Delhi District Court
Veena Bali vs Ram Avtar Tanwar on 27 October, 2025
RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-2 (CENTRAL), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No: 80404/2016
Veena Bali
W/o Sh. Sunil Bali
R/o H. No. 7821, Roshanara Road,
Delhi-110007.
.................Petitioner
VERSUS
Ram Avtar Tanwar (Since Deceased)
Through LR's
1A. Ms. Shobhna Tanwar
D/o Late Ram Avtar Tanwar
1B. Sh. Dilwar Tanwar
S/o Late Ram Avtar Tanwar
Both R/o H. No. 5106, First Floor,
Clock Tower,Subzi Mandi,
Delhi-110007.
.............Respondent
***********
Date of Filing of petition : 01.02.2010
Date of reserving judgment : 10.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment : 27.10.2025
Decision of petition : Eviction Petition
Allowed.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC,
27.10.2025
Page no. 1 of 27
RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 14 (1)
(e) R/w Section 25 (B) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of premises i.e. One Room, House No. 5106, First Floor, Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 measuring 120 sq feet approx., more specifically shown in 'red' colour in the site plan. (hereinafter referred to as 'subject premises').
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT :-
2. It is pertinent to mention that after being served with the summons in the prescribed format, application for leave to defend was filed on behalf of the respondent which was allowed by the court vide order dated 03.12.2015 and thereafter, WS was filed on behalf of the respondent and subsequently matter was fixed for evidence. During pendency of the petition the respondent expired and his LRs were impleaded vide order dated 30.06.2013.
THE PETITION:-
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 2 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar
3. As per the contents of eviction petition, the case of petitioner is that the petitioner was the owner / landlord in respect of House No. 5106, First Floor, Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007. That the Petitioner inherited the said property after the demise of her father namely Shri Satpal Sharma, in the year 2003. That the aforesaid deceased father of the Petitioner was the owner of the said property and was survived by his wife and one son apart from the present Petitioner, who have already relinquished their respective rights in favor of the Petitioner.
That during his lifetime, the father of the Petitioner had inducted the Respondent, herein as the tenant in respect of one room of the H.No.5106, First Floor, Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi- 110007, and other than the tenanted premises the entire portion in the aforesaid property was under the control of the father of the Petitioner which comprised of one room and the open space other than the tenanted premises. It is worth mentioning here that the said arrangement was continued even after the demise of the father of the Petitioner with respect to the said property wherein the said portion was in exclusive possession of the Petitioner The portion of the said property tenanted in favor of the Respondent is more specifically shown in red color and the one under the possession of the Petitioner is shown in Blue Color, in the site plan attached along with the present Petition. That the fact of transfer of ownership of the entire H. No. 5106, First Floor, Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007, was conveyed to the Respondent and the other after being so informed, the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 3 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar Respondent even started paying monthly rent at the rate fixed between him and the deceased father of the Petitioner i.e. @ Rs.2800/- per month and the same continued till the month of May, 2005, whereafter the Respondent stopped paying the rent in respect of the tenanted premises. That after May, 2005, the petitioner made repeated requests to the respondent for making the payments of the arrears of the rent payable by him but to no avail. That the Petitioner was having the possession of the aforesaid portion of the said property which was being used by the petitioner for the purposes of the business of the husband of the petitioner, who is running his business at the ground floor which constitutes a separate property. Apart from the said the Petitioner had also kept in the said room, certain other articles which she could not keep at own residence due to shortage of space.
4. That in the last week of September, 2009, the Petitioner went to the said property and told the Respondent to vacate the said property as the Petitioner required the same for her own requirement, as the Petitioner had recently married her son and she was finding it difficult to manage her entire family in her existing residence which is very small and unsuitable for the present requirements of the Petitioner. That at this stage the Petitioner also reminded the respondent of the fact that she had recently evicted her tenant namely Shri Rohit Arora, in respect of the said room for this reason only. That on being so told by the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 4 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar petitioner, the respondent, as well as his family members, assured the petitioner that they shall be looking out for another place to reside and shall vacate the tenanted property within 15 days after Diwali i.e. by 30.10.2009. That to the utter shock and surprise of the Petitioner when on 13.10.2009, the Petitioner went to the said property to inspect the same and to take some of the articles, but the Petitioner was astonished to find that the lock of the door of the said room had been broken and the Respondent and his family members were carrying on with the whitewash in the said room. That all the articles belonging to the Petitioner were also missing from the said room. That the Petitioner immediately went to the Respondent no. 1 and asked about the said missing articles and on being so asked, the respondent alongwith the son of respondent, where after he started quarreling with the petitioner and also threatened her and her husband of dire consequences if at all they again visited the said property. That the petitioner was later constrained to file a criminal complaint against the Respondent and his family members and the same is pending in the court of Sh. Tarun Yogesh, MM, Tis Hazari, Delhi, titled as "Veena-Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar & Ors." which is fixed for 02.02.2010. However, the said family members along with the family members of Respondent, on the other hand had planned to grab the entire property of the Petitioner, which is more than evident from their said conduct. That the petitioner sent a legal notice to the Respondent through his counsel and called upon him to vacate tenanted portion of the property. That (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 5 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar the rate of rent was decided in respect of the tenanted premises was Rs.2,800/- per month excluding electric and water charges, against the actual consumption, to be paid by the Respondent. That aforesaid tenanted portion was let out to the Respondent for the residential use only, without the right of creating any nuisance in any way. That in case of breach of any of the terms and conditions mentioned hereinabove, the Respondent had agreed to vacate the premises and deliver vacant peaceful possession of the said room let out to them to the Petitioner.
5. That the Petitioner is currently residing at H. No. 7821, Roshanara Road, Delhi-110007, which is a rented accommodation measuring 60 sq. yards, wherein the Petitioner is finding it difficult to sustain herself and her growing family and her married son in the light of her present needs of the Petitioner as the said property is not suitable for the residence of her family and the than the tenanted premises. Petitioner has no other alternate accommodation available with her other than the tenanted premises. That in view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the petitioner has been constrained to file the present petition.
THE VERSION OF RESPONDENT:-
6. In the WS filed on behalf of the LRs of the deceased respondent, the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 6 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar not come to this honourable court with clean hands and has concealed various material facts from the court intentionally with daring attempt to play fraud even with the honourable court also. That the petition deserves dismissal as the petitioner is neither owner nor there is landlady and tenant relationship between the parties. That the averments with regard to letting by the father of the petitioner/ rent/ rate of rent etc. etc. are totally baseless and part of the story concocted by the petitioner. That there had never been any relationship or any kind of activity of the nature of landlord and tenant between the respondent and petitioner or her father as alleged. That for the last about one year from before filing the present petition, the petitioner is trying to illegally grab the property and establish her right over the property by forging papers and by filing false cases on the basis of alleged forged and fabricated relinquishment deed etc. only i.e. without filing any document of title i.e. sale deeds etc. and the chain of ownership documents etc.. The true fact is that one Smt. Bibi Gyan Devi was owner of the property and she initially let out the entire property no. 5106 (12/5106) Subzi Mandi Ghanta Ghar, Delhi consisting of two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor and one room and one store on the second floor at a monthly rental of Rs.5/- per month to one Shri Bhagirath Singh (father of the L.R no.1 and Maternal grandfather of L.R. no.2 and 3) in the year 1932. Late tenant Shri Bhagirath Singh was an employee of the Birla Mills, Subzi Mandi Ghanta Ghar Delhi. The Late respondent and all L.Rs. (as born in this property itself) used to (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 7 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar live with Late Shri Bhagirath Singh. Shri Bhagirath Singh expired in the year 1971 and the tenancy was transferred in the name of the Late respondent by Late Bibi Gyan Devi and the rent was increased to a monthly rental of Rs.10/- per month. Thereafter Smt. Bibi Gyan Devi died without any son after about 4/5 years. After the death of Late Bibi Gyan Devi nobody came forward for the last about 40 years making the respondent owner by way of adverse possession. Smt. Bibi Gyan Devi had one married daughter with whom she had severed all her relations. Mother and daughter had no visiting terms also and the respondent never saw the daughter of Smt. Bibi Gyan Devi. On the other hand the present petitioner is no way related to the said Smt. Bibi Gyan Devi. That a petition for part of the tenanted premises is not maintainable as the petition has been filed in respect of one unidentified room only, however the respondents are tenants in respect of two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor and one room and one store on the second floor. That the petition deserves dismissal for the reason that the applicant has intentionally and fraudulently concealed the fact that her husband is owner of the property where she resides with family and has claimed herself as a tenant on rent ie. property no. 7821 Roshanara Road, Delhi-7 with the following details as per information received by the respondent;
a) This property is constructed over a plot of land having approximate area of 200 sq. yards.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 8 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar
b) The property is constructed up to one and a half story with further scope of construction up to fourth floor.
c) Earlier the property was registered in the name of father in law of the petitioner, thereafter husband of the petitioner applied and got the property mutated in his name in M.C.D. records and is paying house tax.
d) That vide application dated 22/08/1994 the husband of the applicant had applied for mutation of the property under reference with the M.C.D. on the basis of a will dated 03/12/1981 executed by Shri Jagan Nath Bali (father-in-law of applicant). The said application was supported by Indemnity bond, affidavits of other legal heirs, death certificate of Shri Jagan Nath Bali (Regn no. 2992 of 27/8/83) and Ration Card no. 173225 of the husband of the petitioner. As required by the MCD, the husband of the applicant/petitioner is learnt to have paid/cleared the house tax arrears also.
e) The applicant/ petitioner fraudulently claims to be living as a tenant (para 18(a) and 19 (p) of the petition) therein without disclosing the name of her landlord/ owner knowing fully that her husband is owner.
f) That this property is having 6/7 rooms besides kitchen bathrooms on ground floor and 2 rooms on the first floor. Entire accommodation is available to the applicant/petitioner and her family. The applicant uses maximum two bedrooms under normal circumstances and rest of the rooms remain vacant.
g) That the applicant has not filed any detailed site plan of this (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 9 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar property under reference since she has tried to conceal the fact of ownership also and falsely claimed herself a tenant and in an illegal attempt to obtain an eviction order fraudulently. That besides the above property no. 7821 Roshan Ara Road, Delhi-7, the petitioner and her husband own another property no. 5107, Clock Tower Subzi Mandi, Delhi, which fact has also been concealed by the applicant. The applicant has failed to disclose the accommodation available to her family in the property no. 5107 Clock Tower, Subzi Mandi Delhi also. That the applicant has concealed the fact that she and her husband own one adjoining property bearing mpl. no. 5108 (first floor) Ghanta Ghar Subzi Mandi, Delhi. having purchased the same and considerable accommodation is available in the said property also for the residence of a family. That the applicant has concealed the fact that her family owns one plotted residential property in Sector-8, Rohini Delhi. This fact was disclosed to the respondent by the husband of the applicant about 8/9 years ago during routine talks. The respondent had no occasion at that time to enquire as to in whose name the said property is registered. The petitioner's husband several times threatened the respondent, saying either start paying rent to them or get ready to face case after case. That in furtherance of her plans to pressurise and threaten the respondents, the petitioner filed a false Criminal Complaint CC No. 37/2010 "Smt. Veena Bali V/s Ram Avtar & others" also. The respondents were summoned, but finding the complaint absolutely false and baseless, the complaint has been (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 10 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar dismissed at the stage of framing of charge itself by the court of Ms. Richa Gosain Solanki, Learned M.M. Delhi on 19/06/2015. During pre-charge evidence the petitioner clearly admitted in examination in chief itself that two rooms on first floor under tenancy of Late tenant Mr. Ram Avtar. That the petition is intentionally lacking material averments like detailed accommodation available with the applicant/petitioner, number of her family members, Ration card details to show number of family members, disclosure of and accommodation available also by tiling site plans of other properties, reference of sale deed if any and other details required for the petition under the present provision of law, hence also the petition deserves outright dismissal. That the site plan filed with petition does not specify any portion as suit property es per description given in the petition is not correct and also as per existing construction and the total accommodation in possession of the respondent on the site.
Other averments of petition are denied with prayer to dismiss the petition.
EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER:-
7. To prove her case, petitioner examined Sh. Sunil Bali as PW1 who tendered his affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the documents from Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/5, including Ex. PW1/1 i.e. the site plan, Ex. PW1/2 i.e. copy of sale deed, (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 11 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar Ex. PW1/3 i.e. copy of relinquishment deed, Ex. PW1/4 (Colly.) i.e. copies of rent receipts and Ex. PW1/5 (Colly.) i.e. copy of legal notice alongwith its recept. Further, PW-2 Sr. Officer, NDPL, who has filed the documents i.e. affidavit dt. 11.09.2003 Ex. PW2/1 (OSR) & indenmity bond dt. 03.07.2022 Ex. PW2/2 (OSR) & affidavit dt. 03.07.2022 Ex.PW2/3 and the record of NDPL as Ex.PW2/4. The witnesses were cross examined.
Thereafter, PE was closed on 18.07.2023.
THE RESPONDENT EVIDENCE :-
8. On the other hand, Ms. Shobhana Tanwar, LR of deceased respondent examined herself as RW-1 and relied upon her evidence tendered by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. copy of birth certificate Ex. RW1/1, copy of birth certificate Ex. RW1/2, copy of ration card of the Late Sh. Ram Avtar Singh Tanwar, father of witness mark R1 (colly) (2 pages), copy of three telephone bills of Late Sh. Ram Avtar Singh Tanwar, father of witness, Mark R2 (colly) (3 pages), copy of police complaint dt. 30.12.1983, Mark R3, copy of Police complaint dated 20.7.1987, Mark R4, copy of registration certificate of vehicle in the name of father of witness, Mark R5 (colly) (6 pages), copy of my passbook for the year 1988, Mark R6(colly) (2 pages), copy of a Will dated 3.12.1981 executed by the father in law of the petitioner, Mark R7 and copy of an indemnity bond executed on 17.08.1994 by the husband of the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 12 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar petitioner, Mark R8. RW2 Sh. Dhanpat (Record Keeper), Sub-
Registrar of Birth and Deaths, Civil Lines Municipal Corporation of Delhi has filed the copy of birth certificate Reg. No. 876 dt. 03.03.1076 Ex. RW2/1 and birth certificate Reg. No. 1371 dt. 13.05.1977 Ex. RW2/2 (OSR). RW3 Sh. R. C. Pant, Section Officer A & C Department, City S. P. Zone has filed the documents Ex. RW3/A (Colly) (24 pages) i.e. Mutation application dated 22.08.1994, Photocopy of death certificate of Late Sh. Jaganath Bali, Photocopy of ration card Smt. Sunita Bali, Affidavit of Sh. Sunil Kumar Bali, Affidavit of Smt. Vijay Mohan, Affidavit of Smt. Shakuntala Bali, Will of Sh Jaganath Bali, Indemnity bond of Sh. Sunil Bali, Affidavit of Smt. Usha Pathak, Affidavit of Smt. Shashi Khurana & Photocopy of payment receipt in the name of Brijesh Goel. All the witnesses were duly cross examined and thereafter, RE was closed.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
9. Final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for petitioner and LR of respondent (Advocate herself) have been heard at length.
File has been carefully and minutely perused and the findings with reasons thereof are given in the succeeding paragraphs.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS:-
10. At the outset, it is expedient to reproduce Section 14 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 13 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under-
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (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 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."
11. As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) There should be a 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/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
12. Let us now discuss the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act one by one as applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
I. OWNERSHIP OF THE PETITIONER IN THE SUBJECT PREMISES
13. It has been argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that previously property in question was owned by Smt. Gian Devi (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 14 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar w/o Radhey Shayam Mehra, who had executed a Will in favour of one Vijay Seth and after death of Smt Gian Devi, Sh. Vijay Seth became the owner of said premises and he sold the said property to the father of petitioner that namely, Satpal from one Vijay Seth by way of one registered sale deed, which has been proved as Ex.PW1/2. That father of petitioner has also expired and the other legal heirs of Sh. Satpal executed the relinquishment deed of their rights in the said property in favour of the petitioner which has been proved as Ex.PW1/3 and accordingly, the petitioner became the absolute owner of property in question. It is further submitted that the LRs of respondent in their WS have claimed their ownership in the property in question on the basis of adverse possession, however, as they have already admitted that their predecessor in interest was the tenant of the erstwhile owner Smt Gian Devi, there status will always remain the tenant only and they can never become the owner of the property in question.
13.1. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of respondents that admittedly the property in question was previous owned by Smt. Gyan Devi, however, the petitioner has not placed any document on record to establish how Sh. Vijay Seth became the owner of property in question so as to execute the sale deed in favour of the father of the petitioner namely Satpal. Again said sale deed Ex. PW1/2 has also not been proved on behalf of petitioner, as no official witness was got summoned (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 15 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar from the office of concerned Sub-Registrar. Again as per the contents of said sale deed, there was site plan annexed with the said sale deed, however, same has not been filed on behalf of petitioner. Again, as per the said sale deed only the first floor of the property in question was sold and not the entire property. Lastly, attention is also drawn to the record of criminal proceedings initiated by the present petitioner against the present respondents i.e. Ex. PW1/R1 and it is submitted that in the said criminal complaint, the present respondents were discharged by the Court as allegation of trespass were not substantiated.
13.2. Heard. Before going to the case of petitioner, let me advert to the contentions made on behalf of respondents. It is observed that perusal of sale deed in question Ex. PW1/2 clearly provides that in the said sale deed it has been specifically mentioned that Smt. Gyan Devi had executed a registered Will as document No. 135 in book no. III, Volume No. 13, Pages 17 to 19 registered on 15.03.1967 in favour of Mr. Vijay Seth and it is also stated that Smt. Gyan Devi had expired on 10.03.1976. Accordingly, as per contents of sale deed itself, it is clear that executent of said document Sh. Vijay Seth became the owner of the first floor of property in question bearing no. 5106, Clock Tower, Sabji Mandi, Delhi. Now, the genuineness of said document cannot be challenged by the respondents for two reasons. Firstly, the petitioner has produced the original of the same and said document Ex. PW1/2 was exhibited as being OSR (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 16 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar and a registered document carries the presumption of its genuineness. Now, to rebut the said presumption, the respondents did not lead any evidence and moreover the genuineness of the said sale deed has not been specifically denied in the pleadings of the respondents. Even in the affidavit of evidence of RW1, nothing is mentioned about the genuineness of the said sale deed. Again, in the cross examination of one of the respondents examined as RW1, it has not been denied that Smt. Gyan Devi had executed a Will in favour of Sh. Vijay Seth and only ignorance in this regard has been expressed. Said witness further admitted that respondents had not filed any complaint or court proceedings challenging the alleged forgery of the documents, as mentioned in para no. 3 of her evidence affidavit. Accordingly, the version of respondents to challenge the genuineness and execution of sale deed is disproved in every manner. Even otherwise the said sale deed in question being a document which is more than 30 years old, the presumption can be also drawn with respect to the genuineness u/s 90 of Indian Evidence Act. It is not in dispute in any manner that said sale deed was produced from the custody of the petitioner only and the petitioner being the daughter of the purchaser of the property in question is certainly the person whose custody was the property custody for the said document. Therefore, said contention raised on behalf of respondents is not tenable. On the similar grounds, not filing of site plan as mentioned in the sale is of no consequence and moreover the identity and description of (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 17 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar property is not in question. On the contrary, I am duly satisfied that the father of petitioner became the owner of the first floor of the property in question by way of sale deed Ex. PW1/2.
13.3. Regarding the second condition with respect to the criminal proceedings, it is observed that as reflected from the record Ex. PW1/R1, it is observed that said proceedings were initiated with the allegations of encroachment by the respondents in some other room in possession of the petitioner and therefore the discharge of the respondents in the said proceedings has no relevance to the facts of the present case. Moreover, the findings of the criminal court have no direct bearing on the findings of the Civil Court and therefore, the said contention is again not tenable.
13.4. Accordingly, in the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the petitioner has successfully proved that her father became the owner of the first floor of property in question on the basis of sale deed Ex. PW1/2. Again as death of the father of the petitioner is not in dispute, it is further established that she became the co-owner of the said first of property in question as being the successor of her deceased father. Again, the genuineness of the relinquishment deed Ex. PW1/3 has also not been challenged on behalf of respondents, as no averment was made in this regard in the WS filed on behalf of respondents and only vague denial was made. Now, as per the said document, the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 18 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar other legal heirs of Sh. Satpal also relinquished their share in the said property in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner became the absolute owner of the said property.
II. RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT BETWEEN BOTH THE PARTIES
14. In this regard, it has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have duly admitted that their predecessor-interest namely Bhagirath Singh was the tenant of previous owner Smt. Gyan Devi and therefore after purchase of the said property, the father of petitioner became the landlord of the said property and the predecessor-interest of the respondents and after his death the respondents became the tenants of the father of the petitioner and then after death of father of the petitioner, the became the tenants of the petitioner herself. Again attention is also drawn to the document Ex. PW2/1, which is the copy of affidavit filed by the late respondent before NDPL while applying for electricity connection in the tenanted premises and it is submitted that in the said document the late respondent had mentioned his status as a 'tenant' in the said premises and similarly it was also mentioned in the affidavit Ex. PW2/3. Again same was also mentioned in the application dt. 11.08.2003 given by the late respondent to the A.E of NDPL, which is the part of record Ex. PW2/4 (Colly.). Accordingly, it is argued that respondent himself had admitted his status of a tenant in the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 19 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar premises in question.
14.1 On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of respondents that one Mr. Bhagirath was a tenant of Smt. Gyan Devi and the late respondent used to reside with him. That all the LRs of the respondent were born in the said property itself. That the father of the petitioner was never the landlord of the late respondent. It is further submitted that said tenancy was with respect to two rooms and a kitchen on the first floor and one room and one store on the second floor in property in question, whereas the present eviction petition has been filed only with respect to the one room at the first floor of the said property and therefore present petition filed for partial eviction of the respondent is not maintainable.
14.2. Heard. It is observed that in the WS it has been specifically admitted on behalf of respondents that previously Sh. Bhagirath Singh was the tenant of the previous owner Smt. Gyan Devi and after death of Sh. Bhagirath Singh in the year 1971, the tenancy was transferred in the name of late respondent by late Gyan Devi. Accordingly, it is an admitted position that the late respondent was a tenant in the property in question. Now, it is a matter of legal trite that "once a tenant is always a tenant" and accordingly the late respondent could never become the owner of property in question in any manner. It is further settled position of law that once a property is purchased, the purchaser of the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 20 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar property steps into the shoes of the predecessor-in-interest and becomes the landlord of the said property without any attornment by the tenant. Accordingly, after the property in question was purchased by father of petitioner, he became the landlord of the late respondent in the premises in question. Said finding is further corroborated from the own admission of the respondent made before the NDPL as reflected from the documents Ex. PW2/1 & Ex. PW2/3, which are the affidavits sworn by late respondent in the year 2002 and 2003. It is further observed that if as per the case of respondents Smt. Gyan Devi had already expired and allegedly the respondents had become the owner of the said premises by way of adverse possession, there was no occasion for the late respondent to mention his status as of a 'tenant' in the said premises in the documents Ex. PW2/1 & Ex. PW2/3.
14.3. Regarding the contention with respect to partial tenancy raised on behalf of the respondents, it is observed that petitioner herself has stated in the eviction petition that the respondent had illegally encroached in one room on the first floor of the tenanted premises in the year 2009. Moreover, it is very pertinent to observe that as reflected from the record Ex. PW2/4 (Colly.), as per the inspection made by the officials of NDPL in the subject premises the applicant i.e. late Ram Avtar was in possession of the total area measuring 12'X10' (approx) at the first floor of the property in question in the year 2003.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 21 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar Apparently, this cannot be the area of two rooms and moreover as per the said inspection, nothing was mentioned if two rooms were in possession of the applicant. Accordingly, I am duly satisfied that late respondent was the tenant only with respect to the one room at the first floor of property in question.
14.4 Accordingly, it is concluded that petitioner has duly proved the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties in the subject premises.
II. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT & ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION
15. Regarding the bonafide requirement of the demised premises by the petitioner, it has been submitted by counsel for petitioner that as mentioned in Para 18 (a) of the eviction petition, the petitioner has stated the requirement of premises in question for her family. That the said requirement has been further deposed on oath by the husband of petitioner examined as PW1. It is further submitted that petitioner has no alternate accommodation for the said requirement and at present the petitioner is residing in one property at Roshnara Road, which is a rented accommodation.
15.1. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of respondents that the record produced by RW3 as Ex. RW3/A clearly shows that property at Roshnara road was owned by the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 22 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar family of the petitioner only. Again in the cross examination of PW1 it has been further admitted that there was one property available with the petitioner at Rohini, Delhi and accordingly, the petitioner has alternate accommodation for the alleged requirement.
15.2. Heard. Regarding the bonafide requirement of the petitioner, it is to observe that the law is very well settled that the requirement of the landlord is to be presumed as genuine and in this regard, reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Abid-Ur-Islam Vs Indersen Dua dated 07.04.2022, wherein it was observed as follows :-
".........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 prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that requirement of the landlord is bonafide......".
Again, it is further observed that the legal position is very well settled that it is not the tenant but the landlord himself who has to decide the suitability of his requirement with respect to the tenanted premises. In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"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 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 23 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
15.3. Now in view of this legal position, let me advert to the facts of the present case. It is observed that once the petitioner had stated her bonafide requirement on oath in the affidavit of evidence of her husband / SPA, the onus had shifted upon the respondent /tenant to disprove the said requirement of the petitioner, however, the respondents failed to lead any evidence to rebut the said presumption of bonafide requirement in favour of petitioner. No single word has been mentioned in the evidence affidavit of RW1 to rebut the said presumption. Accordingly, I am duly satisfied that the petitioner has led sufficient evidence to the standard of preponderance of probabilities that the petitioner needs the premises in question for the residence of her family including her son, who is already married.
15.4. Now regarding the availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner, it is to observe that as reflected from the record Ex. RW3/A, the husband of petitioner had applied for mutation of the said property at Roshnara Road in his own name after the death of his father. Accordingly, at the very first, it is not on record if said property was mutated in the name of husband of petitioner and again it is also not on record if said property was vacant and available to the petitioner herself. It is further observed that the availability of any property with the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 24 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar husband of the petitioner cannot be assumed to be the availability to the petitioner herself. Again, regarding the property at Rohini, nothing has been extracted in the cross examination of PW1, if said property could be an alternate accommodation for the petitioner against the premises in question. Moreover, in the cross examination, PW1 has denied that his son was residing at Rohini. Even if for sake of arguments, it is taken that son of petitioner was residing at some other place, it cannot be assumed that he could not live with his mother at the address of tenanted premises.
15.5. Accordingly, it concluded that the respondent has failed to prove in any manner that the petitioner has any alternate accommodation for the requirement of residence of her family.
CONCLUSION
16. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, it is concluded that the petitioner has been able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenancy premises i.e. one room, at first floor, H. No. 5106, Plot Tower, Sabji Mandi, Delhi-110007 as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan, Ex. PW1/1. However, the petitioner would not be entitled (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 25 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provision of section 14 (7) of the Act.
17. It is further observed that the present eviction petition was filed in February, 2010 and the case was pending before the court for more than 15 years. As reflected from the ordersheets the delay was caused for the reasons to be assigned to both the parties, however, the fact remains that the petitioner was deprived of the enjoyment of her own property and failed to shift to the said premises for more than 15 years. Accordingly, I am of the view that it is a fit case where realistic amount of cost should be imposed upon the respondent. Even otherwise, the imposition of cost goes a longway in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings by the litigants. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Ram Rameshwari Devi & Ors Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors dated 04.07.2011 and also on the celebrated case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC 3353. As discussed above, even in the present case, the respondent had raised false plea while denying the ownership and relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is imposed the cost of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to be paid to the petitioner within the (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 26 of 27 RC ARC No. 80404/2016 Veena Bali Vs. Ram Avtar Tanwar period of 6 months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to file the execution petition for recovery of said amount from the respondent alongwith execution proceedings for recovery of possession.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedVIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 15:45:45 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Announced in open court On 27.10.2025).
Note: This judgment contains 27 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signedVIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 15:45:55 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) JSCC/ASCJ/GJ-02/West District, THC, 27.10.2025 Page no. 27 of 27