Delhi District Court
Sunita vs Prakash Rani on 9 July, 2025
DLET030002732018
Presented on : 20-02-2018
Registered on : 21-02-2018
Decided on : 09-07-2025
Duration : 7 years, 4 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF
ACJ/CCJ/ARC AT EAST DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vinik Jain
RC ARC/26/2018
In the MATTER OF:-
Smt. Sunita
W/o Late Sh. Prem Kumar,
R/o E-24, Gali no. 5,
Chander Nagar,
Delhi-51 ....Petitioner
vs
Smt. Prakash Rani
W/o Late Sh. Ved Prakash,
Shop at E-24, Gali no. 5,
Chander Nagar,
Delhi-51 ....Respondent
PETITION UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (e) READ WITH SECTION 25B
OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
VINIK JAIN Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN
Date: 2025.07.09 17:31:40 +05'30'
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for eviction in respect to one shop (hereinafter referred as 'suit shop') which is shown in red color in the site plan in the property bearing No.E-24, Gali no. 5, Chander Nagar, Delhi-110051(hereinafter referred as 'the suit property'). The eviction petition has been filed u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
2. The brief facts of the petitioner's case are as follow:-
(i) The petitioner is the owner of the whole suit shop at the monthly rent of Rs. 220/-.
(ii) The petitioner is about 52 years old (at the time of filing of the present petition) and is having three children, out of which one son Yogesh is 21 years old (at the time of filing of petition) who is studying and is also doing the small business in one of the shops in the suit property. The second son of petitioner is 13 years old (at the time of filing of petition) studying in 7 th class and the third son namely Prithu is 12 years old (at the time of filing of petition) and is of unsound mind.
(iii) The petitioner has grown up children which require huge amount of money for their livelihood and the petitioner has also the burden of taking care of mentally unfit son namely Sh. Prithu. The son of the petitioner namely Sh. Yogesh runs a business of cyber cafe from which he earns around Rs. 4,000/- to 5,000/- per month. Apart from this, the petitioner's only source of income is the rent which is received from the tenants in the suit property which is cumulatively insufficient for taking care of the family. Digitally signed by VINIK VINIK JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.07.09 17:32:16 +05'30' RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 2 of 19
(iv) The petitioner apart from the suit property does not have any other property in Delhi. The suit property consists of three shops on the road side and two shops on the street side, out of which the shop Marked A is in the ownership of some other person, shop Marked B is with the respondent and shop Marked C is with another tenant namely Raju P. Shop Marked D is rented to one tenant namely Lalit and shop Marked E is occupied by the son of the petitioner namely Sh.
Yogesh who runs a cyber cafe.
(v) The petitioner wants the suit shop for starting a grocery business and she has no other suitable accommodation apart from the suit shop for carrying on the aforesaid business.
3. Perusal of the file it shows that the application of the respondent seeking leave to defend was allowed vide order dated 10.02.2023 in lieu of the no objection given by Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
4. Written statement has been filed on the behalf of the respondent wherein the instant petition is mainly contested on the below said grounds :
a. Originally the suit shop was taken on rent by Sh. Ved Prakash, the deceased husband of the respondent, in the year 1971 who had three LRs but the present petition has been filed only against the widow of Sh. Ved Prakash rendering this petition not maintainable for want of impleadment of all the LRs of Ved Prakash.
b. Tenancy is admitted but the petitioner has failed to show any document to prove the ownership in respect of the suit property by the petitioner.
VINIK JAIN
Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN
Date: 2025.07.09 17:33:12
+05'30'
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 3 of 19
c. Apart from the suit property bearing no. E-24, Gali no. 5, Chander
Nagar, Delhi-110051, the petitioner also owns a property bearing no. E-23, Gali no. 5, Chander Nagar, Delhi-110051. The property bearing no. E-23 and E-24 are joint properties ad-measuring 133 sq yards.
d. The whole ground floor of the property bearing no. E-23 and E-24 is let out by the petitioner to commercial enterprises including the first floor.
e. In the property bearing no. E-23 and E-24, there are total seven shops i.e three shops on the front side, four shops on the street side and three halls which are rented out for commercial purposes by the petitioner. The status of the shops are as follows:-
(i) Shop no. 1:- This shop was earlier rented to Radhey Chole Bhature Wala at monthly rent of Rs 12,000/-. This shop was earlier rented to S M Communications.
(ii) Shop no. 2:- Suit shop. (iii) Shop no. 3:- This shop was earlier rented to M/s S N Dhamaka Dosa
at the monthly rent of Rs. 13,000/-. This shop was earlier rented to M/s Yadav Chaat Bhandar.
(iv) Shop no. 4:- This shop was earlier rented to Sh. Lalit at the monthly rent of Rs. 9,000/-. This shop was earlier rented to Gandhi Cable.
(v) Shop no. 5:- This shop is in the possession of son of petitioner who is running Cyber Cafe business for the last 2 years. This shop was earlier rented to Bhati Printing Press. This shop was also earlier rented to paan seller.
VINIK JAIN Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN Date: 2025.07.09 17:33:28 +05'30' RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 4 of 19
(vi) Shop no. 6:- This shop is in the possession of Fruit Seller at the monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/-. This shop was earlier rented to different tenants.
(vii) Shop no. 7:- This shop is in the possession of petitioner.
(viii) Three Big Halls:- The three big halls was earlier rented to three tenants namely Chhotey Lal Egg Wala, S N Dosa Workshop and FM Radio Factory at the monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/- , Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 8,000/- per month.
(ix) The first floor of the property is in the possession of the petitioner.
(x) The first floor, one room set was earlier rented to a new tenant at the monthly rent of Rs. 6,000/-.
(xi) The petitioner has another commercial property in Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi which was allotted by DSIDC and is in the possession of petitioner.
(f) The petitioner has another commercial property in Bawana Industrial area which was allotted by DSIDC.
5. Replication was filed by the petitioner wherein the averments made in the written statement were denied on merits. Briefly, following material averments were made in the replication:
(a) The petitioner has admitted that she is the owner of property bearing No. E-23 and E-24 admeasuring 133 sq. yards.
(b) In properties bearing no. E-23 and E-24, there are total five shops.
The details of the shops are as follows:
(i) Shop No.1 has been sold to Sanjay.
VINIK JAIN
Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN
Date: 2025.07.09 17:34:10
+05'30'
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 5 of 19
(ii) Shop No.2 is with the respondent.
(iii) In shop No.3, Yogesh, son of the petitioner, is carrying on business.
(iv) Shop No.4 is with the old tenant.
(v) Shop No.5 is occupied by Dev Pahuja, son of the petitioner, who is
carrying on some business.
(c) Apart from the aforesaid shops, there is no other shop in the suit
property.
(d) Petitioner has no property in Bawana.
6. PW1 Smt. Sunita, tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW1/A and deposed on the same lines as stated in the petition. She has also relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Site plan Ex PW-1/1. (ii) Sale deed Ex PW-1/2 (OSR). (ii) Copy of Aadhar Card is Mark B. (iv) Copy of photographs Ex PW-1/4 (colly). (v) Copy of documents of one shop is mark A. (vi) Evidence certificate affidavit U/s 65-B Ex PW-1/5. (vii) Copy of GPA Mark C (colly).
She was cross examined by Ld counsel for the respondent.
Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN VINIK JAIN
Date: 2025.07.09
17:34:26 +05'30'
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 6 of 19
7. RW1 Smt. Prakash Rani, tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A and deposed on the same lines as stated in the WS. She has also relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Photographs of the shops are Ex RW-1/1 (colly 8 photographs).
(ii) Original bill is Ex RW-1/2. (iii) Original menu card is Ex RW-1/3.
She was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
8. On completion of evidence of both the sides, matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. I have already heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsels for both the sides and have also gone through the material available on record. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, a petitioner must establish that:
i. He is owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii. He requires the premises bonafidely for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii. He has no other reasonable alternate suitable accommodation.Digitally signed by VINIK
VINIK JAIN JAIN
Date: 2025.07.09 17:34:41
+05'30'
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 7 of 19
FINDINGS
Preliminary objection of non-impleadment of necessary party
10. The respondent has raised questions as to the maintainability of the present petition on the ground of non-impleadment of necessary parties. As per the respondent, the suit shop was rented to the husband of the respondent and after his demise he is survived by three legal heirs. The petitioner has admitted to the factum of the demise of the husband of the respondent and him survived by three legal heirs. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that only the respondent has been made party in the present petition in view of section 2(l) of DRC Act. I agree with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that in case the tenancy continues after the demise of the tenant covered under DRC Act, the same is inherited by the legal heirs but firstly it devolves upon the spouse of the tenant and she excludes the other legal heirs by virtue of Explanation I to section 2(l) of DRC Act. In the present case, after the death of original tenant , the tenancy would have devolved upon the wife of the respondent and she has been made party in the present matter. Thus, this objection being meritless is hereby dismissed.
Landlord-tenant relationship and ownership
11. The landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not disputed.
12. One of the ingredients which is necessary to prove u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act is that the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises. InRamesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, it has been specifically held that:-
Digitally signed by VINIK VINIK JAIN JAIN
Date: 2025.07.09 17:34:57
+05'30'
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 8 of 19
"In order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppel against such tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises".
13. To prove the ownership, the petitioner has relied on the sale deed bearing Ex PW1/2 of the property bearing No E-24 where the suit shop is situated. The petitioner has to show better title of the suit property than the respondent which has been clearly done by the petitioner through Ex. PW1/2. Thus, the petitioner has duly satisfied the burden of ownership required for the petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act.
Bonafide Requirement
14. The petitioner has filed this petition for vacation of the suit shop for her bonafide requirement. As per the petitioner, the petitioner is a widow lady who has three sons including a son namely Prithu who is mentally disabled. The petitioner is unemployed and her main source of income is rental income from the VINIK JAIN Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN Date: 2025.07.09 17:35:16 +05'30' RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 9 of 19 suit property. Her son Yogesh is using one of the shops in the suit property and is earning Rs 4,000-5,000 per month. Thus, the income of the petitioner from all sources is insufficient for taking care of the family and therefore she wants to open a grocery store in the suit shop for increasing her family income and she does not have any alternate suitable accommodation.
15. At the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner has stated that other than the suit property, she does not have any other property in Delhi. The respondent in his leave to defend as well in his written statement disclosed that the petitioner owns another property bearing no. E-23 adjoining the suit property. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner in her replication. The site plan bearing Ex PW1/1 is the site plan of property bearing No E-24 and in this site plan itself , the property bearing no. E-23 has been shown as other's property. It is not the case that E-23 was acquired after filing this present petition. The same fact can be corroborated by reading Ex PW1/2. PW1/2 is the sale deed of property bearing no E-24 wherein the petitioner (vendee in the sale deed ) has been shown to be the resident of E-23-24.
16. Going further, the respondent filed a complete site plan of the property bearing no. E23 and E-24.For better understanding, the images of the site plans filed by the petitioner and the respondents are as follows:
VINIK Digitally signed by
VINIK JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.07.09
17:35:36 +05'30'
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 10 of 19
Ex PW-1/1
VINIK JAIN
Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN
Date: 2025.07.09 17:35:57
+05'30'
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 11 of 19
Ex PW-1/R1
Digitally signed by
VINIK JAIN VINIK JAIN
Date: 2025.07.09
17:36:20 +05'30'
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 12 of 19
17. The site plan bearing Ex PW1/1 shows three shops on the main road and two shops in the gali. The site plan bearing Ex PW1/R1 also shows the same arrangement as far as these shops are concerned. The difference can be seen in shop no. 6 and 7 and three halls (bearing no.8,9 and 10) shown in PW1/ R1. As narrated above in the preceding paragraphs, there is a dispute whether shops no.6 and 7, and three halls actually exist or not and whether they are used for commercial purposes.
18. The existence of these shops and three halls were admitted only after the respondent disclosed these facts and so the replication filed by the petitioner gains importance. In para no. 6 of the replication, the petitioner has denied there is any commercial space available in the suit property and E-23 other than the five shops ( Shop No.1 to 5 depicted in PW1/R1). In the cross-examination of the petitioner, the petitioner has admitted that shop no.6 and 7 and three halls ( 8,9,10 in Ex PW1/R1) have been given on rent to Vipin and Satish. It is also admitted that the whole ground floor of E-23 and E-24 is used for commercial purposes. These aforesaid facts were never disclosed in the petition.
19. The petitioner in her petition has averred shop no.1 as 'other's property'. It was further averred that the same was sold by the husband of the petitioner to some person. The name of the purchaser was not disclosed by the petitioner. But in the cross-examination and in the replication it has been admitted that it was sold to a person namely Sanjay. It has been further admitted by the petitioner that Sanjay is the brother of the petitioner. The respondent has submitted that this property has not been sold but is in the possession of the petitioner and the same is alleged to be ostensibly sold so as to portray that the petitioner does not have any suitable alternative accommodation to defeat the right of the respondent. VINIK Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.07.09 17:37:02 +05'30' RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 13 of 19
20. From the documents annexed in the petition, it is clear that the shop no.1 is allegedly sold to Sanjay not by the husband of the petitioner but by the petitioner herself. It is a little bit rattling as to why the petitioner did not disclose the name of the purchaser of shop no.1 at the very first stage. It is not the case that the petitioner was not aware about the details of the purchaser. She herself has sold shop no.1 to her own brother. This concealment of fact also somewhat embellishes the theory propounded by the respondent.
21. Further, in the petition, the petitioner's bonafide need primarily emanates from the insufficiency of her family income. Though, the petitioner in her petition has not disclosed the actual income of the family, but has stated the family income comes from rental income and income of her son Yogesh which was Rs 4,000-5000/- month at the time of filing of the petition. First of all, if increasing the family income is the main bonafide need, the petitioner should have disclosed her actual income. It is also noteworthy here that at the time of filing of the petition, the details of other property bearing no. E-23 were not disclosed by the petitioner. It has also been admitted by the petitioner that the whole ground floor of the property bearing No E-23 and E-24 is used for commercial purposes. Apart from this, the first floor of property bearing no. E-23 and E-24 is also rented out by the petitioner. So at the time of filing of the petition, it could be safely presumed that the rental income earned from E-23 would not have been taken into consideration by the petitioner and thus whether the rental income and income of her son Yogesh was insufficient becomes highly questionable. In fact, at the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner PW-1 has admitted that she was having rental income of Rs 20,000-25,000/-. Here, this Court is not giving opinion whether income of Rs 20,000-25,000/- was sufficient for the petitioner but the veracity of Digitally signed by VINIK VINIK JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.07.09 17:37:25 +05'30' RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 14 of 19 the averment of the petitioner that the income of the petitioner was insufficient at the time of filing of the petition is extremely doubtful.
22. In the preceding paragraphs where the petition, written statement and replication have been surmised, it could be clearly seen that the respondent has filed details of various changes in tenancies in different shops over a period of time. In the replication , these all averments made in the application have been denied by the petitioner. The respondent to prove the change of ownerships has tendered the photographs of the suit property bearing Ex RW1/1 ( colly) which palpably show that the tenants have been changing in the shops in the suit property. Particularly it can be seen that in Shop No.3 there have been continuous change of tenancies. The petitioner is entitled to change the tenants in the lawful way but the respondent has claimed that this change of continuous tenancies shows the real intention of the petitioner i.e she wants to evict the respondent so that she can charge higher rent. The petitioner in his cross-examination has also admitted that the respondent is the tenant who is paying the lowest rent out of all the tenants. This fact considered in the light of the above said circumstances does make the stand of the respondent probable that the main ground of filing of this petition is to get the suit shop vacated so that it can be let out to some person at a higher rent.
23. At this stage it would be apposite to refer to the law laid down in respect of the bonafide need. In Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507; the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bonafide to mean 'in good faith :
genuine'. The word 'genuine' means 'natural; not spurious; real: pure: sincere'. In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whit ley define bonafide to mean 'good faith, without fraud or deceit'. Thus the term bonafide or genuinely refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity VINIK JAIN Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN Date: 2025.07.09 17:37:49 +05'30' RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 15 of 19 contemplated by 'requires' is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the Rent Control Legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra-distinction with a mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself-whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited .for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice Of the landlord by holding that not one. but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against."
24. On meticulous reading of the aforesaid authority, it is crystal clear that when a petitioner approaches a court for judicial assistance in case of his/her bonafide requirement, it is sincerely expected out of the petitioner to disclose all real facts which can enable the court to come to a just decision. The word bonafide itself cast duty upon the petitioner to come to the court with true facts which are best within the knowledge of the petitioner or else the very bonafides of the need Digitally signed by VINIK VINIK JAIN JAIN Date: 2025.07.09 17:38:13 +05'30' RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 16 of 19 gets vitiated. The same has happened in the present petition and the bonafide need does appear to be malafide for the following reasons :
1. The petitioner failed to disclose the ownership of property bearing no. E-23 in the petition and this property was shown in the site plan bearing Ex PW1/1 as other's property. This property consists of various shops which were already rented out by the petitioner.
2. Filing of incomplete site plan by the petitioner.
3. Concealment of the owner of shop no.1 in the suit property though the owner is the brother of the petitioner.
4. Denial of continuous change of tenancies though it has come on record that the petitioner has changed the tenants in the shops in the suit property at various times.
5. Whether the petitioner was having insufficient income at the time of filing of the petition is also highly doubtful as the whole ground floor and first floor of the property no. E-23 and E-24 was let out by the petitioner and this fact was concealed at the time of filing of the petition.
25. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following authorities:
(i) Anil Bajaj & Anr vs Vinod Ahuja 210 (2014) DLT 58 (SC)
(ii) D Sasi Kumar vs Soundararajan (2019) 9 SCC 282
(iii) Tara Chand vs Vijay Kumar Agarwal DHC
(iv) Ragavendra Kumar vs Firm Prem Machinery & Co. AIR 2000 SC 534
(v) Bhupinder Singh Bawa vs Asha Devi 235 (2016) DLT 597 SC Digitally signed by
(vi) Manju Devi vs Pratap Singh 219 (2015) DLT 260 VINIK JAIN VINIK JAIN Date: 2025.07.09 17:38:48 +05'30' RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 17 of 19
(vii) Batuk Prasad Jaitly vs Rajesh Chugh 240 (2017) DLT 695
(viii) Jai Gopal vs Vikas Bansal 2017 (2) RCR Rent 285
(ix) Rajendra Kanaujia vs Asha Rani Gupta 2017 (2) RCR Rent 452
(x) Nisar Ahmed vs Agya Pal 2023 (3) CLJ 5999 Delhi
26. By the aforesaid judgments, the petitioner is trying to raise following law points:
1. If the landlord has many shops in his/her possession, it is the discretion of the landlord to choose the best suitable accommodation amongst them as per his/her requirement.
2. The bonafide need has to be seen on the day of filing of the petition.
3. During the pendency of the petition, if other shop rented by the landlord gets vacated, the same will not affect the bonafide need of the petitioner.
27. These law points do not have bearing on the present petition as the issue in the present case is not the availability of suitable accommodation but the very existence of the bonafide need. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the bonafide need does not appear to have subsisted even on the day of filing of the petition. The petitioner has concealed material facts from the knowledge of this Court. The very act of concealment of material facts from the Court taints the genuineness of the need. It appears that the petitioner has filed this petition with the sole purpose of evicting the respondent from the suit property as he is paying a very low rent. This need cannot be termed as a bonafide need by any stretch of imagination. Reliance can be placed upon Shiju Jacob Varghese & Anr. vs Tower Visiion Ltd. & Ors CS(OS) 150/2012 delivered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
VINIK JAIN
Digitally signed by VINIK JAIN
Date: 2025.07.09 17:39:20
+05'30'
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 18 of 19
28. Thus, in light of the discussion made above, the petitioner has been unsuccessful in proving his bonafide requirement as to the suit shop. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
29. File be consigned to Record room.
VINIK Digitally signed
by VINIK JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.07.09
17:39:51 +05'30'
Announced in the open Court (Vinik Jain)
on this 09thof July, 2025 ACJ/ARC/CCJ (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
RC/ARC No. 26/2018 Page no 19 of 19