Delhi District Court
Krishan Lal Kathuria vs Rudesh Kumar on 29 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Sh. Richa Sharma
RC ARC No: 101/19
CNR No. DLWT-03-002676-2019
SH. KRISHAN LAL KATHURIA
S/O LATE SH. RAM LAL
R/O H-4 A, KIRTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110015 ....Petitioner
VERSUS
SH. RUDESH KUMAR
SON OF LATE SH. RAMESH CHANDER,
C/O KASHYAP CYCLE,
H-4/A, KIRTI NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110015. ....Respondent
Date of Filing : 24.09.2019
Date of Judgment : 29.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner filed the present petition under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying for passing an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the disputed shop consisting one room on the ground floor measuring approximately 8' X 10' with front open verandah of the same size of the property bearing no.H-4/A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as the "tenanted premises or shop" or "suit property").
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.1 of 38 AVERMENTS BY PETITIONERS IN PETITION
2. It is inter-alia averred by the petitioner, that he is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises, having acquired vide gift deed registered as document no.6445, additional book No.1, Volume No.1935, at page 125 to 130 dated 17.09.1999. The tenancy of the tenanted premises was created in the name of the father of the respondent Sh. Ramesh Chander. After the death of Sh. Ramesh Chander, his son Sh. Rudesh Kumar, the respondent continued to use the said tenanted premises for the purpose of cycle repair work as legal heir of the original tenant. The current monthly rent of the shop is Rs.143/- excluding all other charges.
3. It has been averred, that disputed shop is bonafidely required for the use by daughter i.e. Smt. Sangeeta Gulati W/o Sh. Bharat Gulati, of the petitioner. The daughter of the petitioner decided to start business of sale of ladies suit from the shop in dispute and except the tenanted premises she does not have any other suitable property/shop available to her in Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. It has been averred, that the daughter of the petitioner is married and has two grown up children. Both, the son and daughter of Smt. Sangeeta Gulati are married and well settled in life. The son and daughter-in-law of the daughter of the petitioner are employed with MNC based at Gurgaon and for convenience sake they have taken a residence at Gurgaon as the present family house of the daughter of the petitioner has been under redevelopment and the daughter of the petitioner had to shift to a small tenanted residential accommodation at N-13, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.2 of 38
4. It has been averred, that the son-in-law of the petitioner is in the wholesale trade of sale and supply of ladies suits and dresses and he is running his business from the commercial wholesale market of 721, Katra Hardayal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. The said shop is situated in the whole sale market of Delhi, which is frequented mostly by outstationed traders and whole sellers. After the respective marriages and settlement of the children of the daughter of the petitioner, the petitioner's daughter decided to utilize her talent and time for gainful avocation, to augment family income and thus decided to start the business of ladies suits and dresses as a full time business. It has been averred, that since the entire family of the petitioner, his sons, grand daughters are in the trade of designing and sale and supply of ladies suit and dresses, the daughter of the petitioner too has got encouragement from the petitioner and other family members.
5. It has been averred, that the daughter of the petitioner is presently residing at N-13, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi in a rented accommodation. She was earlier residing at N-30, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015, which is the family house of the son-in-law of the petitioner. The said house was occupied by the son-in-law of the petitioner and his elder brother and his family of grown up children. Both the brothers decided to get the same rebuilt in collaboration upto third floor so that the members of the family could be accommodated conveniently and to overcome the severe paucity of residential accommodation. The said property has been completely demolished and it will take at least three years to complete the construction and make the same habitable.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.3 of 38
6. It has been further averred, that the petitioner and his daughter live in the same locality and the house of the daughter of the petitioner is at a walking distance from the house of the petitioner. The daughter of the petitioner does not have any space to start regular business of ladies suits. It has been averred, that daughter of the petitioner has requested to the petitioner to help her and the petitioner also felt that it is his bounden duty to help and support his daughter. The petitioner has already provided a shop on the ground floor of his residence to his elder grand daughter (daughter of his elder son) and has already got eviction order against the second tenant for the shop to be given to his younger grand daughter (daughter of his younger son). Likewise the petitioner has decided to give one shop in his property to his daughter as well. The petitioner requires the shop in dispute for the need of his daughter, who is dependent on the petitioner for the purpose of accommodation.
7. It has been averred, that the petitioner has requested the respondent to vacate the disputed shop to enable the petitioner to provide the same to his daughter and help her start her business of ready made ladies suits and dresses but the respondent has simply turned down the request of the petitioner without appreciating the difficulty of the petitioner and his daughter, who urgently need a shop /accommodation in the market to start the business as decided by her.
8. The Members of the family of the petitioner who are dependent on him for the purpose of accommodation for commercial space/ shop consists of :-
a) Petitioner himself and his wife, (both very senior citizen)
b) Petitioner's elder son Sh. Rajiv Kathuria, his wife Smt. Simmi ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.4 of 38 Kathuria and their two daughters aged 29 years and 24 years respectively, the elder daughter, Ms. Sanchi Kathuria had suffered marital discord with her husband hence she is living with the petitioner.
c) Petitioner's younger son Sh. Sanjeev Kathuria, his wife and Ms. Monika Kathuria and three children. Elder daughter, Ms. Urvashi Kathuria aged 22 years and twins younger son and daughter both aged 17 years.
d) Petitioner's daughter Smt. Sangeeta Gulati Wo. Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gulati, who is married and have two married grown up children and she is permanent resident of property bearing no. N-30, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015. However, she has shifted to rented accommodation at ground floor of the property no. N-13, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi as the family house/permanent residence has been demolished to redevelop the same.
9. It has been averred, that the petitioner and his wife are about 80 years of age and both have their independent residence on the ground floor of the property behind the disputed shop. It is further averred, that the petitioner and his wife have long back settled on the ground floor to avoid climbing the stairs and the wife of the petitioner had to get her total knee joint transplant. It is further averred, that the petitioner has one bed room for him and his wife, one room being used as puja room and the third room is used as drawing room for the guests, relatives and visitors. It is further averred, that the petitioner has no guest room in the ground floor and there is no room on the ground floor with the petitioner which can be spared for use as shop by his daughter.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.5 of 38
10. It has been averred, that the property of the petitioner has three shops on the ground floor and out of the three shops, the two shops have an enclosed verandah/front setback in the same shop. It is further averred, that the shop at point 'A' on the ground floor is occupied by the tenant, Sh. Mata Fer, who lost the eviction petitioner filed against him by the petitioner and he had to surrender the possession by 27th January 2020, after which this shop is to be occupied by Ms. Urvashi Kathuria i.e. the grand daughter of the petitioner, for whose need the eviction was sought. It is further averred, that the shop at point 'B' on the ground floor was under the occupation of the Ms. Sanchi Kathuria and third shop is the disputed shop under the occupation of the respondent. It is averred, that the besides this there are two small triangular stores carved out in the corners which are being used as garage to keep the scooter and cycles of the children, as they are of no other use because of their shape and small size.
11. It has been averred, that the petitioner has small basement which is being used by the entire family for storing the discarded and other non-usable goods of the household and the same cannot be used for any other purpose. It is further averred, that the entrance to the basement is from inside of the property on ground floor and it has no opening from outside and the same is being used for domestic storage. It is further averred, that the basement is not permissible for commercial/non-domestic use under the Municipal laws and the same is being used only for domestic storage.
12. It has been averred, that the elder son of the petitioner is in occupation of the second floor and the younger son of the petitioner is in occupation of the first floor of the property in question. It is further ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.6 of 38 averred, that this arrangement has been done mutually as the children of both the sons of the petitioner have grown up and the requirement of accommodation for their families has also increased.
13. It has been averred, that the shop in dispute shall otherwise also be most suitable to daughter of the petitioner as the same is situated in her parent's residential house and she can use the facilities of toilet etc. It is further averred, that the shop in dispute is also suitable as the same is in the main market in Kirti Nagar and is visited by good number of people of the locality know to the petitioner and his family members and above all the daughter of the petitioner will not be burdened with sky rocketing rent of the accommodation/shop as the petitioner has decided to give it to her out of love and affection as he has done in the case of granddaughters.
14. It has been averred, that the petitioner is a self made person and throughout his life he has not been dependent on anybody and he has rather settled his sons and son-in-law in independent businesses at Chandni Chowk, Delhi while he retained his independent business to himself. It is further averred, that the petitioner has settled and provided accommodation/shops to his granddaughters and he has likewise decided to provide accommodation/space to his daughter as well, in order to help her start the business of ladies suits.
15. It has been averred, that the respondent was requested to vacate the shop and he was duly informed about the need of petitioner's daughter by the petitioner but the respondent has not shown any inclination to vacate the shop. It is further averred, that the respondent has illegally and with malafide intentions and motives ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.7 of 38 dwelled over the demised property and he has raised the demand of huge amount as premium to vacate the disputed shop, taking undue advantage of the urgent and dire need of the petitioner. It is further averred, that the petitioner neither has surplus money not does he want to pay premium to the respondent as the demand of the respondent is illegal and unresonable.
16. It has been further averred, that the petitioner can meet with his requirements, if the petitioner gets the possession of the disputed premises. It is further averred, that the petitioner being the owner of the property in question has preferential rights over property in dispute considering his need of space to accommodate his daughter as compared to the respondent. It is further averred, that the respondent is under a legal obligation to vacate the property in dispute and permit the petitioner to have beneficial use of the same for accommodation for his family members.
17. It has been further averred, that it is needless to mention, that the property falls in the residential colony of Kirti Nagar and as per law the petitioner can use only the ground floor for specific trades and the number and size of the shops have also been specified in the Master Plan of Delhi 2021. The property of the petitioner has three floors only and all the three shops are in occupancy as mentioned above.
18. It has been averred, that in the above circumstances the only solution for the petitioner is to get the property in dispute vacated from the respondent and accommodate his daughter Smt. Sangeeta Gulati in the same for the business of sale of ladies suits and dresses from the disputed shop.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.8 of 38
19. It has been averred, that the need of the petitioner's dependent family member for the shop is most bonafide, acute and genuine. The petitioner shall face hardship in case he is not able to get the possession of the demised shop immediately. It has been further averred, that the demised property/shop is bonafidely required by the petitioner for use for his business of his daughter. To implement the decision of the petitioner is dependent on the availability of space/ demised/shop as even the daughter and son-in-law of the petitioner have no other alternative/commercial space to accommodate the daughter of the petitioner for her business need.
LEAVE TO DEFEND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
20. After service of the summons, leave to defend was filed by the respondent. Thereafter, vide order dated 13.07.2020, Learned Predecessor of this Court allowed the application of the respondent for leave to defend and the respondent was given liberty to file the written statement.
AVERMENTS BY RESPONDENT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT
21. In the written statement, the respondent has inter-alia submitted, that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground, that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. He has intentionally and deliberately suppressed the material facts from this Court and as such the petitioner is not entitled to equitable relief as prayed. It is further contended, that the petitioner concealed the material facts from this Court as he has not disclosed all the properties owned/in occupation ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.9 of 38 of all the members of the family. The petition is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
22. It is further contended, that the petitioner concealed the fact that the application of the respondent for leave to contest was allowed by the Court of Sh. Amit Kumar SCJ/RC West on dated 30.04.2011 vide eviction petition No.E-31/10 and therefore, the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground, that the petitioner has concealed this fact, that the respondent has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner vide suit no.415/04 titled as Radhesh Kumar Vs. Krishan Lal Kathuria, which was decreed in favour of the respondent and thereafter, the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed on this sole ground. It is further averred, that the respondent also concealed this fact that the co-tenant late Sh. Rajesh Kumar has filed a suit against the respondent and the petitioner vide suit No.CS 364/14, which was decreed on dated 20.10.2014 by the Court of Sh. Abhinav Jain Civil Judge-05 THC.
23. It is further contended, that the petitioner has also concealed this fact, that the legal heirs of late Rajesh Kumar got possession of the half shop through bailiff as per order dated 06.12.2018 and that petitioner was also party in that suit. It is further contended, that the petitioner concealed this fact from the Court, that he and his sons have five shops of whole sale sarees vide Shop No.730, 649, 733, 726 situated in Katra Hardyal Chowk Chandani Chowk and one shop at Katra Hira Lal Chandani Chowk. In reply to application, the petitioner admitted about the above said facts. It is settled law, that in a petition ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.10 of 38 of bonafide requirement, the landlord is required to disclose each and every accommodation available to him as on the date of the petition but the petitioner has not disclosed. The suppression of material facts within the knowledge of the petitioner at the time of filing it but intentionally were not placed before the Court in the first instance to obtained the order of eviction. Hence, eviction petition is liable to be dismissed.
REPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/TENANT
24. The petitioner has specifically denied all the preliminary objections raised by the respondent in the WS and has reiterated the facts mentioned in the petition.
EVIDENCE LED BY PETITIONER
25. In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW1/A. The petitioner relied upon documents Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/11. PW1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
26. Thereafter, the petitioner's evidence was closed vide order dated 01.05.2023.
EVIDENCE LED BY RESPONDENT
27. The respondent examined himself as RW-1 and tendered his affidavit as Ex.RW1/A. The respondent relied upon documents Ex.RW-1/2 & Ex.RW1/7 to Ex.RW1/10. He also relied upon the document Mark A ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.11 of 38 to Mark C.
28. He also examined RW-2 Sh. Ashwani, JJA, Record Room Civil, THC, who exhibited document Ex.RW2/A (Colly.) and Ex.RW2/B(Colly.).
29. He further examined RW-3 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, JJA, Record Room Civil, THC, who exhibited the document Ex.RW3/A (Colly.).
30. RW1 to RW3 were cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
31. Thereafter, respondent's evidence was closed vide order dated 28.04.2025 and the matter was listed for the final arguments.
32. Written synopsis have been filed on behalf of both the parties.
33. I have heard the arguments advanced by Learned counsels for both the parties at length and have further gone through the record carefully including the written synopsis so filed by the parties. My findings are as under :-
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
34. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and the same is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction-
(1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.12 of 38 contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
35. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a). The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b). The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
36. These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.13 of 38
37. The following are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act as culled out from the discussion above :
(i) There should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv) Landlord should not have other reasonable suitable accommodation.
(I) OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS (II) EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
38. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation as governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished from the one in title suit. In the case of M. R. Sawhney Vs. Dories Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was held that once a tenant always a tenant, unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law which is not so in the present petition.
39. It is settled law, that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The petitioners have to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.14 of 38 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioners have to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
40. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)
(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.15 of 38 case it is not said as to who else is the owner.
Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
41. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
42. In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court has specifically held that:-
"It is settled preposition of law that 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 ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.16 of 38 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. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this respect".
43.It is settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord , neither is the landlord required to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppel also bars the respondent herein from challenging the landlordship of the petitioners. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant. So, what has to be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
44. Now, in the light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts of the case in hand.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.17 of 38
45. It is the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner has contended himself to be the absolute owner of the premises in question i.e. property bearing No.H-4A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed on record the document Ex.PW1/2, which is a Gift Deed duly executed on 06.09.1999 between one (1) Charan Dass and (2) Shri Ram Parkash both sons of late Sh. Ram Lal Kathuria residents of H-4A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, being the donors and Sh. Krishan Lal Kathuria (petitioner in the present case), son of late Sh. Ram Lal Kathuria R/o H.-4A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi being the donee of property bearing No.H-4A, with freehold land underneath measuring about 250 Sq. Yds. situated in the approved colony known as Kirti Nagar, New Delhi area of village Bassai Darapur, Delhi State, Delhi.
46. Thus, vide the present registered document, i.e. a Gift Deed, PW-1 has categorically proved, that with respect to the property in question he is the absolute owner. Even otherwise for the purpose of deciding the rent petition, the Court primarily has to see that the petitioner is standing at a higher pedestal in comparison to the respondent as far as right and claim of the property in question is concerned.
47. It is further relevant to note, that it also stands admitted by the respondent in para 11 of his para wise reply of WS, that the respondent is sending money order of Rs.72/- as half of the rent of the half shop, meaning thereby, that the tenancy in question duly stands admitted and vide para 11, the respondent is only raising a disagreement qua the rate of rent. It is further apposite to note, that ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.18 of 38 vide para 18 it is further admitted, that tenancy was created in the name of the father of the respondent and after the death of the father of the respondent, the answering respondent was in possession of the shop in question, though he has also made a reference to an inter se petition that was contested between him and his brother namely late Sh. Rajesh but that per se does not raise an embargo with respect to the initial tenancy that was executed in favour of the father of the respondent.
48. In view of the discussion as above and in light of settled law, this Court has no hesitation in deducing, that the law with regard to the right of the tenant to challenge the ownership of the landlord is fairly settled as well as limited. In this context, what appears to be the meaning of term "owner" vis a vis the tenant is that the "owner" should be something more than the tenant.
49.Therefore, in view thereof, the landlord - tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent stands duly proved for the purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act.
WHETHER THE NEED OF THE PETITIONER IS BONAFIDE & WHETHER THE ALTERNATE SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION IS AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER ?
50.Before delving into the merits of the bonafide need of the landlord, this Court deems it fit to discuss the essence of term "bonafide" and the law settled in this regard.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.19 of 38
51. The word "genuine" means "natural: not spurious: real: pure:
sincere". In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean "good faith, without fraud or deceit". Thus the term bonafide refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much 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 pretense 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. Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation, which treats the landlord with some sympathy.
52. The question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer were in positive the need is bonafide.
53. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.20 of 38 distinguished between the genuine requirement and the reasonable requirement. It was held in case Damodar Sharma and an- other v. Nandram Deviram that:-
"It is wrong to say that "genuinely requires" is the same as "reasonably requires". There is distinction between the two phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the later to an objective standard. "Genuine requirement" would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he lives and thinks. Reasonable requirement belong to the "knowledge of the law" and means reasonable not in the mind of the person requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to the actual facts. In my opinion, in this part of Section 4
(g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises.
His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was unreliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy."
54. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has in-inevitably a subjective element in it and that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.21 of 38 court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely "illusory or whittled down". The words "reasonable requirement"
undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. Mere desire of a landlord/owner cannot be equated with bonafide need.
55. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words " required bonafide by the landlord" signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore incorporate a concept, which is both objective as well as subjective. The statute makes both the motivations of the owner as indeed the reasonableness of the desire, justiciable and the law therefore requires not only that the need of the owner for the premises should be honestly and genuinely entertained but must also be the need of a reasonable person in the position of the owner having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as the extent of the family of the owner, the standard of living to which the family is used, its social status, the pattern of life relevant to that status, the social conditions and any peculiar requirement of the family. All these have to be considered in the wider context of the socioeconomic conditions obtaining in the country. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord is result of honestly entertained need the court would not weigh the requirement in a fine scale, even while keeping the landlord confined within reasonable limits having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.22 of 38
56.It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Indian Insurance Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100, wherein it was held that :-
"..... the crux of ground envisaged in clause
(e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that the requirement of landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide.
When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a primafacie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide.
It is often said by the courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises.
While deciding the question of bonafides of requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself..."
57.On the basis of the law as above, returning to the facts of the case in hands, the principal averment made by the petitioner via present petition, is that the petitioner requires the premises in question for his daughter, who is living in his neighbourhood in Kirti Nagar i.e. the same locality/area in which the disputed shop is situated. It is contented by the respondent, that there are five other shops which are belonging to the petitioner and are located in the whole sale market of Chandni Chowk but the petitioner has vehemently denied the same ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.23 of 38 and in support of his contention he has also placed on record the rent receipts of the tenanted shop and the copy of the sale deed of the 5 th shop belonging to the son of the petitioner and against the said document the respondent has not placed on record even a single document to show, that the said shops belong to petitioner and are lying vacant and completely available to the petitioner so to speak. Even otherwise, the law is completely settled with regard to the petitioner being the best judge of his requirement and suitability with respect to his bona fide need and neither the Court nor the respondent/tenant can dictate terms to the petitioner in this regard.
58.Even if version of the respondent is believed to be gospel truth to the extent that there are five shops belonging to the petitioner and lying vacant in the wholesale market of Chandni Chowk, even otherwise the requirement of the petitioner in the light of the facts and circumstances of the present case is specific as he requires the shop in Kirti Nagar as his daughter is living in the same area and wants to start a business of ladies suit close to her place of residence and in this background the onus was upon the respondent to prove firstly, that the alleged five shops as stated by him belong to the petitioner and are lying vacant and secondly these shops are better suited to the requirement of the daughter of the petitioner than the disputed premises in question but no light has been thrown on these aspects by the respondent.
59.At this stage, it is also relevant to reproduce excerpts of the cross-
examination of RW1 to this effect as under : -
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.24 of 38 "It is correct that after the death of my father, I had continued to run my business from the disputed shop. It is correct that my father had taken the disputed premises on rent. It is correct that other than the property in question bearing no. H-4A, Kirti Nagar, the petitioner Sh. Krishan Lal Kathuria does not own any property in Delhi. It is correct that four shops bearing no. 730, 649, 733 and 726, Katra Hardayal Singh, Chandani Chowk, are in the possession of the sons of the petitioner."
60.Thus, from the above extract, it per se stands deduced, that the respondent has himself categorically admitted, that the four shops bearing No. 730, 649, 733 and 726, Katra Hardayal Singh, Chandani Chowk, Delhi are in possession of the son's of the petitioner and that apart from the property in dispute the petitioner does not own any property in Delhi. Therefore, from the above candid admission of the respondent it safely stands deduced, that the petitioner is not having ownership over any of the properties in Delhi, except the disputed property in question and thus, the contention of the respondent vide his WS, that the petitioner has various properties belonging to him in Delhi stands negated by his own categorical admissions made as above.
61.Even otherwise, it is a settled law and re-iterated time and again in plethora of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble High Court as well as the Apex Court, that the landlord is the best judge of his needs. The Court further takes assistance from the following judgment as ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.25 of 38 under:
62.In the case of Om Prakash Singhal Vs. Shri Roshan Lal, 1969 RCR 391, it has been held that as a broad workable rule, the landlord must left to assess his requirement in the background of his possession, circumstance, status and life and social and other responsibilities, and other relevant factors.
63. In Parvati Devi Vs. P. V. Krishna, JT 1987 (1) SC 764 , it has been held as under :-
"The landlord is the best judge of his requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live and prescribe for him a standard of their own. There is no law that deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property.
64. In Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja, MANU / SC / 0435 / 2014 : (2014) 15 SCC 610, it has been held as under :-
"It would hardly require any reiteration of the settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property AIR 1999 SC 100 (1996) 5 SCC 353 (2014) 15 SCC 610, Neutral Citation Number : 2023 : DHC : 3199 belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business."
65. In Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarhan Kumar, MANU / SC / 0087 / 2021 , it has been held as under :-
"It is not for the tenant to dictate how much ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.26 of 38 space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate."
66. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr) MANU / SC / 0432 / 1999: (1999) 6 SCC 222, it has been held as under :-
"Once the Court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for the 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."
67. Now, in liu of the above law reproduced as above, it is also relevant to reproduce excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect as under : -
There is another shop next to my shop and the same is lying vacant for almost 20 years. The said shop is the corner shop which is lying vacant. There is another shop next to the shop of Panwala, the same is also lying vacant. At present, the shop of the panwala is also lying vacant. There is another shop at the other corner which is also lying vacant. At present in total, four shops are lying vacant. It is incorrect to suggest that at the corner there is no shop but that is a dead space. It is incorrect to suggest that the two shops at the corner are dead spaces and are only being used for stores. Vol. In one of the corner shops, there was tea stall and in the other ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.27 of 38 corner shop, there was a footwear shop. At present, I cannot say if I can place on record any proof to testify that the corner shops were being run as a tea stall and as a footwear shop respectively."
68.Thus, from the above extract of cross-examination of RW-1, it safely stands deduced, that though it is averred by RW-1, that there is a shop at which a tea install is being run and there is another shop where a footwear shop is being run but at the same time he has faltered in placing any cogent document in support of his contention. Further, with respect to the disputed premises, RW-1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination, that the measurement of the shop in his possession is approximately 8 x 8 and the varanda of the said shop would also be around the same measurement i.e. 8 x 8 making a total are of 160 feet. The relevant excerpts of cross- examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"The measurement of shop in my possession is approximately 8' X 8', but I cannot tell the measurements of the verandah but it would not be more than 8' X 8"
69.As fare as corner shop is concerned it is himself contended by the respondent, that the shop would be measuring somewhere around 3 x 4 i.e. 12 Sq. feet, which per se does not appear to be a plausible area for any one to run the boutique from there. The relevant excerpts of the cross-examination of RW1 to this effect are reproduced as under : -
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.28 of 38 "I cannot tell the exact measurements of the corner shops but it would be somewhere around 3' X 4'"
70.It is further contended by the respondent, that the petitioner's requirement is with respect to the need of his married daughter and therefore, the requirement of the married daughter can not be set to be falling within the preview of the bonafide necessity of the petitioner. However, the said contention of the respondent does not hold merit in light of the judgment of Hon'ble Highc Court of Delhi titled as"Satish Kumar Bharti Vs. Gupdeep Kaur" RC. REV.614/2015 & C.M. NO.28280/2015 (stay) as under :-
"The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner on this score that a married daughter is not a 'dependent' within the meaning of Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRCA was repelled by a Bench of this Court.
In 1975 RLR 112 Lal Ram Vs. Kalawati in the context of married daughter it was noted that the requirement of the daughter and her husband would be treated as the requirement of the landlady.
In 1986 (1) RCJ 717 R.K. Bhatnagar versus Sushila Bhargava, the word 'dependent' was analysed to include not only a person who is financially dependent upon the landlord/landlady but has under ambit. In this context it was noted as under:
"it is now well settled that the word ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.29 of 38 "dependent "cannot be construed as wholly dependent in the sense of earning nothing at all and the entirely dependent on the parents for lodging and maintenance. It connotes a wider concept and covers a larger field. It takes a person who is not financially dependent upon the landlord but who would in normal course look upto the landlord to provide him/her with the facility of a house/portion possessed by the landlord."
The impugned order on this score suffers from no infirmity."
71.In the judgment of Hon'ble of High Court of Delhi titled as "Vinod Gupta Vs. Kailash Aggarwal & Ors." R.C.REV. 576/2015, CM APPL 40713/2018 this Court has specifically held that :-
13. Coming to contention (b) qua dependency of married daughter, I may refer to Sunder Singh Talwar V. Kamal Chand Dugar 2018 (1) RCR (Rent)537, wherein the Court held as under :
25. xxxxx Hence, it is not a universal rule that married daughter cannot be dependent upon her father. Even otherwise in my opinion, in the present day and age it would be futile to argue that once the daughter is married she ceases to be responsibility of her father. A daughter has equal rights in the estate of the parents in case of intestate death. There can be no reason as to why the father would not like to settle his daughter in business or profession in the same way as he would like to settle his son. The plea to the contrary in the present facts is completely ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.30 of 38 misplaced. It may also be noted that in the present case there is a clear and categorical averment that the daughter does not own any other property in Delhi and is dependent on the father to be settled.
14. Further in Rajender Prasad Gupta V. Rajeev Gagerna 2014 (114) DRJ 182, the Court held as follows :
5. Having considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court has taken into consideration each of the contentions raised in the leave to defend and found them to be not triable issues. The reasons for and conclusion arrived at cannot be faulted.
Furthermore, simply because the daughter of a marriageable age and allegedly likely to marry would not necessary cut her ties from her maternal family nor would the requirement for her accommodation in her father's house be lessened. Indeed, in the present times a daughter who is married-out, may like to retain her accommodation in her father's house which forms an emotional anchor and a place for refuge for all times. In times of an unfortunate marital discord such need becomes more acute should there be such a need. Conversely her family also would want to retain a room so as to re-assure her of a continued place of residence in her paternal home. A married daughter's ties with her paternal family do not end upon her marriage. For a married daughter her parents‟ home is always a refuge; an abode of reassurance and an abiding source of emotional strength and happiness. In the present case the daughter is a practicing advocate, i.e. a qualified professional, the need is all the more acute and bona fide. This Court finds, as did the Trial Court did, that no triable issues were raised in the leave to defend.
Therefore, there was no need to grant leave or set the matter for trial. The reasons and the conclusion ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.31 of 38 arrived at in the impugned order are correct and call for no interference.
15. Thus the law discussed above does not leave any room for further discussion on this topic.
Admittedly the law as it stands, the daughters share equal rights in their parental properties as a son does, hence saying a married daughter severe all her relations with her father's family and would never be considered dependent upon the family's property, residential or commercial, that her parents own, would not be correct. Hence no fault can be found in impugned order even on this score.
16. Lastly I may say in revision the scope of interference of this Court is limited. It is a settled law the High Court is only entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity, per Gulshera Khanam vs. Aftab Ahmad 2016 AIR (SC) 4810.
17. Thus, the landlord being the best person to choose how much space is needed for him/her or his family member dependent upon him to start or expand any of his activity, is a sole Judge to decide qua the accommodation he intend to seek eviction for. The concealment of unavailable/unsuitable accommodation is not material and the suitability of accommodation is needed to be judged on the touchstone of the landlord and not of tenant. This ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.32 of 38 Court in revision should be slow to intervene in any such finding of facts by the Additional Rent Controller."
72.It is further not out of place to mention, that it is contended by the petitioner, that his daughter wants to utilize her time and talent therefore, the petitioner decided to provide her a suitable accommodation as he has done in case of his two grand daughters as well.
73.It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, that the daughter of the petitioner is living with her in-laws in a residential area and same is shared by her brother-in-law and thus she neither has any space available to her in the said house nor is the same suitable. Even otherwise, the perusal of the site plan Ex.PW1/1 reveals, that the disputed shop is on the main road and per se suitable for the business of boutique purpose as the main road location not only has easy access but per se also serves as an advertisement in itself simply because of its location, thereby serving better business prospectus.
74. Another objection taken by the respondent is with regard to his brother being another LR and co-sharer of the said shop and not being made a party to the present petition/legal proceedings but the said objection is not maintainable in the light of the settled proposition of the law. Further, this Court takes assistance from the judgment of Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain , whereby the law stands settled that after the death of original tenant, its legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and all the legal heirs are not required to be ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.33 of 38 impleaded as party. It has been held in the case titled as Suresh Kumar Kohli Vs. Rakesh Jain CIVIL APPEAL No. 3996 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5489 OF 2014) , as under :-
20) We are of the view that in the light of H.C. Pandey (supra), the situation is very clear that when original tenant dies, the legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants and occupation of one of the tenant is occupation of all the joint tenants. It is not necessary for landlord to implead all legal heirs of the deceased tenant, whether they are occupying the property or not.
It is sufficient for the landlord to implead either of those persons who are occupying the property, as party. There may be a case where landlord is not aware of all the legal heirs of deceased tenant and impleading only those heirs who are in occupation of the property is sufficient for the purpose of filing of eviction petition. An eviction petition against one of the joint tenant is sufficient against all the joint tenants and all joint tenants are bound by the order of the Rent Controller as joint tenancy is one tenancy and is not a tenancy split into different legal heirs. Thus, the plea of the tenants on this count must fail.
75. It is per se to note, that another line of arguments harped upon by the ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.34 of 38 Ld. Counsel for the respondent is to the effect, that the respondent along with his brother had entered into an inter se split of tenancy, whereby half of the portion of the tenanted premises as alleged is in the possession of the respondent in question and other half is in possession of the brother of the respondent. Negating this argument of Ld. Counsel for the respondent, this Court deems it fit to state, that there is a settled preposition of law whereby once a property is given on rent, the tenant cannot buy himself/themselves split the tenancy among themselves unless there is a final order of any competent Court to that. Hence, this Court while rendering such view, takes assistance from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as "Habibul Asabegn Vs. G. Dura" whereby it has been held that once a property is given on tenancy the same can not be split by the tenants themselves unless there is an official order.
"In S. Sanyal v. Gian Chand, [1968] 1 SCR 536, it was held that where a contract of tenancy was a single indivisible contract and in the absence of any statutory provision to that effect, it is not open to the Court to split the tenancy. Law, therefore, is that where there is a single indivisible contract of tenancy, it cannot be split by a Court unless there is statutory provision to that effect. In the present case it is not disputed that the contract of tenancy is single indivisible contract for Door Nos. 27 and 28. It is also not disputed that there is no provision in the Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 empowering the Court to order partial ejectment of a tenant from the ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.35 of 38 premises by splitting the single indivisible nancy. For these reasons it was not open to the High Court to split the tenancy and ordered for partial ejectment of the tenant from the premises.
In view of the aforesaid legal position of law this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment of the High Court to the extent it allowed the revision of the tenant is set aside and the decree of the trial court is affirmed. There shall be no order as to costs."
76. This, in the light of the detailed analysis as above, this Court finds no hesitation in deciding that, Presiding Officer of the Trial Court should place himself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
77. Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be whimsical or merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in favour of the landlord also and the courts should not impose their own wisdom forcibly upon the landlord/petitioner to arrange his/ her own affairs according to their perception carried away by the interest or hardship of the tenants and the inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of eviction.
78. I have placed myself in the place of petitioner to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.36 of 38 landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and I have also applied a practical approach instructed by the realities of life on the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement.
79. In view of testimonies of the witnesses, and the arguments so advanced, it is clear, that the petitioner has been able to satisfy the Court, that no alternate reasonable suitable accommodate is available with the petitioner for setting up of the business of sale of ladies suit from the shop in dispute and except the tenanted premises she does not have any other suitable property/shop available to her in Kirti Nagar, New Delhi, that requirement as alleged by petitioner is bonafide. Further, the petitioner / landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant to chose a different place of business. The tenant cannot ask for a project report from the landlord. No previous experience is required for starting a business. The respondent has failed to place on record any document which could show that the petitioner has any suitable alternate accommodation.
Conclusion
80. Thus, in totality of the discussions made above, the petitioner has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of section 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. the disputed shop consisting one room on the ground floor measuring approximately 8' X 10' with front open verandah of the same size of the property bearing no.H-4/A, Kirti Nagar, New ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.37 of 38 Delhi-110015 as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed along with 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 the provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
81. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.29
Announced in the open Court 15:55:56 +0530
on 29.07.2025 Richa Sharma
SCJ-cum-RC (West)
THC / Delhi / 29.07.2025
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.101/19 Krishan Lal Kathuria Vs. Rudesh Kumar Page No.38 of 38