50. The bonafides of the need expressed by the petitioner is primarily challenged by the respondents on the ground that another shop situated on the ground floor bearing shop no. 5745/1B has been consistently let out by the wife of the petitioner as landlady during the pendency of the eviction petition. In this regard, the respondents relied upon lease deeds dated 30.05.2019 Ex.PW-1/R3, lease deed dated 31.12.2018 Ex.PW-1/R5 and lease deed dated 11.02.2015 Ex.PW-1/R6 to buttress their contention that the intention of the landlord is only to earn rental income and not to start any business as falsely alleged in the eviction petition.
51. It was also argued that wife of the petitioner would not have any right to let out such shop as admittedly, such shop is owned by the petitioner and there is no registered instrument whereby the aforesaid shop was transferred to the wife of the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for respondents also pointed out that petitioner and his wife are both residing together at Gurgaon and it cannot be the case that such shop was given legally towards RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 23/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:37 +0530 maintenance to the wife of the petitioner.
52. Per-contra, it is the case of the petitioner that such shop no. 5745/1B on the ground floor was settled by the petitioner on his wife much prior to filing of the present petition. It is his case that his wife Smt. Anita Kathuria has been dealing with the said shop as its landlady and she has been letting out the same by means of registered lease deed and enjoying its rental income. Petitioner further submitted that even otherwise, he is best judge of his requirement and he has complete freedom in such matter. He further argued that it is trite that landlord would have choice of particular accommodation considering his special needs and convenience.
53. There may be merit in the contention of a tenant to the effect that the landlord has been letting out a similarly situated shop on the ground floor itself consistently to enjoy rental income, which may be an indicator of lack of bonafides. It may appear that since the landlord through his wife, has preferred to earn rental income over opening his own business, his actual intention would be to let out the property in question also after getting it vacated by alleging falsehood before the court. In such circumstances, it may prima-facie appear that the landlord has misused the process of law to create a false paucity of accommodation only to evict a statutory tenant by misleading the court and concealing material information.
54. However, upon comprehensive appreciation of evidence led on record, it becomes evident that such is not the RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 24/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:41 +0530 case in the present petition. The petitioner has vehemently argued that such shop situated on the ground floor bearing no. 5745/1B was settled by him upon his wife for her upkeep and maintenance. He has further vehemently argued that his wife has always enjoyed rental income from the alleged alternate shop i.e. 5745/1B even much prior to filing of the present eviction petition. Such submission of the landlord/petitioner is also fortified from a bare perusal of the registered lease deed dated 11.02.2015 Ex.PW-1/R6, whereby Smt. Anita Kathuria i.e. wife of the petitioner herein, had let out the shop no. 5745/1B to the tenant Mr. Narender Sharma for a period of four years w.e.f. 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2018. It is extremely essential to reproduce one of the recitals of such lease deed which would go on to show that such shop has been let out by the wife of the petitioner since 2006-07. Such recital is set out below:
"WHEREAS the Lessor is the Landlady of ONE SHOP BEARING NO. 5745/1-B, ON GROUND FLOOR, SITUATED AT JOGIWARA, NAI SARAK, DELHI, the said shop has been settled on her by her husband Mr. Ashok Kumar Kathuria (the owner thereof) towards her maintenance, and such she has leased out the above mentioned ONE SHOP duly marked as RED COLOUR in the site plan attached to the lessee herewith, hereinafter referred to as the 'Demised Premises', since about 2006-07. And whereas no written agreement in this regard was executed between the parties and parties have agreed to put in writing the terms & conditions."
55. A bare perusal of such essential recital of the lease deed Ex.PW-1/R6 shows that not only the petitioner had RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 25/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:45 +0530 conferred such shop for monthly income and maintenance upon his wife but also that such shop has consistently remained on lease since about 2006-07. It is noticeable that such document is a registered instrument and accordingly, its authenticity has to be presumed in light of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
56. Furthermore, it is not to be forgotten that such document Ex.PW-1/R6 was produced by the respondents themselves during the course of the trial and hence, respondents cannot raise any doubt over genuineness and authenticity of its contents. Respondents have not raised any specific objection to the terms and recitals of such lease deed Ex.PW-1/R6 during the trial. It is not even the case of the respondents that such recital in the lease deed is forged or fabricated or maliciously or cleverly drafted by the petitioner to support his contentions in the eviction petition. Neither any argument was advanced to this effect nor any evidence led in this regard on behalf of respondents.
57. Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 inter-alia provides that when terms of a contract have been reduced into writing, no evidence shall be given in proof of such terms, except the documents itself. Hence, the registered lease deed Ex.PW-1/R6 is per se substantial proof of the fact that the aforesaid alleged alternate shop no. 5745/1B was leased out by the wife of the petitioner much prior to filing of the present eviction petition. It is also noticeable that Section 92 of the Act inter-alia provides that when the terms of the contract are proved in accordance with Section 91, no evidence of any oral RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 26/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:50 +0530 agreement or statement between the parties shall be admitted for purpose of contradicting or varying from the terms of such contract. Hence, the registered lease deed Ex.PW-1/R6 substantially establishes that the shop bearing no. 5745/1B was let out by the wife of the petitioner much prior to filing of the eviction petition and it is not a case where such property was let out immediately prior to filing of eviction petition to create paucity of space. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, the need of the petitioner cannot be construed as malafide only on such account.
58. I also do not find any merit in the argument that wife of the petitioner could not have let the aforesaid shop to the tenant as she is admittedly not the owner of such shop. The present dispute cannot be converted into an issue of title between the petitioner and his wife and in any case, it is not the concern of the tenant to find legal anomalies in the other lease deeds executed between his landlord and other tenants regarding other properties.
59. In the traditional setup, it is often noticed that when a person owns certain properties and enjoys rental income therefrom, he may earmark and identify certain shops for the purpose of meeting his monthly expenses or repayment of his loan. Similarly, such a landlord may earmark some of his property for the maintenance/income and meeting expenses of his spouse for their well-being.
60. It may also be a case that a landlord does not want to RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 27/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:33:55 +0530 start his business from a shop from where he is earning substantial income to meet his monthly expenses and it is his choice to open his business from another shop which may suit his need and circumstances better. It cannot be expected that a person would let go of a shop from where he earns substantial rental income merely because the similarly situated/adjacent shop is occupied by a statutory tenant. This is also because he may not be successful in his intended business which is planned to be carried out from the tenanted premises.
61. It is trite that the landlord has complete freedom in this sense and neither the tenant nor the court can step into the shoes of the landlord and direct him to do his business from a particular shop while foregoing his monthly rental income earmarked for meeting his expenses. In this regard, certain observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shyam Sunder Ahuja Vs. Shushil Kumar [2017 SCC OnLine Del 10624] are relevant to the controversy and are reproduced below:
"14. It is the accommodation available to the landlord at the time of filing of the petition for eviction which ordinarily has to be considered.
15. Though in some situations, the action of the landlord, of shortly before the filing of the petition for eviction of arranging his affairs in a manner so as to deprive himself of the suitable alternative premises may constitute a ground to disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act but it cannot be said that the facts disclosed by the petitioner/tenant in the leave to defend application were such. The petitioner/tenant RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 28/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:34:00 +0530 though pleaded sale by the respondent/tenant in the year 2010-11 but shied from pleading that the shops at the time of sale were vacant. Without pleading so, it cannot be said that mere sale of the shop about 4/5 years prior to the institution of the petition for eviction, if was already in possession of a tenant or someone else, would be a fact which would disentitle the respondent/landlord from an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
16. Not only so, the petitioner/tenant also did not state that there was no change in the requirement of the respondent/landlord since then. Merely taking a plea that the respondent/landlord has in the past sold some property or let out some property has in Narender Kumar Shah Proprietor Jay Bharat Steels v. Malti Narang 2014 SCC OnLine Del 3839 and Anil Kumar Bagania v. Shiv Rani 2014 SCC OnLine Del 6645 been held to be not a ground for denying order of eviction to landlord on the ground of self requirement of premises."
62. It is noticeable that there is no evidence on record to show that the alleged alternate shop bearing no. 5745/1B was vacant and available to the petitioner prior to execution of lease deed Ex.PW-1/R6. It is not a case where upon analysis of the evidence led on record, it appears that the landlord has created artificial paucity of accommodation by cleverly letting out a similarly situated property prior to institution of the petition. The evidence led on record and documents relied upon by the respondent itself shows that the other shop alleged to be alternatively suitable, was in-fact let out by the petitioner through his wife for substantial time prior to filing of the present case.
RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 29/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.10.30 17:34:08 +0530
63. There is nothing on record to suggest that such shop bearing no. 5745/1B was vacant prior to institution of the present eviction petition and could have been utilized by the petitioner herein for his need expressed. It is trite that the court would not unnecessarily make an endeavor to see as to how else the landlord can adjust himself in the tenanted premises and when a landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the court to draw a presumption that his requirement is bonafide. It is quite settled that suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and the family members and on the basis of their circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background and in such circumstances, it is repeatedly held that landlord is the best judge of his requirement of the space for his/her own residence and tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord to adjust in a particular manner.
64. During the course of arguments, the tenant/respondents only emphasized on the shop no. 5745/1B and it is the admitted case that the other shops on the ground floor are either let out or unavailable to the petitioner. The shop bearing no. 5745/1F is located deep inside the property and much smaller in size. Hence, the same cannot be construed as alternate or suitable accommodation to the petitioner. Even otherwise, for such shop marked as point 'B' in the site plan relied upon by the respondents, no document has been filed by them to show that such shop is vacant and available to the petitioner. Similarly, not a single document has been filed by the respondents to show availability of any shop to the petitioner at C-320, Gurgaon, or property no. J-4, Near Alakhnanda, Kalkaji, New Delhi. Not a RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 30/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:34:13 +0530 single document has been filed by the respondents during the course of evidence and the lease deeds which were put to the petitioner's witness by the respondents have already been discussed above.
65. It is also noticeable that during the course of the present trial, the petitioner himself offered another shop to the respondent on the second floor of the building in question. A statement of the petitioner was also recorded in this regard on 07.08.2019, whereby he offered shop bearing no. 14/5745 on the second floor to the respondent. However, the respondent denied such offer of the petitioner and such offer was again given to wife of the respondent/RW-1 during her cross-examination on 03.07.2024. Despite her admission that occupants who are carrying out business on the second floor are flourishing in their business, she denied such offer. Hence, such circumstances also indicate bonafides of the petitioner as instead of letting out such shop on the second floor to a tenant on better rent, he chose to offer the same to the respondent and continue with the statutory tenancy. It also reflects that the need of the shop in question being situated on the ground floor is most suitable and genuine not fanciful.
66. Respondent also raised another objection regarding the site plan relied upon by the petitioner and it is alleged that petitioner has filed an incorrect and wrong site plan Ex.PW-1/1. It was strongly argued that respondent has filed a correct site plan Ex.RW-1/P1. However, at this juncture, cross-examination of respondent's witness / RW-1 assumes importance wherein she RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 31/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:34:19 +0530 specifically admitted that the tenanted premises is shown in red colour in the site plan Ex.PW-1/1. Hence, as per the admitted case of the respondent, the tenanted premises are properly depicted in the site plan relied upon by the petitioner. Therefore, such argument of the respondent regarding incorrect site plan is liable to be rejected. The purpose of filing a site plan is merely for proper identification of the suit property and their appears to be no dispute between the parties regarding the identification of the tenanted premises.
67. This Court is of the considered opinion that no "facts" have been brought on record by the respondent to refute the claim of the petitioner that the requirement for the tenanted premises is bonafide. This criterion is hereby established. It also stands established that the petitioner does not have available any alternate accommodation for the requirements disclosed in the eviction petition.
CONCLUSION:
68. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant petition stands allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed u/s 14 (1)
(e) of the Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of one shop, admeasuring 8'3" x 8'9", known as 5744, GF, Jogiwara, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006, more clearly delineated in red in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1 which is annexed with the eviction petition. However, this order shall not RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 32/33 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:34:23 +0530 be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided u/s 14 (7) of DRC Act. Parties to bear their own costs.
69. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.10.30 17:34:30 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal) Today i.e. 30.10.2025 ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi Present judgment consists of 33 pages and each page bears my initials. Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.30 17:34:35 +0530 (Bharat Aggarwal) ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 30.10.2025 RC ARC No. 77478/16 Ashok Kumar Kathuria Vs. Madan Lal & Anr. Page No. 33/33