Delhi District Court
Reena Goel vs Krishan Bihari on 22 May, 2025
RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARJINDER KAUR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
New no. 96/2024
In the matter of:-
Ms Reena Goel
W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar
D/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chand
R/o 53A, Kamla Nagar
Mori Gate, Delhi-110006
................ Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Krishan Bihari
Prop of M/s Ramjimal
Gordhan Dass
S/o Sh. Basdev Mal
R/o H.No. F-79, Second floor
Phase-II, Ashok Vihar, Delhi 52
Also at: Shop no. 02, Ground Floor
................ Respondent
Appearance:
On behalf of Petitioner : Sh. Rajesh Bhatia, Advocate.
On behalf of Respondent : Sh. Atul Kumar Sharma,
Advocate.
*********
ORDER
1. The application under consideration is the one under Section 14(1) (e) with section 25(B) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "DRC Act") for seeking eviction of (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 1 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari tenant/respondent, filed by the petitioner against the respondent in respect of one middle shop (shop no. 2) area measuring 7.5'X 30' situated at ground floor of property bearing no. 2480-2480A, Timber Market, Teliwara, Delhi-06 as shown in red color in site plan(s) (hereinafter referred as tenanted shop/suit property).
THE PETITION
2. It is averred by the petitioner that the father of the petitioner was sole and absolute owner of property bearing no. 2480-2480A, Timber Market Teliwara, Delhi-06 having purchased the same from it's erstwhile owner by virtue of registered sale deed dated 19.02.1972. That when the aforesaid property was purchased by the father of petitioner i.e. Late Sh. Ramesh Chand, the same was already occupied by 2 firms namely M/s Basdev Mal Ramesh Chand and M/s Rajimal Gordhan Dass which was a partnership firm at that time. However, at present Sh. Krishan Bihari is the sole proprietor of M/s Ramjimal Gordhan Dass. That the monthly rent of the tenanted shop is only Rs. 1,000/- per month which was fixed in the year 1972 and it has never been paid by the tenant firm since beginning. That the father of the petitioner expired on 26.06.2023 leaving behind registered will dated 06.02.2017, whereby the property in question devolved upon the petitioner and the petitioner became the owner of the tenanted premises. That the father of the petitioner had filed an Eviction Petition against the Respondent bearing no. RC ARC 484/2016 titled "Ramesh Chand Vs Krishan Bihar" for his bonafide need and (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 2 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari requirements. However, due to death of father of the petitioner, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Parnav Joshi CCJ/Cun ARC Central Tis Hazari Courts Delhi. That one Sh. Varun Bansal has filed one civil suit for specific performance i.e. suit bearing no 527/18 titled "Varun Bansal Vs Ramesh Chand" alleging therein that Sh. Ramesh Chand i.e. father of the petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent and later on he refused to comply with the terms and conditions of the said agreement. The said civil suit is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Rahul Verma Ld Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. It is further averred in the present petition that the family of the petitioner consist of herself, her husband i.e. Sh Ajay Kumar and the petition requires the premises for her own bonafide need and requirement as the petitioner who used to look after her father during his lifetime has decided to run the business of plastic utensils from the tenanted premises. Thus eviction of respondent from the subject premises has been prayed for.
THE APPLICATION SEEKING LEAVE TO DEFEND
3. Summons were served upon the respondents who filed leave to defend application with document(s) along with separate detailed affidavit seeking leave to appear and contest the petition mainly on the following ground:-
(a) That the premises in question is not the bonafide requirement of the petitioner.
(b) That the petitioner has other properties in Delhi as well from where she can start his business.
(ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 3 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari
(c) The father of petitioner had entered into agreement to sell the suit premises to the respondent and Sh. Varun Bansal who is also in the adverse possession of the suit premises.
(d) The petitioner has concealed the true and material facts from the court.
3.1 Upon these grounds, the respondents prayed that there exist triable issue(s) that would disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an eviction order in respect of tenanted premises.
THE REPLY
4. Reply to leave to defend application has been filed by the petitioner alongwith supporting affidavit wherein he has denied that the present petition is based on false and frivolous grounds and does not contain the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. The petitioner denies all the allegations and assertions made in leave to defend application and affidavit.
THE REJOINDER
5. Rejoinder filed by the respondent to the reply of leave to defend application denying the averments made therein.
ARGUMENTS
6. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. and perused the records of the case very carefully.
THE LAW
7. The present petition for eviction is under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 which after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 4 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari "Satyawati Sharma Versus Union of India", on 16.04.2008 reads as under :-
14.(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or 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 the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
***
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation 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 :
8. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish the following ingredients:-
(i) That he is the owner of the tenanted shop and there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent.
(ii) That tenanted shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
(iii) That the petitioner does not have any other alternate, reasonable and suitable accommodation.
9. The facts and circumstances of the present case are being analyzed hereunder keeping in view the principle of law as discussed above.
I. Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted shop as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents
10. It is stated in the petition that the father of the petitioner was sole and absolute owner of property bearing no. 2480-2480A, Timber Market Teliwara, Delhi-06 having (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 5 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari purchased the same from it's erstwhile owner by virtue of registered sale deed dated 19.02.1972. That when the aforesaid property was purchased by the father of petitioner i.e. Late Sh. Ramesh Chand, the same was already occupied by 2 firms namely M/s Basdev Mal Ramesh Chand and M/s Rajimal Gordhan Dass which was a partnership firm at that time. However, at present Sh. Krishna Bihari is the sole proprietor of M/s Ramjimal Gordhan Dass. That the monthly rent of the tenanted shop is only Rs. 1,000/- per month which was fixed in the year 1972 and it has never been paid by the tenant firm since beginning. That the father of the petitioner expired on 26.06.2023 leaving behind registered will dated 06.02.2017, whereby the property in question devolved upon the petitioner and the petitioner became the owner of the tenanted premises. That the father of the petitioner had filed an Eviction Petition against the Respondent bearing no. RC ARC 484/2016 titled "Ramesh Chand Vs Kishan Bihar" for his bonafide need and requirements. However, due to death of father of the petitioner, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Parnav Joshi CCJ/Cun ARC Central Tis Hazari Courts Delhi. That one Sh. Varun Bansal has filed one civil suit for specific performance i.e. suit bearing no 527/18 titled "Varun Bansal Vs Ramesh Chand" alleging therein that Sh. Ramesh Chand i.e. father of the petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent and later on he refused to comply with the terms and conditions of the said agreement. The said civil suit is (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 6 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Rahul Verma Ld Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. 10.1 On the other hand, the respondent through his leave to defend application contended that the petitioner has intentionally filed present petition against the Krishan Bihari only. That the present petition is a counter blast to the suit filed by Varun Bansal and the respondent against the father of the petitioner. That a suit for specific performance has been filed by the respondent titled as "Varun Bansal & Ors Vs. Ramesh Chand having suit no. SCJ/212/2018" which is now pending in the court of Sh. Rahul Verma, Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, which is now fixed for 10/04/2024. That the petitioner, is owner of the property bearing no.2480 Teliwara Delhi 110006 and the respondent Krishna Bihari was tenant in respect of total ground floor of abovesaid property and late Sh. Harish Chand i.e. father of Varun Bansal had possessory right alongwith the respondent. Later on, after the death of Sh. Harish Chand, Varun Bansal got the same right as his father. It is further stated that the petitioner has not mentioned anywhere in the petition that Varun Bansal is having hostile, continuous and adverse possession over the suit property.
10.2 Respondent further averred that in the year 2012, the petitioner's father approached the respondent and showed his intention to raise the construction over the suit property and therefore, an agreement was executed between respondent, Varun Bansal and the deceased father of petitioner on 01/06/2012 wherein both the parties agreed that the respondent shall not raise (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 7 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari any objection to construction and alteration in the building and after construction the respondent shall be entitled to have ownership right over the shop measuring area 7½ x 30 feet inclusive one partition wall after aforesaid alteration i.e. part of property bearing No. 2480, Teliwara, Delhi 110006. That it was also agreed between the respondent and the petitioner that after completion of work in the shop on ground floor in question, the petitioner's father will be bound to give ownership rights to the respondent in respect of sub divided tenanted shop 2480/1, Teliwara, Delhi 110006 at ground floor, the document of ownership rights will be prepared at the cost of tenant and will be registered with the sub-registrar concerned and that the petitioner's father will not have any right , title or interest in the said sub-divided shop. That there were other terms and conditions in the said agreement which were reduced to writing. 10.3 Respondent further averred that the petitioner's father undertook to fairly and honestly perform his part of agreement that the possession of half portion of the property bearing No. 2480/1, Teliwara, Delhi-110006 was handed over to respondent but ownership right in respect of the said property has not been transferred by petitioner's father in favour of the respondent. The Petitioner's father avoided performing his part of agreement as the construction/ alteration had been carried out as mentioned in the agreement. Since, even after repeated requests the petitioners father was not performing his part of agreement therefore the meetings were held between them. The petitioner's father requested for enhancing the time for performing his part of (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 8 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari agreement i.e. for transferring the ownership right of the property bearing No. 2480/1, Teliwara, Delhi-110006. Therefore, another agreement was executed between petitioner's father and the respondent on 22/05/2015 after which more than nine years have passed but the petitioner's father did not comply with the terms and conditions on one pretext to other and sold out all the shops constructed by him above the shop of the respondent. 10.4 Respondent further averred that as the terms and conditions of the agreement are also binding upon the legal heirs of the parties to the said agreement, hence, the petition is supposed to perform the part of contract of her deceased father, being his surviving legal heirs.
10.5 The petitioner through her reply and counter affidavit strongly denied that Shri Varun Bansal is in possession of the property by virtue of adverse possession or that his father Shri Harish Chandra had any possessory right alongwith the respondent, which later on devolved upon Shri Varun Bansal after the death of his father, Shri Harish Chandra. It is further stated that Shri Harish Chand and Varun Bansal never remained in possession of the premises in question as Shri Harish Chandra during his lifetime had executed dissolution dated 01.04.2005 and there does not arise any question of Harish Chandra and Varun Bansal being in possession of the tenanted premises. Petitioner has further denied execution of any agreement between the respondent and her father and each and every allegation pertaining to execution of the said agreements dated 04.06.2012 and 22.05.2015 or giving ownership right of the premises to the (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 9 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari respondent are totally frivolous. It is further stated that the father of the petitioner was intending to raise construction upon his property and during that course it was agreed between him and respondent that after completion of construction of shop, the respondent shall be at liberty to occupy the shop as the pillars were to be reached from ground floor to top floor and as a matter of security, the respondent had taken signatures of her father on some blank papers which have been used to forge and fabricate the alleged agreements. This further stated that nothing has been concealed by the petitioner and the pendency of civil suit bearing no. 527, titled "Varun Bansal Versus Umesh Chander" has been clearly disclosed in para 6 of the petition. After due perusal of pleadings this court has found that the respondent has categorically admitted petitioner to be the owner of the suit premises. Thus the ownership of petitioner is not a triable issue in present case.
Further the Respondent has admitted that he was tenant in the Suit premises under the landlordship of Sh. Ramesh Chander i.e. the father of the petitioner but has tried to raise the following issues.
1. Sh. Varun Bansal is in hostile and adverse possession of the Suit premises, apart from the petitioner.
2. The father of Petitioner had entered into an agreement with the Respondent and Sh. Varun Bansal with regard to possession of Sh. Varun Bansal, it is stated that Sh. Harish Chander, has possessary rights over the Suit property along with the Respondent who was occupying the Suit property as tenant and (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 10 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari after the death of Sh. Harish Chander, same right devolved upon Sh. Varun Bansal and he has been in continuous, hostile and adverse possession of the Suit property. On the other hand the petitioner through her Counter-affidavit stated that Sh. Harish Chander or Sh. Varun Bansal has never been in possession of the Suit property. It is pertinent to note here that the Respondent has failed to state as to how come Sh. Harish Chander had possessary right over the property. One thing comes out very clear that Sh. Harish Chander was not a tenant in the property. Further, the Respondent has failed to file any document to show that Sh. Harish Chandra or Sh. Varun Bansal have ever been in possession of the Suit property. While in the affidavit supporting leave to defend, the Respondent stated that Sh. Varun Bansal got the same right which his father Sh. Harish Chander had, but in his affidavit filed along with rejoinder Respondent has stated that Sh. Varun Bansal has independent right of adverse possession over the Suit property and he has not acquired any right through his father. Thus it is apparent that Respondent has been taking contradictory stands. Moreover, this court is of the considered opinion that nature of possession, if any, of Sh. Varun Bansal has nothing to do with the Respondent who is admittedly occupying the premises as tenant. More so, when it is not the case of the Respondent that Sh. Varun Bansal is co-tenant. Therefore this court is of considered opinion that these facts do not give rise to any triable issue in the present eviction petition. Further, the Respondent has stated that the Father of the Petitioner has entered an agreement with the Respondent and (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 11 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari Sh. Varun Bansal wherein he was bound to transfer the ownership right over the suit premises in favour of respondent and a civil suit has been filed against the Father of Petitioner for specific performance of the said contract which is pending in the civil court. Respondent has further averred that Petitioner being legal heir of her father Sh. Ramesh Chander is bound to comply with the terms and conditions of said agreement. It is pertinent to note here that no copy/original of the alleged agreements have been filed on record by the Respondent. It has nowhere been pleaded by Respondent that said agreements are attested/registered documents. Morever, said agreements are already subject matter of adjudication before civil court, and any right accruing in favour of Respondent by virtue of said agreements can be enforced through the civil court. Accordingly this court is of the opinion that these facts do not give rise to any triable issue in the present petition.
10.8 Thus, there is no triable issue with respect to ownership of petitioner over the suit property and landlord tenant relationship between petitioner and respondent.
II. Bonafide requirement and suitable alternate accommodation.
11. It is averred in the petition that the family of the petitioner consist of herself, her husband i.e. Sh Ajay Kumar and the petitioner requires the premises for her own bonafide need and requirement as the petitioner who used to look after her (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 12 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari father during his lifetime has decided to run the business of plastic utensils from the tenanted premises. That the husband of the petitioner i.e. Ajay Kumar was earlier running business at Khari Bawri. However, due to financial loss the said business was closed in Covid-19 and the Petitioner has now decided to earn the livelihood by running the business of Plastic Utensils from the premises in the question. That both the daughters of the petitioner are settled abroad and the petitioner can very well give sufficient time to earn the livelihood as the Petitioner is hale and hearty and thus the petitioner wants to run the business from the premises in question. That the petitioner has no other reasonable, suitable and alternative accommodation to run the business other than the tenanted shop.
On the other hand it is averred by respondent that petitioner has not placed on record any document to financial losses of her husband. However, this plea of respondent is liable to fail in view of the law discussed in the following judgment, moreso when the respondent has not denied these averments of petitioner.
11.1 It is further averred by the respondent through his leave to defend application that the petitioner has concealed a material fact from this Hon'ble Court that her deceased father had sold out various shops constructed by him above the suit property within the last four to five years. That neither the deceased Ramesh Chand nor the petitioner has any need of the premises at all then the question of any bonafide cannot arise in any circumstances. That if the deceased Ramesh Chand or that (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 13 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari the petitioner had any bonafide need for using the shop, then why her father sold out the shops and godown constructed by him, to the other person. That the petitioner has not disclosed this fact to this Hon'ble Court that he has sold a portion of property bearing no. 2480 Timber Market, Teli Wara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-06, in January 2018, after receiving the notice from Shri Varun Bansal and respondent thereby calling upon them to perform his part of contract i.e. for executing the sale document in respect of suit property. It is submitted that the petitioner has falsely created a ground of bonafide requirement as even after filing of the present petition, the petitioner has sold a property bearing no. 2471, Teliwara Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110006 in July 2024. Though the consideration amount of the above said shops in crores but it has been shows as Rs. 95,00,000/-. The petitioner has let out a property bearing no. 2481,G-4, Shriram palace, Delhi-110006. The rent of the above said property is Rs.50,000 per month. The petitioner is also taking rent of property bearing 2518, ground floor, Teliwara, Delhi-110006. The rent said shop is Rs. 15000/- per month. It is also relevant to mention here that the husband of the petitioner has been running three paying guest hostels in Jawahar Nagar, Vijay Nagar and Gupta Colony. The husband of the petitioner is owner of property bearing no.53A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 and the petitioner is herself is owner of the property no. 52A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The husband of the petitioner is also owner of property bearing no.111-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi from where the husband of the petitioner has been running a paying guest hostel. The husband of the petitioner is (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 14 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari also owner of property bearing no.4/50, upper ground floor, Roop Nagar, Delhi. It is also submitted that though the petitioner has taken the ground the husband of the petitioner suffered huge financial losses, however in support of her claim she has not enclosed any document along with the petition and the reply. It is also submitted that the petitioner has received huge amount and the properties from her father which she had not disclosed to this hon'ble court.
11.2 In the case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:-
"The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. 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 bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord in bona fide. It is often said by 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 bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
11.3 In the case titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT 652 it was observed that:-
"24. It is often said by 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 bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 15 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari adjusted himself.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement".
11.4 In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Subsection (1) of Section 14 which speaks of non availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. 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. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant fact Ors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come."
11.5 In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
(ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 16 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari "It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
11.6 It is also pertinent to note that respondent has not denied the need stated by the petitioner and has just emphasized on the issue that petitioner has sufficient and suitable alternative accomodation to fulfill his need. Here it is important to quote the following observation made in "Shri Satish Chand Vs. Girdhar Gopal Gupta decided on 10.01.2023:-
"......21. In the present petition there is no plea challenging the finding of the Trial Court with respect to the bona fide need of the landlord and his son addressed during the arguments. It is not disputed that Sh. Amit Gupta, son of the landlord is carrying on business and therefore the contention of the landlord that he needs the tenanted premises for his son's business stands sufficiently established on record.
22. As per Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord/landlady, is required to prove his/her bona fide need for the tenanted premises as well as that he/she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation, to satisfy their requirement. However, recently the Supreme Court in Abid UlIslam (Supra) has held that in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the Court is concerned only with the requirement of a bonafide need and that the plea of alternative accommodation is 'incidental one' at best. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment read as under:
"29. Section 14(1)(e) deals with only the requirement of a bona fide purpose. The contention regarding alternative accommodation can at best be only an incidental one. Such a requirement has not been found to be incorrect by the High Court, though it is not even open to it to do so, in view of the limited jurisdiction which it was supposed to exercise. Therefore, the very basis upon which the revision was allowed is obviously wrong being contrary to the very provision contained in Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B(8)."
The word 'incidental' as defined in the Oxford dictionary, sixth edition, refers to 'occurring as something casual or of secondary importance'. This would mean that availability (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 17 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari of alternate accommodation should not become the decisive or pivotal factor in eviction proceedings. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, once a landlord/landlady has sufficiently established his/her plea of bona fide need, the mere availability of alternate accommodation at the disposal of the landlord/landlady is but a secondary factor and not a primary one and therefore the same cannot become the sole basis for permitting the tenant to retain the tenanted accommodation to the peril of the landlord/landlady, particularly once the other factors entitling him/her to recovery the premises have been established. The landlord/landlady having duly disclosed the alternate available accommodation and having reasonably explained that the same are not adequately suitable for his/her requirement, the fact that tenant contends that the said alternate accommodation is suitable cannot detain the Court from passing the eviction order. The Court will reject the explanation offered by the landlord/landlady with respect to the unsuitability of the alternate accommodation only if it is perverse, however the Court need not substitute the preference for tenanted premises shown by landlord/landlady with the dictates of the tenant. The preference shown by landlord/landlady for the possession of the tenanted premises vis-à-vis another alternative accommodation available to him/her cannot be rejected on the say-so of the tenant so as to set at naught the salutary purpose of Section 25B of the DRC Act. [The Technological Institute of Textiles and Sciences v. M/s Shree Nath Ji Developers, RC. REV. 174/2020]...."
11.7 After analysis of the present factual situation in backdrop of the law discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent has failed to raise any triable issue in respect of bonafide need of petitioner and alternate accommodation available with the petitioner.
CONCLUSION
12. Hence, the present petition for eviction is allowed and an application for leave to defend stands disposed of accordingly as dismissed. The Petitioners are held entitled to recover the possession of tenanted premises i.e. in respect of one middle shop (shop no. 2) area measuring 7.5'X 30' situated at (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 18 of 19 RC ARC 96/2024 Reena Goel Vs. Krishan Bihari ground floor of property bearing no. 2480-2480A, Timber Market, Teliwara, Delhi-06 as shown in red color in the site plan. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
13. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
14. File be consigned to record room. Digitally signed by ARJINDER ARJINDER KAUR KAUR Date: 2025.05.22 16:23:28 +0530 (ARJINDER KAUR ) ARC-02 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Announced in open court On 22.05.2025).
s (ARJINDER KAUR) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 22.05.2025 Page no. 19 of 19