Delhi District Court
Shri Brahm Dev Sharma vs ) Shri Kanwar Kishore Nagpal on 29 August, 2022
In the Court of SCJcumRC, (West District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by : Ms. Mahima Rai Singh
RC ARC 25471/16
CNR Number : DLWT030003892014
In the matter of :
Shri Brahm Dev Sharma
S/o late Shri Harish Chander
R/o WZ31C, Jwalaheri Market,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi110063 ...........Petitioner
Versus
1) Shri Kanwar Kishore Nagpal
@ Kamal Kishore Nagpal
@ Kanwal Nagpal @ Kawal Nagpal
S/o late Shri Gulshan Kumar Nagpal
R/o GH14/449, Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
2) Shri Rakesh Nagpal
S/o late Shri Gulshan Kumar Nagpal
R/o GH14/38, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi110063
3) Shri Amit Nagpal
S/o late Shri Gulshan Kumar Nagpal
R/o GH14/1045, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.
4) Smt. Uma Shobti
D/o late Shri Gulshan Kumar Nagpal
R/o D6/75, Sector 6, Pkt. B,
Rohini, Delhi110085.
5) Smt. Kiran Arora
D/o late Shri Gulshan Kumar Nagpal
R/o GH14/690, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi.
6) Smt. Sita Rani
Wd/o late Shri Gulshan Kumar Nagpal
R/o GH14/1045, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi. ........Respondents
RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 1 of 19
Date of institution : 11.09.2014
Date of reserved for judgment : 17.08.2022
Date of judgment : 29.08.2022
JUDGMENT : Brief facts of the case
1. An eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents for vacation of the tenanted premises, i.e., shop no. 1 measuring 8'x17' situated on ground floor in premises no. WZ31C, Jawala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi110063 side of shops of Attar Ali Building, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan attached alongwith the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the DRC Act').
2. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent no.1 and Sh. Gulshan Kumar Nagpal were the tenants @ Rs. 500/ per month excluding of electricity and water charges with respect to the suit shop admeasuring 8'X17'' situated on the ground floor in premises no. WZ 31C, Jawala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, known as shop no.1. A written rent agreement was also executed. At present, the rate of rent is Rs. 1050/ per month. The petitioner now requires the tenanted shop for his bonafide need as his son Sidharth Sharma who is unemployed. His son after having graduate degree started business of real estate in the area of Delhi, Gurgaon and NCR and now he wants his own real estate office and the tenanted shop is suitable commercial space to start his business of real estate and hence the premises is urgently RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 2 of 19 required.
3. Further, one of the daughters of the petitioner namely, Twinkle, who is a widow and has been living with the petitioner, also requires the said tenanted shop for running her business to earn to maintain herself. The petitioner has other shops in the same premises bearing no. 2 to 10, which are already on rent. The petitioner has given names and addresses of the tenants in the abovesaid shops. With regard to the shop no. 10, it is submitted by the petitioner that the same is being run by himself for his own livelihood. The entire first floor of the said property is also on rent with the Vaish Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd. and the second floor is the residence of family members of the petitioner. The shops no. 2 to 9 are not suitable for his son's business of real estate or for the widow daughter of the petitioner to run her business because the petitioner does not want to get vacated the said shops except the shop no.1. After filing of this petition, this fact came on record that the respondent no.2 i.e. the father of the respondent no.1 has expired before filing of the petition. Hence, the other brothers and sisters of the respondent no.1 i.e. LRs of the respondent no.2 were arrayed as other respondents. They were also given time to file leave to defend application. However, no leave to defend application was filed by them. It appears that as the respondent no.1 is already in possession, no leave to defend application has been filed by other LRs. of Sh. Gulshan Kumar Nagpal i.e deceased father of the respondent no.1.
RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 3 of 194. The respondent filed leave to defend application, which was allowed vide order dated 23.07.2016 and the respondent was granted leave to contest the present eviction petition.
Written statement by respondent.
5. Written statement was filed by the respondent denying the contentions made by the petitioner in the eviction petition stating that the present petition filed by the petitioner is nothing but a gross abuse and misuse of the process of law and has been filed with malafide intentions to oust the respondents from the tenanted premises by misusing the summary procedure, which is evident from the fact that the petitioner has no case at all suppressed the material facts. The present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present eviction petition against the respondent, neither the as the petitioner is owner nor landlord of the tenanted premises and the tenanted premises was letout to the respondents by Smt. Sita Devi after receiving the pagadi amount of Rs.1,40,000/ the from the respondents and who used to receipt rent and issue rent receipts to the respondents, is a necessary and proper party for the effective adjudication of the present petition. It is submitted that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents. It is submitted that the need of the petitioner is not genuine one and he has got sufficient accommodation residential as well as commercial in his possession, which he and has intentionally deliberately suppressed from this Hon'ble Court.
RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 4 of 196. It is submitted that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the true facts of the case that there are 10 shops in the entire premises, one shop is in the possession of the respondent and in one shop the petitioner is running a Kiryana Shop and out of the remaining 8 shops the petitioner has letout 4 shops to various tenants after 2011 and presently 4 shops possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner has also let out three shops tenants after filing on rent of to the various present petition and presently the petitioner is in possession of two shops and in one shop, he is running a Kiryana Shop and other is lying vacant. The petitioner has also let out the entire first floor of the property in question to The Vaishya Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd. after letting out the tenanted shop to the respondents. It is further submitted that the property in question is a three storey building and entire second floor is let out to one surgical company after 2010 and the third floor is occupied by the petitioner. The entire ground floor, except the tenanted premises, was let out to one Suvidha Departmental Store and after vacation of the ground floor by Suvidha Departmental Store, the petitioner himself run the said Suvidha Departmental Store for a period of one and half year. The petitioner covered the said eight shop and letout the same to other tenants in the year, 201011. Two shops are in possession of the petitioner on the ground floor and the remaining six shops other tenants were let out to other tenants.
7. It is submitted that widow daughter of the petitioner, for which he was showing the need of the tenanted premises, has been RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 5 of 19 remarried living at and her she has been matrimonial happily house at Meerut (U.P.). Thus, the petitioner does not require the tenanted premises for any purpose whatsoever and the alleged need of the petitioner is not bonafide and the disclosed above by facts the have petitioner not in been the petition intentionally and deliberately.
Replication by petitioner.
8. Replication to the written statement of the respondent was filed by the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has denied all the averments made by the respondent in his written statement, reaverring what was averred by him in the original eviction petition. It is denied that the present petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in view of the true facts of the case that there are 10 shops in entire premises. However, it is not disputed that one shop is in possession of the respondents and one shop is in possession of the petitioner. It is specifically denied that out of 8 shops the petitioner has let out 4 shops to various tenants after 2011 or presently 4 shops are in possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has specifically mentioned the details of all the shops and their tenants since long and the petitioner has not let out any shop after 2011. It is further submitted that all the remaining 8 shops are in possession of eight different tenants as specifically mentioned. It is denied that the petitioner has also let out three shops on rent to various tenants after filing of the present petition or presently the petitioner is in possession of two shops or in one shop, he is running a Kiryana shop or other is lying vacant. It is submitted that all the nine shops are in RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 6 of 19 possession of different old tenants. One small shop is in possession of petitioner from which he is running a small general store. Petitioner has not disputed for letting out the entire first floor of the property in question to the Vaishya Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd after letting out the tenanted shop to the respondents. But the said tenant of first floor i.e. The Vaishya Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd. is not paying the rent to the petitioner regularly for the last so many years and indulged for which various litigations are pending between the petitioner and the said Vaishya Cooperative Adarsh Bank Ltd. However, the said first floor as well as Shops No. 2 to 9 are not fit and suitable commercial space for his son's business of real estate or for the widow daughter of the petitioner to run her business. Not a single shop or premises is lying vacant as alleged by the respondents. It is not disputed that the property in question is a three storey building or entire second floor is let out to one surgical company. But it is denied that the same same was let out after 2010 or the third floor is occupied by the petitioner. It is further denied that the entire ground floor except the tenanted premises was let out to one Suvidha Departmental store or after vacation of the ground floor by Suvidha Departmental Store, the petitioner himself run the said Suvidha Departmental store for a period of one and half years. It is further denied that the petitioner covered the said eight shops or let out the same to other tenants in the year 201011. It is further denied that two shops are in possession of the petitioner on the ground floor or the remaining six shops were let out to other tenants. It is submitted that the petitioner is in possession of one shop only and remaining other shops are in possession RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 7 of 19 of different tenants and all the tenants are old tenants. All the story made by the respondents is cooked up. It is denied that widow daughter of the petitioner for which he was showing the need of the tenanted premises has been remarried or she has been happily living at her matrimonial house at Meerut, (U.P.). It is further denied that the petitioner does not require the tenanted premises for any purpose whatsoever or the alleged need of the petitioner is not bonafide or the above facts have not been disclosed by the petitioner in the petition intentionally or deliberately or the petition is liable to be rejected outrightly.
Plaintiff evidence.
9. During evidence, petitioner Brahm Dev Sharma stepped into the witness box as PW1 and deposed on the lines of the eviction petition. Further, he relied upon the following documents :
a) Ex. PW1/1 is the photocopy of khatoni/ ownership document dated 13.08.1993 of suit premises
b) Ex. PW1/2 is the rent agreement dated 08.10.1991.
c) Ex. PW1/3 is the counter rent receipts.
d) Ex. PW1/4 is the site plan.
e) Ex. PW1/5 is the photocopy of educational certificate of Shri Siddharth Sharma.
f) Ex. PW1/6 is the death certificate of Shri Bhupender Singh
g) Ex. PW1/7 is the photocopy of certificate regarding financial status of Ms. Twinkle D/o Shri Brahm Dev Sharma issued by Tehsildar Punjabi Bagh, Delhi dated 10.12.2007.
RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 8 of 19h) Ex. PW1/8 is the legal notice dated 24.07.2014 with postal and tracking report.
During crossexamination, Ex. PW1/R1 to PW1/R6 were exhibited by the respondent.
After cross examination, petitioner evidence was closed.
Respondent's evidence.
10. In his turn, the respondent Kawal Kishore Nagpal entered into the witness box as RW1 and deposed on the lines of the written statement.
11. Respondent has examined Shri Om Prakash Yadav as RW2. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW2/A. During his crossexamination relevant notification qua the urbanization of Jwala Heri village were exhibited as Ex. RW2/P1 (colly).
12. Respondent has examined Shri Atul Pandey, Ahlmad in the Court of Ms. Shivali Sharma, Ld. ADJ3, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi as RW3. Copy of the Hon'ble High Court dt. 02.08.2012 was marked as Mark X1.
13. Respondent has examined Shri Jeewan Prakash Pathak as RW4. He has proved the copy of the lease deed dated 07.01.2014 as Ex. RW4/1.
RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 9 of 1914. Respondent has also examined Shri Vakeelurehman as RW5.
15. After cross examination, respondent evidence was closed.
16. I have heard Shri B.L.Gupta, Ld. Counsel for petitioner and Shri Devender Verma, Ld. Counsel for respondent and also gone through the Court record. Written submissions alongwith supporting judgement filed by the petitioner also perused.
Court observations and findings Essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, 1958. i. Petitioner is the owner/landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
ii. Petitioner requires the premises bonafidely for himself or for family members dependent upon themselves;
iii. Petitioner has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
Existence of landlordtenant relationship :
17. The respondent has challenged the ownership of the petitioner on the ground that the wife of the petitioner was the owner of the tenanted premises and the petitioner was neither the owner nor the landlord of the tenanted premises, however, the respondent admitted to the fact that certain rent receipts were issued by the petitioner and that the same were signed by him. The respondent also admitted in the cross examination the name of the landlord/owner is reflecting as the petitioner herein. He admitted that he was tenant in the premises since 1991.
RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 10 of 1918. Though, the petitioner failed to produce the original of Ex. PW1/1 i.e. photocopy of Khatoni and owner ship documents dt. 13.08.1993 (which is also admitted by him in his crossexamination dt. 23.08.2019), he can still be presumed as a landlord for the purpose of the DRC Act.
19. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M. R. Sawhey v. Doris Randhawa, AIR 2008 Delhi 110 and followed in Hari Gopal Manu v. B.S. Ojha (RFA No. 388/2015) decided on 10.02.2016 and other such cases that "Once a tenant always remains tenant, unless the status changes by contract or by operation of law" and the respondent has not filed any document to prove otherwise. Thus, the respondent/tenant has no right to question the ownership of the petitioner over the premises in question.
In view of the same the relationship of landlordtenant for the purpose of DRC Act stands duly proved.
Bonafide requirement and availability of alternative suitable accommodation.
20. The petitioner has stated himself to be the owner of ten shops on the ground floor of the premises out of which he has stated that only one shop is in his possession from which he is running a Kiryana shop. He has further stated that shops no. 2 to 9 are not fit and suitable for the commercial space of his son's business of real estate or for her widow daughter to run her business to earn to maintain herself, hence he does not want to get the said shops vacated except shop no. 1 of the premises WZ RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 11 of 19 31 C, Jwala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi63. However, during his crossexamination petitioner admitted that he has one more shop in his possession i.e. shop no. 9, which he was using as a godown. Various contradictions came on record regarding the name of the tenants of the other shop mentioned by the petitioner in his crossexamination as that mentioned in his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex. PW1/A. He also admitted that he has let out the shop no. 6 to Sh. Rehman in 2013 2014 and in the year 20142015 he has let out the shop to one Ms. Seema Kundra which was after the filing of the present petition in the year 2014. He further stated that Sh. Jeewan Pathak was his tenant since 2013 till date, however, the said Jeewan Pathak was examined as RW4 by the respondent who has stated that he was a tenant in shop no. 3 from Sidharth Sharma S/o Brahm Dev Sharma vide Lease Deed 07.01.2014, the copy of which was exhibited as Ex. RW4/1. Petitioner failed to put on record rent receipts/rent agreement in the name of the other tenants of the said shops as stated by him in his crossexamination despite directions of the Court.
21. Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinary and Co. AIR 2000 SC 534 the Supreme Court repelling the contention that even if in evidence the plaintiff/landlord states that he has number of other shops and houses belonging to him but in a categorical statement being made that the said house and shops were not vacant and suitable and the suit premises was suitable for his business purpose, the Courts will not interfere because the landlord is the best Judge of his RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 12 of 19 requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter.
22. Plaintiff has also replied upon various judgments such as Krishna Kumar Rastogi Vs. Sumitra Devi dated 20.08.2014 Supreme Court of India, Prativa Devi Vs. T.B. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353 on the same.
23. Thus, considering that the plaintiff has specifically sought the eviction of shop no. 1, who he states to be fit and suitable for starting of the proposed businesses of his son and daughter and the other shops not being fit for the same, the Court is satisfied with the position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and therefore, cannot be forced to start the said proposed business from the other shops which as per him are not suitable for the same.
24. Respondent has also argued that the petitioner has failed to examine his son Sidharth Sharma and daughter Twinkle to support his plea of bonafide requirement for starting the business by them. In reply to which the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Mehmooda Gulshan Vs. Javed Hussain Munglu dated 17.02.2017 (2017 (3) SCALE21) Supreme Court in which it is held that mere non examination of family member who intends to do business cannot be taken as ground repelling the reasonable requirement of the landlord. It was further held that it is not necessary to examine the person for who the RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 13 of 19 needs the premises or require.
25. Though, the respondent has again and again contented that the daughter Twinkle of the petitioner has remarried and was not financial dependent upon the petitioner, no conclusive proof was put on record by the respondent to prove the same. Ex. PW1/R1 was not proved by the respondent to show that the daughter of the petitioner Twinkle has remarried. Merely receiving compensation by the daughter of the defendant cannot be a ground to deny her opportunity to earn for herself in order to maintain herself. Also, the fact of receiving compensation by the daughter Twinkle cannot be proof to the effect that she is not dependent on the petitioner or that there cannot be any bonafide requirement on her part for starting a new business for earning her livelihood. Considering the fact that husband of the daughter Twinkle of the petitioner has expired, it becomes the moral responsibility of the father to take care for the needs of her widow daughter.
26. In the case titled as Anil Kumar Gupta Vs Deepika Verma passed in RC Revision No. 138/2015 on 14.10.2015 wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that 'family' word should be interpreted liberally and common blanket approach cannot be followed and the court must look at each case in the light of its own peculiar circumstances.
27. In the said case it was further observed as under: "Customarily or in common parlance a dependent would be defined as RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 14 of 19 any person who is reliant on another either for financial or physical support for sustenance of life. It is pertinent to note that the word dependent or as to what constitutes a family has nowhere been defined in the Delhi Rent Control Act. Rather, the legislators consciously and deliberately have used the words "any member of family dependent on the landlord" instead of defining a clear degree of relations so as to construe a wider meaning to the aforesaid words as man is a social creature and part of a complex societal system involving myriad of relations from which he cannot be isolated. It is significant to understand that the dependency is not restricted to financial or physical but will also include emotional reliance on another person. Reliance in this regard is placed on the findings of this court." Further in M/S. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs B.K. Soni; AIR 1994 Delhi 167, wherein the court observed "the social set up of our society is such where a married daughter continues to enjoy a place of pride in her maternal home and therefore while considering the requirement of the landlord her married daughter and her expected visits cannot be lost sight of. Similarly in Sain Dass v. Madan Lal; 1972 Ren CJ (SN) 8 (Delhi), this Court has acknowledged "the word "himself" has to be construed to mean "himself" as cohabiting with his family members with whom he is normally accustomed to live. Therefore, contrary to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner financial or physical incapacitation cannot be the sole premises for determining dependency on another." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court Further observed "14. As it crystallizes from the aforesaid the word dependent cannot be constructed in a narrow and RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 15 of 19 literal manner. The same have to be interpreted judiciously keeping in mind the intent of the legislators. As discussed above the words used under S.14 (1) (e), are "any member of family dependent on him" which would include the daughter in law who in the instant matter is dependent on her mother in law/landlady (respondent herein) and on account of sharing of residence both the daughter in law and the respondent are physically, emotionally and financially interdependent." The Hon'ble Delhi High Court Further observed "it is settled principle that no blanket approach can be followed and the court must look at each case in the light of its own peculiar circumstances."
28. The respondent has also argued that suitable alternative accommodation is also available to the petitioner at the first floor of the premises which was earlier let out to Vaish coop Adarsh Bank Limited. Plaintiff has admitted that the said premises are vacant. However, it is stated that it is on the first floor, therefore, not suitable for his bonafide need.
29. It is a settled position of law that there is an increase foot fall in the commercial spaces at ground level then the premises on the first/upper levels.
30. In A.K. Woolen Industries v. Narain Gupta 2017 (2) RCR (Rent) 653, the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that ground floor is more suitable for commercial purposes and further in Praveen Kumar RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 16 of 19 Arora v. Akashay 2019 I AD (Delhi) 741 wherein it was held the needs of the shop on the ground floor needs to be viewed from the different perspective than the availability of the business space on the upper floors. Also, the same applies for the second floor as well as third floor which is stated to be the residence of the petitioner. Petitioner has also relied upon Bhupender Singh Baba Vs. Asha Devi dated 08.12.2016 in order to show that the tenanted premises being on the main road and prime location and market was not suitable to the petitioner than the other tenanted premises.
31. No alternate site plan was put by the respondent qua his objections to the site plan filed by the plaintiff or to show that the other shops available to the petitioner was of the same size or bigger. It is a settled position of law that If a tenant does not file any site plan, then site plan filed by the landlord is assumed to be correct. Reliance place upon R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Sushila Bhargav 1986 RLR 232; Jagmohan Singh Vs. K.M. Bhatnagar 1995 RLR 527; V.S. Sachdeva vs M.L. Grover 67(1997) DLT 737; Harvansha Lal vs Madan Lal 1997 RLR383;
32. Respondent has also contented that he has paid an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/ to the wife of the petitioner as pagri amount, however, no evidence was led qua the same. Moreover, in case of Satish Jain v. Tara Devi in RC. REV. No. 595/2012 decided on 05.11.2014, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that payment of pagree does not vests RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 17 of 19 any right in the tenant. Section 13 of the Act provides that if a landlord has illegally received any monies in the form of premium, then within one year of making the payment, the tenant can seek recovery of the same and not thereafter. In any case even for sake of arguments we presumed that pagree/premium was paid, nowhere does the law provides that after payment of such an amount, the tenant cannot be evicted from the suit premises, if there is found a bonafide need for the tenanted premises. Hence, this ground raised by the respondent is also rejected.
33. The respondent has also placed on record Ex. PW1/R 2, PW1/R3, PW1/R4 and PW1/R6, however, the same has not been proved by the respondent to show that the son of the respondent is already gainfully employed and there is no bonafide requirement on his behalf. Further, PW1/R5 though first objected by the petitioner stands later admitted by him only shows the print out of the premises and the phone number of the son of the petitioner which cannot be a proof that there is no bonafide requirement or that the petitioner is having an alternate suitable accommodation.
34. Thus, in view of the above discussion, though a number of discrepancies qua the tenancy of other shops have come on record the same cannot be a ground of doubting the bonafide requirement and that no other reasonable suitable accommodation for the proposed business of his son and daughter is available to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of Section RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 18 of 19 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, the eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 14(1) (e) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises i.e. shop no. 1 measuring 8'x17' situated on ground floor in premises no. WZ31C, Jawala Heri Market, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi 110063 side of shops of Attar Ali Building, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed alongwith the petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14(7) of the Act. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
Announced in open Court (Mahima Rai Singh)
on 29th Day of August 2022 SCJ cum RC(West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 19 pages.)
RC ARC 25471/2016 Brahm Dev Sharma v. Kanwar Kishore & Anr. Page 19 of 19