Delhi District Court
Bhagirath Singh vs Nirmal Kumar on 27 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, EAST,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No.:- 757/2016
CNR No.:- DLET03-00770-2014
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Sh. Bhagirath Singh (now deceased)
Through his Lrs.
(1) Sh. Rahul Nagar
(2) Sh. Satinder Nagar
(3) Sandeep Nagar
(4) Kuldeep Nagar
All sons of late Sh. Bhagirath Singh,
Resident of H. No. 9/5169, Old Seelampur,
Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031. ..........Petitioners
Versus
1.Sh. Nirmal Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Sumat Prasad Jain
2. Lavi Kumar Jain
S/o Sh. Nirmal Kumar Jain
Both resident of 1/6168-A,
East Rohtash Nagar, Gali no.3,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
Also at:
Shop on the ground floor
Property no. 9/5169, Ch. Begram Market,
Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031 ..........Respondents
Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 1 of 23
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.27
15:32:38 +0530
Date of Institution: 07.07.2014
Date on which Judgment was reserved: 27.03.2025
Date of Judgment: 27.08.2025
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION 14(1)(e) R/W SECTION 25-B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the application under Section 25(B)(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRC Act") for seeking leave to defend in the present eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the DRC Act filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent on 23.11.2022.
Eviction petition of the Petitioner
2. The submissions made out in the petition are that the Petitioner is the owner / landlord of the property bearing no. 9/5169, Ch. Beg Ram Market, Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110031 by way of inheritance (hereinafter referred to as "the Property"). The said property consists of ground floor having shops, first floor with shop and a residential second floor used by the Petitioner and his family members. The tenanted shop is a corner shop measuring 11.9' x 7' on the ground floor of the abovesaid property (hereinafter referred to as the "Tenanted Shop") shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the Petitioner.
3. The Tenanted Shop was let out by the Petitioner to the Respondents for running their cloth business in the year 1987.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.27
15:32:47 +0530
RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 2 of 23
4. The Petitioner has four sons namely Mr. Rahul Nagar, Mr. Sandeep Nagar, Satender Nagar and Kuldeep Nagar. All the Petitioners are married and are living with the Petitioner in the second floor of the Property.
5. The elder sons of the Petitioner are sitting idle and not doing any business. They wish to run their independent business and are on dependent on the Petitioner for said commercial accommodation. The other two sons are students and wish to start their business / profession after completing their education.
6. All the shops on the ground floor are occupied by various tenants including the Respondents re: the Tenanted Shop. The first floor is also with tenants who are using the same as godown.
7. The Tenanted Shop is required by the Petitioner for his two sons urgently who are at present unemployed and have no source of income and are totally dependent on the Petitioner for their residence as well as commercial needs.
8. The Petitioner has no other suitable accommodation available to him to settle his sons nor is he in possession of any other commercial property. The Petitioner is a senior citizen and is unemployed, he requires one of the shops for himself.
9. The Tenanted Shop was renovated in June/July 1997 and a fresh agreement / compromise was executed on 05.07.1997 wherein it was agreed that rent of the Tenanted Shop will be Rs.600/- per month. The Digitally signed RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 3 of 23 T by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.27 15:32:51 +0530 Respondents are habitual defaulters and are in arrears of rent since 01.04.2010.
10. The Petitioners requested the Respondents to vacate the Tenanted Shop as the same is bonafidely required by him for his sons, however, the Respondents did not vacate the Tenanted Shop. Instead, the Respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction bearing No. 54/2014 and the said suit is pending in the Court of Sh. N.P. Singh, Senior Civil Judge/ Rent Controller, Delhi.
11. In this background, the present petition has been filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for eviction on the ground of landlord's bonafide need.
Leave to defend application of the Respondent
12. The Respondents filed their application for grant of leave to defend under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act on 06.08.2014 and submitted in his application that he had received the summons on 23.07.2014. The following averments are made by the Respondents in the application:
a) The Respondents are the tenants of the Tenanted Shop.
Respondent no. 1 rented the Tenanted Shop in the year 1987 and gave an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Respondent. It was settled between the Petitioner and Respondent no. 1 that the Petitioner shall never be asked to vacate the Tenanted Shop and the Respondent shall continue to pay the rent. The present suit has been filed with a malafide intention as there was an oral RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 4 of 23 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:32:55 +0530 agreement between the parties that the Respondent shall not be asked to vacate the Tenanted Shop.
b) On 13.07.1997, it was agreed between the parties that the Property shall be renovated and after renovation / repair, the shops shall be handed over to the respective tenants. During this period, the Respondent was given a shop in the inner premises of the Property. After renovation, the Tenanted Shop was handed over to the Respondent.
c) The rate of rent was increased to Rs.800/- per month in the year 2003 and the said rent was regularly paid till 2006. In 2006, the rent was increased to Rs.1,500/- per month. In 2010, the rent was increased to Rs.1,700/- per month. In 2013, the rent was increased to Rs.2,200/- per month. The rental payments have been made regularly by the Respondent. It was decided that the Petitioner shall not increase the rent for a period of 6 years. However, Petitioner did not issue any rent receipt after 30.07.1997.
d) The malafide intention of the Petitioner can be seen from his written statement in the civil suit filed for permanent injunction by the Respondent. In the written statement, the Petitioner has specifically stated that he has four sons and the elder son Rahul Nagar is unemployed while the second son Sandeep Nagar is a trainee of cloth market. It is contrary to the averment that his two elder sons are sitting idle and are not employed anywhere.
e) The Petitioner's elder son Rahul Nagar is doing business from the shop 9/5161, Begram Market, S.M. D-31 by name and style of Priyanshi Fab and the same is clear from the directory of RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 5 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHIN PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:32:59 +0530 Export Surplus Cloth Merchant Association. The other elder son Sandeep Nagar is running the shop of fabrics and cloth at Narain Singh Market and Bhagwat Singh Market at the address of 9/5193, Shanti Mohalla, Old Seelampur, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. The said facts have been concealed by the Petitioner.
f) The Petitioner has lots of other properties lying vacant i.e. shop at basement floor of the Property (shown in green colour and marked as V-1 in the site plan filed by the Respondent), a shop in the Property on ground floor (shown in brown colour and marked as V-2 in the site plan filed by the Respondent) and another shop in the Property on first floor (shown in blue colour and marked as R-1 in the site plan filed by the Respondent).
g) The Petitioner has let out more than one shop to the same tenant such as four shops to Bunty at first floor (specifically shown by red colour in site plan and marked as B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4), two shops to one Naresh Chand Jain (one shop at first floor marked in green colour as N-1 and one shop at ground floor marked in green colour as N-2) and two shops to one Rahul Jain at ground floor (shown in red colour in the site plan and marked as R-1 and R-2).
h) The Petitioner broke the wall of vacant shop at ground floor premises which is shown in the site plan in brown clour and marked as V-2 and the broken wall is specifically shown in the site plan from W-1 to W-2 has been given to another tenant who have opened a shop by the name and style of T.S. Creation which is adjacent to the Tenanted Shop.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.27
15:33:03 +0530
RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 6 of 23
i) The Petitioner has filed the present petition against the
Respondents in a malafide manner and no petitions have been filed against other tenants.
j) The Petitioner is harassing the Respondents by different means by blocking the toilets which is situated at the roof of the Property and is forcing the municipality worker to not pick garbage which is lying in front of the shop in question.
k) The Petitioner has not disclosed as to whether the other shops are also occupied by tenants and whether he has filed an eviction petition re: those shops.
l) It is averred that Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed or in alternative leave to defend of Respondents be granted to contest the present petition because the present petition is gross misuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed.
Reply to the leave to defend application
13. In his reply to the leave to defend application, the Petitioner has made the following averments:
a) The Respondents did not give an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the Petitioner at the time of entering into tenancy and it was never agreed that the Respondents shall never be asked to vacate the Tenanted Shop.
b) Subsequent to renovation, a compromise was executed on 13.07.1997 and the present rent is Rs.2,420/- per month. The Respondents are in arrears of rent since 01.04.2010. It is denied that rent receipts were not issued after 30.07.1997.
T PRIYADARSHINI RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 7 of 23 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:33:07 +0530
c) The Petitioner has reiterated that he has four sons and all of them are married and living with the Petitioner at the second floor of the property. The two elder sons of the Petitioner are sitting idle and not doing any business. The said sons are dependants on the Petitioner and want to run their business from the Tenanted Shop.
d) There is no alternative accommodation as all the shops on the ground floor are occupied by various tenants. Neither the Petitioner nor his sons are in possession of any of the shops on the ground floor or the first floor. The Petitioner wants to settle his elder sons (Rahul Nagar and Sandeep Nagar) and the Tenanted Shop is required for the said purpose. The Petitioner also requires the other shops with other tenants in the same property for himself as well as his other sons and he shall file separate eviction petitions against them.
e) It is denied that Rahul Nagar is doing business from the shop 9/5161, Begram Market, S.M.D. 31 by name and style of Priyanshi Fab.
f) It is denied that the Petitioner has other premises / shops which are also lying vacant in the Property. No copy of the alleged site plan has been supplied and the correctness of the same is not admitted.
g) It is denied that only to harass the Respondents and to file the present petition, the Petitioner recently broke the wall of vacant shop at ground floor and gave the same to another tenant who is already having a shop by the name and style of T.S. Creation.
RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 8 of 23 Digitally signed
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.27
15:33:11 +0530
h) It is denied that the Petitioner is harassing the Respondents
by blocking the toilers which are situated at the roof of the Property and is forcing the municipality workers to not collect the garbage which is lying in front of the Tenanted Shop.
i) It is also averred that it is an established position of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how property belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him.
j) During the pendency of the proceedings, the Petitioner came to know that the Respondents have acquired alternative accommodation i.e. shop in Property No. 9/5058, Gali No. 18, Shanti Mohalla, Purana Seelampur, Delhi from its owner Mrs. Lakhmiri Nagar w/o Late Mr. Devi Singh. The CD has been filed in this regard.
Course of Proceedings.
14. During the pendency of the petition, on 01.10.2017, the Petitioner passed away. An application for impleadment of LRs of the Petitioner was moved which was allowed on 20.02.2018.
15. During pendency of the petition, the Respondents filed multiple applications for taking on record subsequent changes in the Property. The said applications were decided in the following manner:
a) Application filed under Section 151 CPC on 19.01.2017 -
The event proposed to be placed on record by the Respondents was that shop under the name and style of M/s T.S. Creation as shown in the site plan filed by the Respondent was got vacated by the Petitioner from the earlier tenants and also let out to RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 9 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:33:15 +0530 M.S.Krishan under the name and style of Lado Creation. It was also averred that the vacant shop adajcent to the Tenanted shop was let out to one Sanjay under the name and style of Prabal Sagar Textile who was also previous tenant of the Petitioner. It is further stated that shop which is shown in the site plan on the ground floor under the possession of Rahul Jain and Naresh Chand Jain was also clubbed into one shop and let out to one S.R.K. Creation. The Petitioner admitted that the shops have been clubbed together by removing the intervening wall as both the shops were already occupied by the same tenant. It was held vide aforesaid order that the name of M/s T.S. Creations was changed to Lado Creations. Further, as the Respondents did not specifically state as to how the stated events are relevant for deciding the bonafide requirement of the Petitioner, the application was dismissed.
b) Application filed under Section 151 CPC on 05.04.2017 - In this application, the site plan was alleged to be false. It was also stated that earlier the adjacent shop was let out to M/s T.S. Creation and thereafter to M/s Lado Creation and then to Banarasi House. Further, in the basement, the Lt. Petitioner let out the vacant shop to one Mahishi Fabric and one shop at the first floor lying vacant alongwith a shop at ground floor was let out to Suparas Textile. It was decided vide order dated 17.01.2023 that the shop mentioned on the basement and 1st floor are not relevant for deciding bonafide requirement of the Tenanted Shop which is on the ground floor. It was also observed that as the Respondent has not mentioned when the shop on the RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 10 of 23 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:33:19 +0530 ground floor was let out to Suparas Textile, the application is liable to be dismissed.
c) Application filed under Section 151 CPC on 20.01.2020 - The ground floor adjacent shop was let out to R. K. Fashion without giving information to the Court. The said application was dismissed on 17.01.2023 on the ground that the Respondent has not mentioned the date when the alleged shop was let out to R. K. Fashion and hence, it cannot be said that the said event was a subsequent one.
d) Application filed under Section 151 CPC on 24.02.2021 - The adjacent shop was let out again to Prabal Sagar Textile who is the current tenant in hall no. 1. It was averred that hall no. 3 had three shops which were clubbed into a big hall with malafide intent by the Petitioner and let out to M/s Madan Lal and Rajeev Kumar Jain. The application was dismissed on 17.01.2023 with an observation that the Respondent have failed to disclose the date when the alleged shops were clubbed.
e) Application filed under Section 151 CPC on 20.08.2022 - Vide this application, the Respondents averred that Hall No. 2 has been let out multiple times and has been sold to one Mohan Bansal in October 2021. The application was dismissed on 17.01.2023 with the observation that the Halls no. 1, 2 and 3 and the shops at the basement are not comparable to the Tenanted Shop.
f) Application filed under Section 151 CPC on 14.05.2025 - In this application, the Respondents averred that the LRs of the Petitioner have sold out adjacent shop on 01.11.2021 to one Geeta Bansal. The said application was dismissed on the ground RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 11 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHIN PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.27 15:33:24 +0530 that the present application has been filed in a belated manner as the sale pertains to 2021.
g) An oral application for placing on record notice under Section 6A and 8 of the DRC Act - The Petitioners gave no objection to taking on record the said documents and vide order dated 01.07.2024, the said documents were taken on record.
16. It is pertinent to mention that the Petitioner expired on 08.12.2024. Accordingly, an application for impleadment of LRs of Petitioner was moved, which was allowed vide order dated 10.02.2025.
Arguments
17. Arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties. The Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has submitted that the Respondents have not raised any triable issues and therefore, their application for leave to defend ought to be dismissed. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for Respondents has averred that the Petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands and has manufactured / concocted a false case of bonafide requirement and therefore, the leave to defend application ought to be allowed.
18. The Ld. Counsel for Respondents has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajbir Pal and another vs. Kanwar Pratap Singh [2023 DHC 2783].
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2025.08.27
15:33:27 +0530
RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 12 of 23
Law relating to leave to defend application in Rent Control matters
19. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the Petitioner must establish that:
a) He is the owner and landlord in respect of the Tenanted Shop;
b) He requires the premises bona fide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him; and
c) He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
20. The scope of the said Section has been enlarged in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satyawati Sharma vs. Union of India [AIR 2008 SC 3148], so as to include premises let out for commercial purposes within the scope and ambit of a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
21. It is pertinent to note that in a recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Kanahaiya Lal Arya vs. Mohd. Ehshan and others (decision dated 25.02.2025 in SLP No. 21965 of 2022), it has been observed that the law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord is well settled. It was held that the need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. It was also observed in the aforesaid judgment that the landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need and the tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction. The said judgment has been relied by the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner.
Digitally signed by TRC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 13 of 23 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.27 15:33:31 +0530 Findings Re: Whether the Petitioner is the owner and landlord of the Tenanted Shop?
22. On the first issue as to whether the Petitioner is the owner and landlord in respect of the Tenanted Shop, it is pertinent to note that the Respondents have admitted that the Lt. Petitioner is the owner and landlord of the Tenanted Shop. Consequent to the demise of the Petitioner, the Property has devolved on the LRs of the Petitioner who have been duly impleaded. Whilst the Respondents in a subsequent application averred that the Property has not been partitioned amongst the heirs of the Petitioner, this argument does not aid the Respondents as it is an established position of law that "once a tenant is always a tenant". A tenant has no right to question mutual understanding / partition amongst legal heirs of the Petitioner. Therefore, it stands admitted and established that the Lt. Petitioner was the owner and landlord of the Tenanted Shop.
Re: Whether the Petitioner requires the Tenanted Shop in a bonafide manner for himself or for family member(s) dependent upon him?
23. On the issue as to whether the requirement pleaded can be said to be the landlord's requirement, it is pertinent to note that in the case of Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal [AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 2256]; the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the requirement by son of the landlord for use as chartered accountant's office is the requirement of landlord. Furthermore, while construing who is member dependent on the landlord, the following guidelines were laid down - T PRIYADARSHINI RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 14 of 23 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:33:35 +0530 "The tests to be applied are: (i) whether the requirement pleaded and proved may properly be regarded as the landlord's own requirement? and, (ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case actual occupation and user by a person other than the landlord would be deemed by the landlord as 'his own' occupation or user? The answer would, in its turn, depend on (i) the nature and degree of relationship and/or dependence between the landlord pleading the requirement as 'his own' and the person who would actually use the premises;
(ii) the circumstances in which the claim arises and is put forward, and (iii) the intrinsic tenability of the claim. The Court on being satisfied of the reasonability and genuineness of claim, as distinguished from a mere use to get rid of the tenant, will uphold the landlord's claim."
24. In M/s Commercial Electric Works and others vs. Sharda Gupta [300 (2023) DLT 35], the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that bonafide need of grandson would come within the purview of the Petitioner's bonafide need. In the said case, the Respondent landlady averred that she requires the tenanted premises for her grandson who had done his graduation in BBA in April 2016 and wanted to establish, run and operate his own business from the tenanted premises. Similar observation was made by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Agya Ram Arora vs. Surjeet Mech Tools [220 (2015) DLT 245]
25. In Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Company Limited [(1998) 8 SCC 119] it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the Rent Controller should not proceed on the assumption that the landlord's requirement is not bonafide. When the landlord shows a prima facie case, a presumption that the requirement is bona fide is available to be drawn. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of T PRIYADARSHINI RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 15 of 23 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:33:39 +0530 the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
26. With respect to bonafide requirement, it is the case of the Petitioner that his elder sons namely Rahul and Sandeep are unemployed and are dependent on the Petitioner to provide the Tenanted Shop for the purpose of setting up a business. It is stated that the elder sons of the Petitioner are required to be settled and they shall be using the Tenanted Shop for setting up their garments business. It has been averred on behalf of the Petitioner that with the passage of time, the requirement has become even more essential as the other two sons also now require accommodation for their respective choice of business and profession. Per contra, the Respondents have averred that the eldest son of the Petitioner namely Rahul is not unemployed as he is doing business from a shop in IX/5161, Begram Market, S.M., Delhi
- 110031 by name and style of Priyanshi Fab. In support of this averment, the Respondents have placed on record copy of Directory 2007 of Export Surplus Cloth Merchant Association. It is also averred that the other elder son Sandeep Nagar is running the shop of fabrics and cloth at Narain Singh Market and Bhagwat Singh Market at the address of 9/5193, Shanti Mohalla, Old Seelampur, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. It is averred that the said facts have been concealed by the Petitioner. To this, the Petitioner has denied, in their reply to the leave to defend application, that his elder son Rahul is doing business in the name and style of M/s Priyanshi.
27. It is pertinent to note that the Directory filed by the Respondents pertain to the year 2007, however, the present petition has been filed on 2014. Further, it cannot be expected from the Petitioner's sons to not be RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 16 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2025.08.27 15:33:43 +0530 gainfully engaged during the long-drawn pendency of this petition. Even if it is admitted that the Petitioner's eldest son Rahul is running a garment business, he cannot be precluded from running his own business from his father's Property and his requirement cannot be termed as mala fide. It is pertinent to note that a similar issue arose in Khem Chand Ramesh Kumar, Radhey Shyam Goel, Pradeep Transport Company vs. Vijay Mehra and others [216 (2015) DLT 544] wherein a website page was filed and alleged that the landlords are already owners of another business and therefore, would not be starting another business from the tenanted premises. While dismissing this averment of the tenants, it was observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that self-serving bald averments of ownership of another company cannot raise any triable issue.
28. The Petitioner cannot be faulted for wanting to settle his sons by setting up a business for them in the Tenanted Shop. Fairly, the Petitioner has also admitted that further eviction petitions are intended to be filed by him for his younger sons. Merely because it is averred that the eldest son figures in a Directory pertaining to 2007 as running a business or the other son Sandeep working as a trainee, does not cast aspersions in the need of the Petitioner. The bonafide need of the Lt. Petitioner re: the Tenanted Shop has been established and hence, no triable issue is raised in this regard.
Re: Whether the Petitioner has other reasonably suitable accommodation?
29. The primary contention of the Respondents is that the Petitioner has various other alternative accommodations available in the Property T PRIYADARSHINI RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 17 of 23 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:33:46 +0530 which can be used by him. In this context, it is pertinent to note that in Anil Bajaj and another vs. Vinod Ahuja [(2014) 15 SCC 610], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the landlord was carrying on business from a shop located in a narrow lane and the tenant was in occupation of premises on main road which landlord considered more suitable for his own business. It was observed that having several other shops from which landlord is carrying on different business and can be effectively carried out cannot be a ground for granting leave to defend. It was also observed that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how property belonging to the landlord should be utilised by him for his business.
30. In Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua [289 (2022) DLT 1 (SC)], it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:
"We have already discussed the scope of Section 14(1)(e) vis a vis Section 25B(8) of the Act. Therefore, the mere existence of the other properties which are, in fact, denied by the appellant would not enure to the benefit of the respondent in the absence of any pleadings and supporting material before the learned Rent Controller to the effect that they are reasonably suitable for accommodation."
31. In Khem Chand Ramesh Kumar, Radhey Shyam Goel, Pradeep Transport Company vs. Vijay Mehra and others [216 (2015) DLT 544], it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that merely because some other portion of the premises may remain vacant or unused, cannot mean bonafide necessity eviction petition cannot succeed.
T RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 18 of 23 PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:33:49 +0530
32. The Respondents have filed a site plan indicating various shops which are lying vacant in the Property on the basement and the first floor. It is averred that the Petitioner has lots of other properties lying vacant i.e. shop at basement floor of the Property (shown in green colour and marked as V-1 in the site plan filed by the Respondent), a shop in the Property on ground floor (shown in brown colour and marked as V-2 in the site plan filed by the Respondent) and another shop in the Property on first floor (shown in blue colour and marked as R-1 in the site plan filed by the Respondent). It is also averred that the Petitioner has let out more than one shop to the same tenant such as four shops to Bunty at first floor (specifically shown by red colour in site plan and marked as B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4), two shops to one Naresh Chand Jain (one shop at first floor marked in green colour as N-1 and one shop at ground floor marked in green colour as N-2) and two shops to one Rahul Jain at ground floor (shown in red colour in the site plan and marked as R-1 and R-2). It has also been averred that the Petitioner broke the wall of vacant shop at ground floor premises which is shown in the site plan in brown colour and marked as V-2 and the broken wall is specifically shown in the site plan from W-1 to W-2 has been given to another tenant who have opened a shop by the name and style of T.S. Creation which is adjacent to the Tenanted Shop. It is pertinent to note that shops on the basement and other floors are not comparable to that of the ground floor. Further, the Petitioner has submitted that neither the Petitioner nor his sons are in possession of any of the shops on the ground floor or the first floor. Therefore, shops which are not in possession of the Petitioner cannot be called as suitably available accommodation. The CD filed by the Respondent was played. The photographs as well as video were seen. The video of T PRIYADARSHINI RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 19 of 23 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:33:53 +0530 the broken wall and construction of the ground floor shop cannot be clearly seen in the CD. Also, the relevance of the said video has not been elaborated by the Respondents. In arguendo, even if it is admitted that the wall has been broken by the Petitioner in another shop on the ground floor, it does not hamper the choice of the Petitioner for the business of his sons especially considering that the location of the shops is different.
33. The Petitioner has clearly elaborated his requirement of the Tenanted Shop. The Petitioner has submitted that the Tenanted Shop is situated at front side of the corner of the Property which is the prime location for carrying business. It has also been submitted that the said Tenanted Shop is customer oriented having good parking space and is conducive for loading and unloading of goods. It is also submitted that the Petitioner and his sons are not in possession of any of the shops on the ground floor. As can be seen from the site plan, the Tenanted Shop has direct access from the main road and increased visibility as opposed to other shops on the ground floor which are on the back side. In the case of Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [AIR 1999 SC 2507], it has been held that "The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist". It was further observed that an alternate accommodation, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suitable accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members being relevant factors. In applying the ratio of the above T PRIYADARSHINI RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 20 of 23 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:33:57 +0530 precedent to the case in hand, it is clear that the hall or vacant portions of basement or first floor of the Property is not reasonably suitable in comparison with the Tenanted Shop for commercial purpose. Thus, no triable issue has been raised by the Respondent in this regard.
Re: Other issues raised by the Respondent
34. The documents pertaining to notice issued by the LRs of the Petitioner under Section 6A and Section 8 of the DRC Act are not relevant for consideration of the present matter. Similarly, the issue of arrears of rent is not relevant in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) by the landlord for requirement of tenanted premises on the ground of bonafide need / necessity.
35. The Respondents have filed photographs (in the CD filed by him) of the garbage dumped outside his shop in support of his averment that the Petitioner is harassing the Respondents by blocking the toilers which are situated at the roof of the Property and is forcing the municipality workers to not collect the garbage which is lying in front of the Tenanted Shop. However, the grievance against the Petitioner gives rise to an independent cause of action and does not have bearing in the present matter.
36. It has been averred by the Respondents that in lieu of payment of Rs.20,000/- by the Respondents to the Petitioner in 1987, there was an oral arrangement that the Petitioner shall never be asked to vacate the Tenanted Shop and the Respondent shall continue to pay the rent. However, such oral arrangements do not create any bar on the statutory right of the Petitioner to file an eviction petition basis his bonafide RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 21 of 23 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHIN PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.2 15:34:02 +0530 requirement as a landlord. Therefore, this argument does not aid the Respondents.
37. The other argument of the Respondents is that they are dependent on Tenanted Shop and the Petitioner, despite being aware of the Respondent's financial condition and dependence of the Respondents on the Tenanted Premises for his livelihood, has filed the present petition with malafide intent. The only relevant issue for leave to defend in eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is whether the landlord has a bonafide need and whether they lack other suitable accommodation. In Mst. Bega Begum and others vs. Abdul Ahad Khan (dead) by LRs and others [(1979) 1 SCC 273] it was observed that it is no doubt true that the tenant will have to be ousted from the house if a decree for eviction is passed but such an event would happen whenever a decree for eviction is passed and merely because the tenant will be ousted from the premises where he was running his activity cannot, by itself, be considered to be a hardship and be a valid ground for refusing the landlord a decree for eviction. The Respondent's financial well-being and wherewithal is not a statutory defence and does not create a triable issue. The consequent hardship to tenant from eviction order does not convert otherwise bonafide requirement into malafide requirement. Hence, this is not a triable issue raised by the Respondent.
Conclusion
38. It is well settled that in case a tenant is able to raise any triable issue, he is granted leave to defend the eviction petition. It is also Digitally signed RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 22 of 23 T PRIYADARSHINI by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2025.08.27 15:34:06 +0530 settled law that the burden of showing that the need of the landlord is not bonafide or that alternative accommodation is available with the landlord lies on the tenant. The whole purpose of summary procedure under Section 25B of the DRC Act would otherwise be defeated. In the present case, the tenant / Respondents have not been able to raise any triable issue, which would require adjudication by leading evidence.
39. In view of the above discussion, it stands concluded that all the defences taken by the Respondents are vague and have failed to raise any triable issues. The application for leave to defend filed by the Respondents is accordingly rejected.
40. Consequently, an eviction order is passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents in respect of Tenanted Shop i.e. Corner Shop admeasuring 11.9' x 7' on the ground floor of property bearing no. 9/5169, Ch. Beg Ram Market, Main Road, Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi 110031 as shown in red in the site plan filed by the Petitioner. The site plan is marked Ex. P-1. In light of Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, the aforesaid eviction shall not be executable for a period of 6 months from today.
Digitally signed by TAnnounced in open court T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
on this 27th day of August, 2025 2025.08.27
15:34:10 +0530
T. Priyadarshini
Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
This judgment consists of 23 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
RC ARC No. 757/2016 Bhagirath Singh vs. Nirmal Kumar & Anr 23 of 23