Delhi District Court
Mohd. Ismail vs Parmod Kumar on 6 June, 2025
RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARJINDER KAUR,
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (SPECIAL
ACT), CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No: 77242/2016
Mohd Ismail
S/o late Mohd Naseeruddhin
R/o 4369, Shah Ganj,
Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110006
........ Petitioner
VERSUS
Parmod Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Kewal Kumar
R/o 4296, Kuc Pandith Lalkuan
Delhi-110006
......... Respondent
***********
Date of Filing of petition : 20.07.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 06.06.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 06.06.2025
Decision of petition : Allowed
***********
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed the present petition Under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of tenanted premises bearing no. 4296, Ground Floor, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi-06, as shown in red colour in the site plan (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.1 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
THE PETITION
2. As per petition, the petitioner is the landlord and owner of the premises No. 4296, situated at Kuchpandit Lalkua, Delhi- 110006 and the respondent is the tenant of the premises @ Rs. 120/- p.m. That previously the father of the respondent was tenant and had executed a rent note photocopy is enclosed the last rent receipt issued is annexed thereafter no rent has been paid the respondent. That the petitioner has five sons namely (1) Mohd. Israil aged 30 years and is married and has one children (2) Mohd. Imran aged about 27 years is married and has one children (3) Mohd. Subhan is aged abot 22 years and is to be married and settled in life and occupation (4) Mohd. Salman aged about 20 years and intends to settled in business (5) Mohd. Khalil is aged 18 years and is also to be settled in business and as he is dependent upon petitioner for commercial accommodation. That presently the petitioner is working with his son Mohd. Israil in the tenanted shop No. 3196-98/8 situated at Lalkua Delhi and paying rent. The landlord of the tenanted premises namely Saddruddin has asked the petitioner to vacated the shop and has served a demand note of Rs. 20512/- as arrears of rent to the petitioner. That the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for his bonafide purposes for himself and for his son Mohd. Israil who is totally dependent upon the petitioner for commercial accommodation. There is no other suitable and reasonable commercial accommodation available to the petitioner except the suit premises. That the son of the petitioner Mohd. Israil is carrying on the business of selling (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.2 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar general Merchandise and wants to carry on the same business at his own shop at 4296, Kuchpandit, Lalkua, Delhi. Thus, the eviction of respondent from tenanted premises has been prayed for.
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. As per WS, the respondent was inducted as a tenant by Mst. Mohd. Nisa, wife of Shri Nasiruddin, R/o 4369, Mohalla Shah Ganj, Delhi. That Mst. Mohd. Nisa has filed a civil suit against the petitioner before the Hon'ble Court of Shri B.S. Chaudhary, the then, A.D.J. Delhi, and one of the date was 17.10.1997. That the above said leave was taken by the respondent in the written statement to the suit filed by the present petitioner against the answering respondent and his brother and the title of the suit was Mohd. Ismail Versus Pramod Kumar and another in suit No. 505 of 2007 in which he has specifically stated that prior to Mohd. Nisa has also served a legal notice dated 16.09.1997 and in reply to the said notice also, the same fact was stated by the answering respondent. That the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises and there was a dispute between Mst. Mohd. Nisa and the petitioner and due to this reason, the petitioner has not supplied the copy of the judgment nor informed the fact to the effect who was declared as the owner of the premises. That inspite of the various opportunities given by the Hon'ble Court in the above said suit, the petitioner was not able to prove the fact that he is the owner of the premises and moreover, neither the cost has been paid to the applicant nor the same has been deposited in the Delhi Legal Aid Cell, as directed by the (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.3 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar Hon'ble court. So the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also, specifically in the facts and circumstances when the petitioner inspite of the various opportunities granted by the Civil Court, is not able to prove that he is the owner of the premises and that issue has become final. That the present petition under section 14(1) (e) read with section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act is not maintainable in its present forms as the premises was never let out by the petitioner to the respondent for running the commercial activities in the tenanted premises and moreover, the petition is liable to be dismissed because the petition has been filed on false and frivolous grounds.
REPLICATION
4. Replication/ rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to each written statement of the respondents, wherein the averments made in the petition have been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondent in the written statement has been vehemently denied as false.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER
5. PW-1 Mohd Israil had tendered affidavit Ex. PW-1/A in his evidence and relied upon following documents in his evidence:-
Ex. PW-1/1 (OS&R) is the copy of Special Power of Attorney.
Ex. PW-1/2 is the site plan annexed with the petition. Ex. PW-1/3 is the rent note alongwith Hindi translation. Ex. PW-1/4 (OS&R) is the sale deed of property bearing no. 4292-96.
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC,
06.06.2025 Page no.4 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar Ex. PW-1/5 are the counterfoil of rent receipts. Ex. PW-1/6 is teh certified copy of judgment. Ex. PW-1/7 is the site plan.
5.1 Vide order dated 27.05.2019, evidence on behalf of petitioner was closed in affirmative.
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT
6. RW1 Sh. Parmod Kumar tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1/A bearing his signatures at point A & B. 6.1 RW-2 Salemuddin tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, Ex. RW-2/A bearing his signatures at point A and B respectively.
6.1 Vide order dated 17.10.2022, RE was closed.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and I have also carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents and material on record and case law relied upon.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS
8. At the outset, it is expedient to reproduce Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which 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 (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.5 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
9. As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) There should be a 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/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
10. Let us now discuss the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act one by one as applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
I. OWNERSHIP & LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
11. As per the petition, the petitioner is the landlord and the owner of the premises and the respondent is tenant at the rate of Rs.120 per month. That previously the father of the respondent was tenant and he had also executed a rent note. 11.1 As per the written statement, the respondent was inducted as tenant by Mohd. Nisa wife of Sh. Nasiruddin, resident of 4369, Mohalla Shah Ganj, who had also filed a civil suit against the present petitioner.
11.2 To prove the present case, Mohd. Israil, the son of the petitioner was examined as PW-1 and he deposed through his affidavit Ex. PW 1/A as one of the petitioners and as attorney of other petitioners since other petitioners had executed SPA in his favor. The copy of SPA is Ex.PW 1/1. He deposed that the petitioners are the co-owner and landlord of property no. 4296 and the respondent is tenant in respect of one shop on the ground floor (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.6 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar as shown in red color in the site plan Ex. PW1/2. It is further deposed that at the time of the creation of tenancy, a rent note was executed between the petitioner and the respondent in Urdu. The said rent note along with Hindi translation is Ex. PW1/3. The petitioner is stated to be the owner of the property vide sale deed Ex. PW1/4. The copy of the rent receipts is Ex. PW1/5. 11.3 From the perusal of cross examination PW-1 it comes out that Mst. Nisa was the grandmother of the petitioner who, as admitted in the written statement, had inducted the respondent as tenant. Also, it becomes clear from the cross examination of PW-1 that the landlord-tenant relationship between petitioner and the respondent is not a matter of dispute. The counsel for respondent has himself suggested during the cross examination of PW 1 dated 10.12.2018 that the "respondent is tenant with respect to the shop which has been shown in the red colour site plan ExPW1/2." It has further been stated by PW-1 during his cross examination dated 27.05.2019 that "respondent is tenant in the property in question since beginning, his shop has having two shutters, I do not remember the exact measurement of the shop in question. The present rate of the shop in question is Rs.400 per month. It is correct that my father had not given any notice to the respondent for increasing the rent." It has also come again and again during the cross examination of PW 1 that his father Mohd. Ismail was the owner of the suit property. 11.4 In the respondent evidence, Sh. Parmod Kumar, the respondent himself appeared as RW1 and deposed through his affidavit Ex. RW1/A wherein he admitted that he is tenant on the (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.7 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar ground floor of the premises bearing no. 4296, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi and one shop on the first floor. However, during his crosse examination dated 17.11.2021 he admitted that he is tenant in respect of only one shop. Also, regarding the first floor, RW1 stated during his cross examination that "It is correct that the first floor is consisting of 8 small shops. I do not know whether Jai Dev Goel is a tenant in respect of four shops at the first floor. One shop is under the tenancy of Mr. Dilshad at the first floor and one shop is in the tenancy of Mauzzam Rizvi at the first floor. One shop is in the tenancy of Shajid Kasim at the first floor. One shop on the first floor has been vacated by Firozuddin." 11.5 Thus, it is clear that from the cross examination of respondent RW1 that he nowhere stared that he is in possession of one shop at the first floor also. Moreover, the respondent nowhere challenged the site plan filed by the petitioner with regard to the tenanted premises and has also not filed any counter site plan. In view thereof this court comes to conclusion that the site plan Ex. PW1/2 of the petitioner correctly depicts the tenanted premises in possession of the respondent.
11.6 The respondent has prayed for dismissal of the petition on the ground of concealment of material facts by the petitioner. The respondent deposed through his evidence affidavit that Mst. Nisa had filed civil suit against the petitioner, the final outcome of which has not been disclosed by the petitioner and the petitioner has concealed this fact while filing the present petition. In his cross examination he admitted that Mst. Nisa was mother of his landlord Mohd Ismail. He further stated during this cross (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.8 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar examination that he received a notice from Mst. Nisa asking him not to pay rent to the petitioner. However, there is no mention of any such notice either in the written statement or in the evidence affidavit of the respondent. Also, the respondent has nowhere challenged the sale deed Ex. PW1/4(OSR) on the basis of which the petitioner is claiming to be the owner of the property. In his cross examination also, he did not deny and pleaded ignorance regarding the fact that Mst. Nisa had executed sale deed in favor of the petitioner.
11.7 Thus, the ownership of the petitioner over the suit property and the landlord tenant relationship between the petitioner and respondent stands established.
II. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT & ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION
12. As stated in the petition the tenanted premises is bonafide required by the petitioner for himself and his son Mohd. Israil to run a general store. It is stated that petitioner has five sons namely:-
I. Mohd. Israil aged 30 years who is married and is having one child.
II. Mohd. Imran aged 27 years who is married and is having one child.
III. Mohd. Subhan aged 22 years who is to be married and settled in life.
IV. Mohd. Salman aged 20 years also intending to settle down in life.
V. Mohd. Khalil is aged 18 years and is also to be settled in (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.9 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar independent business.
12.1 It is further stated that presently the petitioner is running general store with his son Mohd Israil in tenanted shop 3196-98/8 situated at Lal Kuan, Delhi under the landlord ship of Saddamudin who has asked the petitioner to vacate the shop.
Therefore, the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for Bonafide need for himself and his son Mohammed Israil who is totally dependent upon the petitioner for a commercial accommodation and there is no other suitable and reasonable accommodation available to the petitioner. 12.2 In the written statement the respondent has not denied the extent of family of the petitioner and has also not denied the fact that petitioner along with his son Mohd. Israil is running a business in a tenanted shop and has been asked by their landlord to vaccate the same.
12.3 Since the petitioner expired during the pendency of the eviction petition, Mohd. Israil as PW1 deposed that the premises is bonafide required for himself to start a general store. 12.4 Perusal of cross examination of PW1 and the respondent evidence led show that none of the above facts were disputed by the respondent. The main defense set up by the respondent is that the petitioner has got various other properties available to fulfill the stated need. The properties allegedly owned by the petitioner as disclosed by the respondent are being discussed hereunder:-
(i) Property no. 4292-4296, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi.
(a) It is pertinent note that there is no mention of these (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.10 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar properties in the petition except property no 4296 of which the tenanted shop forms a part.
(b) It is deposed by RW1 that there are four shops in the property 4294 which have not been shown in the site plan filed by the petitioner. Also, there are eight shops on the first floor of the said property and there are more shops on the second and third floor of the property. He also deposed that, Mohd. Imran is running a shop in this property. It is further deposed by RW1 that these properties were owned by the petitioner and this fact has not been mentioned in the petition nor any site plan to this effect has been filed. All these properties are commercial and some shops have been given on rent where as some shops are lying vacant.
(c) PW1 admitted during his cross examination that "My father was owner of property 4295, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi. The shops in that property are not lying vacant we have filed cases against the tenants qua the said property."
(d) PW1 in his evidence affidavit had deposed that property no. 4292-96 is one property measuring about 83 sq. yards and it consists of ground floor, first floor and second floor owned by the petitioner vide sale deed Ex. PW1/4(OSR). He has further deposed that ground floor of this property consists of four shops all in the occupation of tenants viz. the respondent, M/s Ruby Engineering, ASS Mechanical and Mr. Abdul Gafoor. That the first floor has eight shops all in occupation of tenants viz. four shops with Jaidev Goel, one with Dilshad, one with Moujjam Rizvi, one with Sajid Qasim and one with Firozzuddin. That the second floor this property is purely residential and being used as (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.11 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar such by the tenants.
(e) All these facts have been admitted by RW1 in his cross examination except that one shop on the ground floor and first floor have been vacated by Firozzuddin prop. Of M/s Ruby Engineering Works. However, RW2 admitted during his cross examination that it is correct that the license from MCD has been obtained in the name Salman and Salman is running chemist shop in the shop vacated by Mohd. Ferozuddin.
(f) Thus, the respondent has failed to prove that any other shop in this property is lying vacant to fulfill the Bonafide need stated in the petition.
(ii) Property no. 4369, Shah Ganj, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
(a) RW1 deposed that this building is also multistoried building and the same is being used for commercial purpose and this fact has been concealed in the petition.
(b) PW1 admitted during his cross examination dated 10.12.2018 that this property was owned by his father. He further stated during his cross examination dated 27.05.2019 that this property is constructed upto three storey and further that there are three shops in this property which are not owned by them. He further stated that "I am not aware whether the documents in respect of the said property has been filed or not in the present petition." However, in his evidence affidavit the PW1 had stated that this property is a double storey DDA flat which is being used by the petitioner and his family for residential purpose. This fact is corroborated by the residential address of petitioner and his legal heirs as mentioned in the original and amended memo of parties (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.12 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar respectively. The suggestion put by the counsel for respondent to PW1 during his cross examination that "It is correct that Mohd. Ismail was residing in the abovesaid property and he was the owner of the property." also implies an admission on the part of the respondent that this property is being used for residential purpose by the petitioner's family.
(c) Thus, the respondent failed to prove that this property is alternate suitable accommodation for the need stated in the petition.
(iii) Property no. 3734-3736, Shah Ganj, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi.
(a) RW1 deposed that this property consists of three storey building and being used for commercial activities. It is further deposed that, Mohd. Salman is carrying on his business from this property. It is also deposed that the said property was let out to various tenants after filing of the present eviction petition.
(b) PW1 admitted during his cross examination dated 10.12.2018 that this property was owned by his father. He further stated that this property consists of five floors but there is no shop in this property. He further stated that "It is wrong to suggest that my father deliberately did not mention these properties in the present petition. It is wrong to suggest that property no. 3734-36 have been sold after filing the present petition. (vol. that property had been constructed in collaboration). It is correct that the document i.e. sale deed which is Ex. PW-1/R-1." Further during his cross examination dated 27.05.2019, PW1 admitted that "It is correct that my father was the owner of the said properties. However, it is a single property." .......... "the property is (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.13 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar admeasuring 135 sq. yards and the same is residential property." I n his evidence affidavit, PW1 had deposed regarding this property that the petitioner is co-owner of this property and got it constructed up to fifth floor in collaboration agreement and out of five floors the petitioners are co-owners of ground floor, half mezzanine floor, third, fourth and fifth floor which are being used for residential purpose only by the petitioners and their family members mentioned above. That the remaining floors are owned by the builders and the petitioner and his family members have no right, title or interest in the remaining floors.
(c) RW2 admitted during his cross-examination that this property is purely residential property and the LRs of petitioner are residing therein.
(d) Thus, the respondent failed to prove that this property is alternate suitable accommodation for the need stated in the petition.
(iv) Property no. 3196-98, ground floor, Kucha Pandit, Hamdard Marg, Delhi.
(a) RW1 deposed that petitioner was in possession of four shops in this property from where he was running the general store and this fact has been concealed by the petitioner.
(b) When PW1 was asked during his cross examination that "Q. I put to you that the four shops which were being in possession of your father as tenant are still in your family's possession?, he admitted that "It is correct that we are in possession of those shops. My father was in possession of those shops at the time of filing the petition." He further stated that "my (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.14 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar father has mentioned about those shops in the petition." Further in his cross examination dated 27.05.2019 PW1 again admitted that "it is correct that the shops wherein my father was tenant are still in the possession of my family."
(c) PW1 had deposed in his evidence affidavit that four shops in this property were taken on rent from Sh. Saeedudin wherein Mohammed Salman and Mohammad Khalil are running their general store and bakery to earn livelihood. That the landlord had filed eviction partition and vide judgment dated 02.01.2018 in the eviction petition no. 77279/2016 an eviction order has been passed against the petitioners the certified copy of which is Ex. PW1/6.
(d) Even RW1 has admitted during his cross examination that eviction order has been passed from the court in respect of above said shops.
(e) Since it is admitted position that these shops are not owned by the petitioner or his family members and, in fact, have been taken on rent and eviction order by court has already been passed, the same cannot be considered reasonably suitable alternate property for the need stated in the petition.
(f) RW1 also deposed that petitioner was owner of property in Sunder Nagar also. PW1 stated during his cross examination that "It is wrong to suggest that my father was the owner of plot in Sunder Nagar measuring 700 sq. yards." RW1 admitted during his cross examination that he has neither seen this property nor any document pertaining the same.
(g) RW1 also deposed that the petitioner was owner of (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.15 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar the property Chamaron ki Haveli, Delhi. RW1 admitted during his cross examination that he has neither seen this property nor any document pertaining the same.
12.5 In the case titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT 652 it was observed that:-
"24. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement".
12.5 It is also pertinent to note that respondent has not denied the need stated by the petitioner and has just emphasized on the issue that petitioner has sufficient and suitable alternative accomodation to fulfill his need. Here it is important to quote the following observation made in "Shri Satish Chand Vs. Girdhar Gopal Gupta decided on 10.01.2023:-
"......21. In the present petition there is no plea challenging the finding of the Trial Court with respect to the bona fide need of the landlord and his son addressed during the arguments. It is not disputed that Sh. Amit Gupta, son of the landlord is carrying on business and therefore the contention of the landlord that he needs the tenanted premises for his son's business stands sufficiently established on record.
22. As per Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord/landlady, is required to prove his/her bona fide need for the tenanted premises as well as that he/she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation, to satisfy their requirement. However, recently the Supreme Court in Abid-Ul-Islam (Supra) has held that in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the Court is concerned only with the requirement of a bonafide need and that the plea of alternative (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.16 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar accommodation is 'incidental one' at best. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment read as under:
"29. Section 14(1)(e) deals with only the requirement of a bona fide purpose. The contention regarding alternative accommodation can at best be only an incidental one. Such a requirement has not been found to be incorrect by the High Court, though it is not even open to it to do so, in view of the limited jurisdiction which it was supposed to exercise. Therefore, the very basis upon which the revision was allowed is obviously wrong being contrary to the very provision contained in Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B(8)."
The word 'incidental' as defined in the Oxford dictionary, sixth edition, refers to 'occurring as something casual or of secondary importance'. This would mean that availability of alternate accommodation should not become the decisive or pivotal factor in eviction proceedings. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, once a landlord/landlady has sufficiently established his/her plea of bona fide need, the mere availability of alternate accommodation at the disposal of the landlord/landlady is but a secondary factor and not a primary one and therefore the same cannot become the sole basis for permitting the tenant to retain the tenanted accommodation to the peril of the landlord/landlady, particularly once the other factors entitling him/her to recovery the premises have been established. The landlord/landlady having duly disclosed the alternate available accommodation and having reasonably explained that the same are not adequately suitable for his/her requirement, the fact that tenant contends that the said alternate accommodation is suitable cannot detain the Court from passing the eviction order. The Court will reject the explanation offered by the landlord/landlady with respect to the unsuitability of the alternate accommodation only if it is perverse, however the Court need not substitute the preference for tenanted premises shown by landlord/landlady with the dictates of the tenant. The preference shown by landlord/landlady for the possession of the tenanted premises vis-à-vis another alternative accommodation available to him/her cannot be rejected on the say-so of the tenant so as to set at naught the salutary purpose of Section 25B of the DRC Act. [The Technological Institute of Textiles and Sciences v. M/s Shree Nath Ji Developers, RC. REV. 174/2020]...."
12.6 Thus, this court comes to conclusion that the need of the petitioner is Bonafide and the petitioner does not own or (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.17 of 18 RC ARC No. 77242/2016 Mohd Ismail Vs. Parmod Kumar possess any alternate suitable accommodation to fulfill the stated need.
CONCLUSION
13. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, the petitioner is able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioners are held entitled for recovery of the suit premises i.e. tenanted premises bearing no. 4296, Ground Floor, Kucha Pandit, Lal Kuan, Delhi- 06, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioners would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 06.06.2025 (ARJINDER KAUR) ACJM (SPECIAL ACT), (CENTRAL),THC, Previously Presided as ARC-02, Central, THC 06.06.2025 (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 06.06.2025 Page no.18 of 18