Delhi District Court
Geeta Jain vs Dinesh Kumar Jain on 26 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. UPASANA SATIJA
SCJ-Cum-RC (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC ARC No. 55/2024
CNR NO. DLWT03-000472-2024
IN THE MATTER OF
Smt. Geeta Jain
Wife of late Shri Dinesh Kumar Jain
Property No.4502-3 (Old No.5216-5218)
Ward No.III, Pahari Dhiraj
Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
Also at:-
R/o D-33, First Floor
Gali No.4 Radhey Puri
Krishna Nagar, Delhi-110051. .....Petitioner
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Jain
Son of late Shri Puran Chand Jain
Shop No.4502/13, Pahari Dhiraj
Delhi-110006. ..... Respondent
Date of Institution : 23.01.2024
Date of Reserving the Order : 08.04.2025
Date of Decision : 26.04.2025
Decision : Application seeking leave to
defend filed on behalf of
respondent is dismissed.
Eviction order is passed.
ORDER
(on application for Leave to defend filed on behalf of respondent)
1. Smt. Geeta Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner') has filed a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 1 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:44:25 +0530 referred to as 'DRC Act') seeking eviction of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Jain (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') from Shop bearing No.4502/13, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi forming part of the property bearing No.4502-3 (Old No.5216-5218), Ward No.XIII, Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
Brief Facts pleaded in the petition
2.1. Petitioner is the sole, exclusive and absolute owner of the tenanted premises. Initially husband of the petitioner, namely, Shri Parveen Kumar Jain was the owner of the said property by virtue of documents vide Regn. No.3788, registered on 19.8.2002 in the office of Sub-Registrar, S.D.1, North District, Delhi; however, unfortunately he expired on 08.10.2008 intestate without leaving any Regd. Will, deposition, codicil etc., leaving behind his legal heirs i.e. the petitioner (wife), Smt. Santosh Bala Jain (mother) and children, namely, Ms. Prachi Jain and others. Out of love and affection, the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Parveen Kumar Jain executed a registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of the petitioner and by virtue of the said Relinquishment Deed dt. 01.02.2010, the petitioner became the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the said property.
2.2. Respondent is an old tenant in respect of a shop bearing No.4502/13, at a monthly rent of Rs.40.15 per month excluding other charges. The property is consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor. The ground floor is consisting of two shops; out of which, one shop is in the possession of the respondent being the tenant and the second shop of the property RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 2 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:44:30 +0530 is in possession of another tenant. The first floor and second floor of the said property is under the possession of the petitioner, however, the said portions are in dilapidated condition.
2.3. Petitioner is a widow lady having four children i.e. three daughters and one son out of which the elder daughter is married, the second daughter is doing private job, third daughter is not medically fit as she is suffering from mental ailment and the only son of the petitioner has just started his career as he is helping his mother in her small business. Petitioner is doing her business under the name and style of Shri Vardhman Traders being its sole proprietor and dealing in the Chinese items. The petitioner is not having any space/place to run her aforesaid business and hence, petitioner has taken a premises on rent at Property bearing No.F-20, Situated at Gali No.8, Radhey Puri, Delhi-110051. The rent of the said property is Rs.8000/- per month.
2.4. After gaining experience in the said field, the son of the petitioner at present is looking after the said business and is helping/assisting his mother. With the passage of time and goodwill, the clientage of the petitioner are increasing day by day and there is rise in the work-load of the petitioner and hence the petitioner requires her own accommodation to increase/start her own independent Business. Due to non-availability and lack of space, the petitioner is not in a position to grow-up her own business. The products in which the petitioner and her son are dealing require a good amount of space to be operational and property in question where the tenanted premises is situated is RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 3 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:44:34 +0530 ideally suited to meet the needs and requirement of the petitioner to establish her business/grow-up her business.
3. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent who filed application seeking leave to defend.
Leave to defend Application 4.1. In his application, respondent has stated that petitioner has no locus standi to file and maintain the eviction petition as petitioner is not the sole and absolute owner of the property. Further petitioner has not obtained the no-objection from the other co-owners and the said co-owner(s) have not consented to the present proceedings. The alleged relinquishment deed relied upon by the petitioner has no value/force as the same has not been executed in accordance of law. The present petition has been filed only to harass, humiliate and has been filed with the prime object to evict the respondent.
4.2. Petitioner has not impleaded the other co-tenants who are the necessary parties. The premises was let out by Late Sh. Gaida Mal to M/s Puran Chand Jain & Sons and father of the respondent including the respondent are the co-tenants in the premises and after the demise of father of the respondent the other legal heirs also become the tenant (s) by operation of law. The petitioner is in actual and physical possession of the entire first floor and second floor of the said properties i.e. 4502-4503, and petitioner and her son is running the office at the entire first floor and the second floor is lying vacant and is in good habitable condition.
RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 4 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:44:38 +0530 4.3. The petitioner is in occupation and possession of various properties and do not require the premises in question bonafidely as alleged in the petition. Petitioner is the owner/co-
owner and possess various other properties and has concealed the said fact:
i) The petitioner has got two shops on the Ground floor of property no. 4502-4503 Situated at Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi out of which one is in possession of the respondent along with other co-tenants and the other one was lying vacant.
The petitioner let out the abovesaid adjacent shop to one Sh. Arjun Prasad on 09.09.2014 at a monthly rental of Rs.30,000/-for the period of three years by virtue of registered lease deed and by afflux of time the lease was expired and after expiry of the lease period the tenant handed over the physical vacant possession of the said shop to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner son using the same for doing her business along with her son and the same was remained in possession of the petitioner till November 2023. Later on, the said shop again let out Arjun Prasad Sahu at a monthly rental of Rs. 60,000/- excluding all other charges with ulterior motive out of greed to evict the tenants of the adjoining shop i.e. premises in question and let out the same at higher rental.
ii) The petitioner is in actual and physical possession of the entire first floor and second floor of the said properties i.e. 4502-4503, (measuring about 70 Sq. Yds) and the entire first floor is being as an office and the petitioner and her son is running the office therein and the second floor is lying vacant and is in good habitable condition and can be used for the any other purpose if required.
RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 5 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:44:42 +0530
iii) The Petitioner is owner/co-owner of Property bearing no. 9/3583, situated at Dharam Pura, Jain Mohalla, Gali No. 8, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31. The ground floor consisting of seven shop and petitioner is using one shop at ground floor for garment business/office and let out the remaining other shops.
The first floor is being used for manufacturing and keeping the garments and second floor is lying vacant.
iv) The petitioner is in possession of property bearing no. F-20, Situated at Gali No.8, Radhey Puri, Delhi-110031 and the same belongs to her as per information received by the respondent and the petitioner is running the business under the name and style "Shri Vardman Traders"
having GST No. 07ALDPJ0593PITZ and is earning handsome sufficient amount from the said trade/business i.e. more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month.
v) Property no. P-27, Street no. 9, Shankar Nagar Extension, Delhi and entire property is in possession of the petitioner except one small portion at ground floor.
vi) Entire property bearing no. D-33, situated at Radhey Puri, Krishna Nagar Delhi. The ground floor is being used by the petitioner and her son for commercial purpose and first floor and above is being used for residential purpose.
vii) Shop situated at Moti Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and doing business under the name of M/s M. Manju.
viii) Petitioner is also running the shop with the assistance of her relative at Katra Laswaan, Chandni Chowk.
4.4. The alleged need of the petitioner is fictitious, illusionary and artificial. The petitioner is having more than RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 6 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:44:46 +0530 sufficient accommodation available with her and the present petition has been filed with the object to harass, humiliate and evict the respondent by hook and crook.
Reply to Leave to Defend
5. In her reply, the petitioner denied the averments made in the application seeking leave to defend and reiterated the facts pleaded in the petition.
6. Rejoinder to reply to leave to defend application was filed on behalf of the respondent.
7. Arguments were advanced on application seeking leave to defend.
8. On behalf of respondent, it was submitted that first and second floor of the same building is in occupation of the petitioner and can be used for her alleged bonafide need. It was further argued that relinquishment deed is not valid as one of the daughters of petitioner is not medically fit. It was further argued that petition is bad for non-joinder of co-tenants. It was further argued that need of petitioner is not bonafide but only artificial and at the most, it is a case of additional accommodation. It was further argued that the properties as enumerated in application seeking leave to defend are also available for the alleged need of the petitioner. It was further argued that copy of application under Section 27 DRC Act and copy of Written Statement of Respondent in injunction suit cannot be taken into consideration as the same were not filed with the petition.
RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 7 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:47:17 +0530
9. On behalf of petitioner, it was submitted that copy of application under Section 27 DRC Act filed by respondent as well as copy of Written Statement in injunction suit filed by petitioner against the respondent are filed wherein landlord- tenant relationship has been admitted and there is no plea regarding co-tenancy. It was further argued that petition is maintainable as the same can be filed by any of the joint owners. It was further argued that petitioner is not having any other property available for her bonafide need and respondent has not filed any document in support of availability of any alternate property.
Applicable law and its application to present facts
10. Section 25-B of DRC Act provides for special procedure for the disposal of application for eviction on the ground of bona-fide requirement. The tenant on whom the summons are duly served in the form specified in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds on which he seeks leave to contest the application for eviction.
11. It is settled law that at this stage, the real test is the test of a triable issue and not the final success in the action. It is to be seen whether there is some fact which, if proved, would affect the merits of the case or not. It is to be seen whether tenant is able to raise such pleas which make out prima facie case that requires appreciation by the Court. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for respondent relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in S.K. Seth v. Vijay Bhalla (2012) and of Hon'ble RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 8 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:47:21 +0530 Supreme Court in Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand (1982) and submitted that the principles regarding triable issue and test to grant leave to defend were laid down in aforesaid judgment.
12. In order to determine whether any triable issue is made out, in light of the principles/test laid down by superior courts, the pleas raised by the respondent/tenant are to be examined vis-à-vis the ingredients of Section 14(1) (e). The three essential ingredients which are required to be proved by the petitioner for securing eviction under Section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act are as follows:
(i) That petitioner is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
(ii) That petitioner requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him;
(iii) That petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
13. Although, the respondent may dispute/ controvert all the pleas of the Petitioner; but for the purposes of leave to defend, the respondent has to show that the pleas raised in application for leave to defend are such which, if established by adducing evidence, would disentitle the Petitioner of the relief claimed.
Ingredient (i) Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlord- tenant between petitioner and Respondent:
14. It is the case of Respondent that the tenanted premises was let out by Late Sh. Gaida Mal to M/s Puran Chand Jain & Sons and father of the respondent including the RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 9 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:47:25 +0530 respondent are the co-tenants in the premises and after the demise of father of the respondent the other legal heirs also became the tenants by operation of law. Respondent is not the only tenant in tenanted premises and the present petition is bad for non-joinder of remaining tenants. On the other hand, it is the contention of the petitioner that respondent alone is in occupation of tenanted premises and hence, there is no requirement of making any other legal heir a party to present petition.
15. The fact that respondent is a tenant in tenanted premises is admitted. It is claimed by the respondent that upon death of his father tenancy devolved upon all the legal heirs of his father. It is settled law that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants. Since all the legal heirs inherited the tenancy upon death of their father, they inherited the same as joint tenants and making any of joint tenants a party to eviction petition is sufficient. It is not necessary for the landlord to implead all the legal heirs of deceased tenant. Further, the respondent has not specified as to who else, besides him, is in occupation of the tenanted premises as a tenant.
16. Respondent further claims that petitioner has no locus standi to file and maintain the eviction petition as petitioner is not the sole and absolute owner of the property. Further petitioner has not obtained the no-objection from the other co- owners and the said co-owner(s) have not consented to the present proceedings. The alleged relinquishment deed relied upon by the petitioner has no value/force as the same has not been executed in accordance of law.
RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 10 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:47:29 +0530
17. The petitioner claims her title to tenanted premises by virtue of the fact that her husband was owner thereof who expired on 08.10.2008 intestate leaving behind his legal heirs including the petitioner and remaining legal heirs of her deceased husband executed a registered Relinquishment Deed in favour of the petitioner and by virtue of the said Relinquishment Deed dt. 01.02.2010, the petitioner became the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of the said property. Copy of sale deed in favour of husband of petitioner as well as copy of relinquishment deed executed in favour of petitioner was filed.
18. The ownership of husband of petitioner is not disputed. The fact that after death of her husband, petitioner became the co-owner along with other legal heirs of her husband is also not disputed. The respondent claims that petitioner is not the absolute owner of the tenanted premises as the relinquishment deed filed by the petitioner has not been executed in accordance with law and remaining co-owners are not made a party and present petition is filed without their consent. It is not for the respondent/tenant to challenge the family settlement amongst the legal heirs of the original owner. Even otherwise, the petition is maintainable even if filed by one of the co-owners.
19. In view of the above, it is concluded that the petitioner is competent to have filed the present eviction petition as she is the owner as well as landlord in respect of the tenanted premises for the purpose of section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act.
RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 11 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:47:32 +0530 Ingredients (ii) and (iii) Requirement of premises bonafide by the petitioner for himself and for members of his family dependent upon him and non- availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation:
20. It is not on the mere asking of the landlord that premises are required for his bonafide requirement that an eviction order is to be passed; rather it is to be seen whether the requirement of the landlord is genuine or not and whether the landlord is having another reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi.
21. The petitioner's claim is that she bonafide requires the tenanted premises to increase/start her own independent business. Petitioner is doing her business under the name and style of Shri Vardhman Traders being its sole proprietor and dealing in the Chinese items. The petitioner is not having any space/place to run her aforesaid business and hence, petitioner has taken premises on rent. With the passage of time and goodwill, the clientage of the petitioner is increasing day by day and there is rise in the work-load of the petitioner. Due to non- availability and lack of space, the petitioner is not in a position to grow-up her own business. The products in which the petitioner and her son are dealing require a good amount of space to be operational and property in question where the tenanted premises is situated is ideally suited to meet the needs and requirement of the petitioner to establish her business/grow-up her business.
22. On the other hand, respondent has alleged that requirement of petitioner is not bonafide but fictitious, illusionary RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 12 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:47:36 +0530 and artificial. Further, the respondent has alleged that availability of following alternate accommodation with the petitionerhas been concealed by the petitioner:
i) One shop on the Ground floor of property no.
4502-4503 situated at Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The petitioner let out the abovesaid adjacent shop to one Sh. Arjun Prasad on 09.09.2014 at a monthly rental of Rs.30,000/-for the period of three years and after expiry of the lease period the tenant handed over the physical vacant possession of the said shop to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner son using the same for doing her business along with her son and the same was remained in possession of the petitioner till November 2023. Later on, the said shop was again let out to Arjun Prasad Sahu at a monthly rental of Rs. 60,000/- excluding all other charges with ulterior motive out of greed to evict the tenants of the adjoining shop i.e. premises in question and let out the same at higher rental.
ii) Entire first floor and second floor of the said properties i.e. 4502-4503, (measuring about 70 Sq. Yds). The entire first floor is being as an office and the petitioner and her son is running the office therein and the second floor is lying vacant and is in good habitable condition and can be used for the any other purpose if required.
iii) Property bearing no. 9/3583, situated at Dharam Pura, Jain Mohalla, Gali No. 8, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31.
iv) Property bearing no. F-20, Situated at Gali No.8, Radhey Puri, Delhi-110031 and the petitioner is running the business under the name and style "Shri Vardman Traders"
RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 13 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:47:40 +0530
v) Property no. P-27, Street no. 9, Shankar Nagar Extension, Delhi.
vi) Entire property bearing no. D-33, situated at Radhey Puri, Krishna Nagar Delhi. The ground floor is being used by the petitioner and her son for commercial purpose and first floor and above is being used for residential purpose.
vii) Shop situated at Moti Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and doing business under the name of M/s M. Manju.
viii) Shop being run with the assistance of her relative at Katra Laswaan, Chandni Chowk.
23. It was alleged that concealment of availability of alternate accommodation gives rise to a triable issue. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for Respondent placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Hannan & Anr. v. Abdul Basit (2019) and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Indermani v. Ajay Prakash Gupta (2012), Khem Chand & Ors. v. Arjun Jain & ors. (2013), Suresh Kumar Gupta v. Sudershan Kumar (2013) and Sanjay Chugh v. Opender Nath Ahuja & Anr. (2013).
24. The fact that the shop at ground floor of property no. 4502-4503 was let out to Arjun Prasad in 2014 is admitted. No material is produced to show that petitioner or her son ever took possession of the said shop and re-let it again to same tenant in 2023. In her petition itself, petitioner has stated that said shop is under occupation of tenant and hence, is not available for her bonafide requirement. In her reply to application seeking leave to defend, the petitioner has specifically stated that she has not used RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 14 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:47:44 +0530 the said shop at any point of time and no material to the contrary is produced by the respondent.
25. Further, in her petition and reply, the petitioner has stated that entire first floor and second floor of said property is in dilapidated condition and hence, unavailable. She also filed photographs in support of said averment. No material to the contrary is produced by the respondent.
26. As regards property bearing no. 9/3583 situated at Dharam Pura, Jain Mohalla, Gali No. 8, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-31is concerned, the petitioner has clarified that she has no concern with the said property which belonged to her mother-in- law and was sold in 2008-09. No material to the contrary is produced by the respondent.
27. As regards shop at F-20 is concerned, petitioner already stated in her petition that she is running her business from said shop and she is a tenant therein. No document is produced to show that petitioner is not a tenant but owner in respect of said shop.
28. With respect to Property no. P-27, Street no. 9, Shankar Nagar Extension, Delhi; petitioner already stated in petition to be owner thereof. She further stated that said property is very small property in possession of tenant but is not suitable for meeting her needs. No material to the contrary is produced by the respondent.
RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 15 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:47:47 +0530
29. The petitioner has admitted to be the owner of only upper ground floor of property bearing no. D-33, situated at Radhey Puri, Krishna Nagar Delhi and is using the same for residential purpose. No material is produced by the respondent that petitioner is having any right, title or interest in the remaining portion of the property.
30. As regards remaining properties, petitioner, in her reply has specifically denied her having any concern with said properties. No document is produced by the respondent to show that petitioner is having any right, title or interest in said properties.
31. From above, it appears that only averments have been made by the respondent without producing any material or document to substantiate the same. There does not appear to be any concealment regarding availability of any alternate accommodation by the petitioner.
32. It is the case of the petitioner that the tenanted premises are bonafide required by the petitioner for her bonafide requirement and she is not having any other property for the same. There is no reason to disbelieve the said averment. Also, if the Petitioner does not occupy the premises within the prescribed period for her bonafide requirement after obtaining its possession from the respondent, the respondent herein has the remedy of getting back the possession of the property under Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 16 of 17 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.04.26 16:47:51 +0530 Conclusion
33. Taking into view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that petitioner has been able to establish that the tenanted premises are required bonafide for Petitioner to establish/grow her own business and there is no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in her possession. The respondent has failed to raise any reasonable triable issue. The application for leave to defend is dismissed.
34. Since the application seeking leave to defend has been dismissed, the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. Shop bearing No.4502/13, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi forming part of the property bearing No.4502-3 (Old No.5216-5218), Ward No.XIII, Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006, as shown in red colour in the site plan filed along with the petition in terms of Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The landlord however shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
35. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court.
Digitally On this 26th day of April, 2025 signed by UPASANA This Order contains 23 pages UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
and each page is signed by me. 2025.04.26 16:47:55 +0530 (UPASANA SATIJA) SCJ-cum-RC, Central District Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi RC ARC 55/24 Geeta Jain Vs. Dinesh Kumar Jain Page No. 17 of 17