Delhi District Court
Harjeet Singh vs Ghanshyam Goel on 25 November, 2025
RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
JSCC-CUM-ASCJ-CUM-GUARDIAN JUDGE-02, (WEST)
PREVIOUSLY POSTED AS ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No. 191/2022
In the matter of:-
SH. HARJEET SINGH
S/o Late Sh. Prabhu Dayal Singh
R/o A-2/1 First Floor,
Paschim Vihar
New Delhi-110063.
.................... Petitioner
VERSUS
SH. GHANSHYAM GOEL
S/o Late Sh. Madan Lal Goel
R/o 5669/80, Regar Pura
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
................ Respondent
ORDER
1. The application for eviction of tenant u/s 14(1)(e) R/w section 25(B) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958 for seeking leave to contest against the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1) (e) with section 25(B) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "DRC Act") for seeking (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR Page no. 1 of 16 26.11.2025 KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:25:40 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL eviction of tenant/respondent, in respect of one shop i.e. Goyal General Store, shop bearing no. 5669/80, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05 as shown in red color in site plan(s) (hereinafter referred as tenanted premises).
THE PETITION:-
2. As per the eviction petition, the case of petitioner is that the that premises in question was let to the respondent for commercial purpose by the petitioner and rent agreement was executed. That rate of rent was Rs. 3000/- per month. That premises in question was let to the respondent for commercial purposes and the same is required bona fide by the petitioner/ owner/landlord for carrying out his business with his son namely Bharat as he has got no other place for carrying out the business. It is submitted that the said suit premises was let out to the respondent however the respondent has sublet the said premises to his brother Sarvan. It is further submitted that the respondent is running his shop at the Moti Nagar. That the petitioner is working in the name of Bharat trading company at the first floor of the property bearing no. shop no 5669/80, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 where in the ground floor the suit premises is situated.
2.1. It is stated that the son of the plaintiff has done 12th pass and currently he is not working at anywhere and want to open the shop of cloths as he has the experience of the same at the first floor of property bearing 5669/80, Regarpura, VIVEK (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) KUMAR (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL Page no. 2 of 16 26.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.26 16:25:49 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL Karol Bagh, New Delhi-5 with the petitioner however the space of the said premises is not sufficient for the both of them to work in the same office hence the petitioner wishes his son to open the separate space in the suit premises and required the said premises for his son namely Bharat. That due to the non-availability of sufficient space, the son of the petitioner namely Bharat unable to earn his lively hood. That in these circumstances, the petitioner requires the said premises for the shop of his son immediately as petitioner is the the absolute owner of the suit property. 2.2 Hence, the applicant files the present petition under the provisions of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for seeking an order of eviction in respect to the suit premises against the respondent on the ground that the suit premises is bonafidely required by the petitioner for the use of his son. That the petitioner required the abovesaid property for bonafide reason. Hence, eviction petition has been filed against the respondent.
THE LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION:-
3. The application for leave to defend has been filed within 15 days from date of service of summons. As per the application for leave to defend and as per the supported affidavit, the relevant facts as per the case of respondent is that the Petitioner wants to get the suit premises vacated from the Respondent by concocting It is false story and infact, wants to let out the suit premises in question at higher rent. submitted that Digitally (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Page no. 3 of 16 26.11.2025 AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:25:57 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL tenanted premises is ancestral property of the petitioner. An agreement executed between mother of the petitioner and Respondent in the year 1986, Respondent paid sum of Rs.60,000/-(sixty thousand) in cash as pagri amount (which is almost equal to the value of shop) and rent of the said premises is Rs.200/- per month. It is submitted that in the month of March, 1992, they increased the rent of the Respondent i.e. 220/- as rent form May, 1992. The rent receipt issued by Chand Kaur, mother of the petitioner, thereafter, in the year 1996, the rent was increase for sum of Rs.240/-and in the year 2004, the rent was again increase for Rs.300/- per month since 2004 and till date the Respondent paid sum of Rs.300/-per month to the petitioner regularly without any default.
3.1. It is further submitted that in 2018, Diamond Bakery was let out by the petitioner, prior to this petitioner was himself running his business in that shop in the name & style of M/S Bharat Trading Company, which he shifted to first floor of said property in 2018. That petitioner took over the possession of Varandah (size. 8*22.5) of the said property in 2020-21 from the tenant who was using the area for repairing, stitching machine.
That 2nd floor i.e. 45 sq. yds. constructed property i.e. one big hall and one room and bathroom is in possession of the petitioner. The 3rd floor, one room constructed and same is also is in possession of the petitioner. That the petitioner has failed to file annexed partition documents to himself as owner of the suit property. The petitioner is also having 3 shops at A/8,A/9,A/10, Digitally (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Page no. 4 of 16 26.11.2025 AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:26:04 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL Block-A, Kesho Pur Industrial Area, Vikas Puri, Delhi and out of the said shops, the petitioner has already sold one shop and two shops are on rent.
3.2. It is further stated that the Petitioner has since not come out with true facts state of affairs and has materially concealed the important information from this Hon'ble Court and as such, Respondent is entitled to leave to defend the eviction petition since the same can only be substantiated by the Respondent as and when Respondent would be given permission to contest the eviction petition and all the facts can prove by way of evidence as and when the Respondent would allow to lead the evidence before this Hon'ble Court. That the present application for eviction filed based upon concoction, by the Petitioner misrepresentation and concealment of material facts. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner only to vacate the Respondent from the suit premises. That the alleged requirement purported to the for requirement of the family members of the Petitioner are merely fanciful and shame. That the Petitioner intact, is not need of the suit premises in question and has only made a false and frivolous ground. That till December, 2009 the petitioner received rent of Rs.300/- and they issued rent receipt against same. That in January, 2010, the petitioner and his other brother refused to receive rent amount, they want increase the rent of Rs.1000/-. The Respondent on rent on the basis of Pagari amount of Rs.60,000/- in the year 1986. That thereafter, Respondent start to deposit rent amount @ Rs.300/- per month in Digitally (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) signed by VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Page no. 5 of 16 26.11.2025 AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:26:10 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL court and Respondent already deposited rent amount till December, 2022. That the Petitioner again cooked-up a false and frivolous story by alleging that the Respondent is a habitual defaulter to make the payment of rent inspite of repeated requests and demand time to time but to no effect. The Petitioner further cooked-up a false and frivolous story by alleging that the Respondent has not paid the rent, electricity and water charges, despite this fact, known to the Petitioner that the Petitioner had already received the rent from the Respondent and the Respondent never remained in arrears of rent and further, electricity meter is installed by respondent himself in his name & cost and has been paying the bills on regular basis, even the supply of the water has also not been continued in the premises of the Respondent. The demands of the Petitioner, is illegal, unjustified and arbitrary manner and just to make out the false and frivolous story only to vacate the Respondent from the suit premises.
3.3. That the shop is run by the respondent along with his cousin brother namely Sh. Sharwan Goel (both are grand son of Late Sh. Bhure Lal Goyal) and the shop has been never sublet out by the respondent at any stage. That even otherwise the petition is not maintainable as the same does not fulfill the requisite ingredients of the sections mentioned in the petition by the Petitioner and since the mandatory requirement of law have been violated and as such, the petition filed by the Petitioner deserved to be rejected out rightly.. That this desire of the petitioner is no (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR Page no. 6 of 16 26.11.2025 KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:26:17 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL substitute for the need as required in law and all the averments of the petition are denied.
3.4. It is pertinent to mention that respondent has also filed an application u/S 151 CPC to place on record additional affidavit, which was allowed vide order dt. 14.10.2025. As per the additional affidavit, it has been stated by the respondent that one shop of the petitioner was vacated by his tenanted whereas name and style of M/s Diamond Bakery having large area with three shutters on 18.01.2025 and respondent was having sufficient accommodation.
THE REPLY:-
4. Reply to leave to defend application has been filed by the petitioner alongwith supporting affidavit wherein the allegations raised in the application for leave to defend are denied. Again averments of eviction petition are reiterated. It is further submitted that the respondent is having the other space at Moti Nagar wherein he is earning his livelihood on the other hand the respondent has given the shop in question / rented premises to this brother i.e. Sharvan Goel and hence he wanted to the shop in question of the petitioner. It is further submitted that no such receipt has ever been executed between the respondent and the mother of the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent filed a present application only to delay the proceedings as the respondent had no admissible tribal issues to raise before this Hon'ble court. It is submitted that the petitioner (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR Page no. 7 of 16 26.11.2025 KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:26:23 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL is required tenant premises for his bonafide purpose. It is denied that till December, 2009 the petitioner received rent of Rs.300/- and they issued rent receipt against the same. It is submitted that respondent had filed forged and fabricated slips with intention to mislead the Hon'ble court. All the other averments of application are denied.
ARGUMENTS :-
5. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as counsel for respondent. Perused the records of the case very carefully.
THE LAW:-
6. The present petition for eviction is under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of DRC Act, 1958 which after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "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 :
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK
KUMAR
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), AGARWAL
Page no. 8 of 16 26.11.2025 Digitally signed by
VIVEK KUMAR
AGARWAL
Date: 2025.11.26
16:26:30 +0530
RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL
7. 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 property and there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent. (II) That tenanted property 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.
8. The facts and circumstances of the present case are being analyzed hereunder keeping in view the principle of law as discussed above.
Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises & Landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent :-
8.1. It is observed that in the application of leave to defend, the respondent has not denied the ownership of the petitioner and rather has clearly stated that tenanted premises is the ancestral property of the petitioner. It is further stated that an agreement was executed between the mother of the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1986 and respondent had paid sum of Rs. 60,000/- as pagri and rent was Rs. 200/- per month. That said rent was increased to Rs 220/- in 1992 and then was again increased to Rs 240/- in the year 1996 and was further increased to Rs. 300/- since 2004, which was being paid by the respondent to the petitioner regularly.
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally
signed by
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK
VIVEK
KUMAR
Page no. 9 of 16 26.11.2025 KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26
16:26:35
+0530
RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL
8.2. Accordingly, it is concluded that there is no dispute with respect to ownership of the petitioner in the subject premises and also with respect to relationship of land-lord and tenant between both the parties.
Bonafide requirement and suitable alternate accommodation.
8.3. It has been submitted by counsel for petitioner that as mentioned the annexure of the eviction petition and also in the reply to application for leave to defend, the petitoner requires the property in question to be vacated for the purpose of the business of clothes to be run by his son namely Bharat. That petitioner is already running the said business at the first floor of the premises alongwith his son, however, said space is not sufficient for both of them so as to work in the same office and therefore, separate space is required. Subject premises are situated on the ground floor of the building and therefore, they are most suitable for the business to be run by his son.
8.4. On the other hand, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that petitioner has not specified that how much space is required by the son of the petitioenr to start the said business and again it is also not specified that in what manner the space at the first floor is not sufficient. Again the petitioner has not disclosed the details of the said business to be run by his son. 8.5. It is observed 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 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), signed by VIVEK Page no. 10 of 16 26.11.2025 VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:26:41 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL 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 suitablility of his requirement with respect to the tenanted premises. 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 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".
Again 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 eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally
signed by
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Page no. 11 of 16 26.11.2025 AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:26:47 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL 8.6. Now in view of this legal position, let me advert to the facts of the present case. It is observed that on the one hand petitioner has stated her requirement of the tenanted premises in specific terms, on the other hand the respondent has failed to deny the said requirement and only vague denial had been made.
Accordingly, the presumption of bonafide requirement has to be drawn in favour of the petitioner only.
8.7. It is observed that as per the case of petitioner, the tenanted premises are required to be vacated for the purpose of business to be run by his son, who is already major. It has been specifically stated that petitioner was already doing the business of clothes at the first floor and that his son was having experience in the said business and that he wanted to start his separate business. It is further observed that if a father wants to settle his son in a separate business, it is certainly not the matter of only a wish and rather it is apparently the case of bonafide requirement. The son of the petitioner cannot be expected to be always dependent on his father for his finances. Again it is not in dispute that son of petitioner does not have any other business or premises to run his separate business and therefore, he is certainly dependent on his father for purpose of accommodation. Again it is not disputed on behalf of respondent that subject premises are situated in the area which is the hub for the business of retail and whole sale of clothes. Again it is not mandate of law that any person who wants to start a business should have a (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL Page no. 12 of 16 26.11.2025 KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:26:52 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL particular qualification or any prior experience. Moreover, it is not for the tenant to dictate the landlord in what manner he should use his own property. Accordingly, I am duly satisfied that the petitioner needs the tenanted premises in question for his bonafide requirement.
8.8. Now regarding the plea of alternate accommodation avaiable with the petitioner, it is observed that the respondent has taken the plea that petitioner is having sufficient space available at the upper floors of the same building and he is also having three shops in Vikas Puri, Delhi. Again it is submitted by counsel for respondent that as per the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, one shop with three shutters was vacated by Diamond Bakery in January 2025.
8.9. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of petitioner that the upper floors of the building are already occupied and they cannot be considered as an alternate to the tenanted premises which are at ground floor. Again the petitioner were not having any shop in Vikas puri, as alleged by the respondent. Again the fact with respect to vacation of shop in January 2025 is also denied.
8.10. Heard. It is observed that at the very first, the petitioner has denied the availability of space at the upper floor of the building and moreover, the upper floors of the building cannot be an alternate to the subject premises, which are situated (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) Digitally signed by (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR Page no. 13 of 16 26.11.2025 KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.26 16:26:59 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL at the ground floor. It is a matter of common knowledge that a shop at the ground floors attracts more customer than the shop at the upper floors. Again regarding the shops in the area of Vikas Puri, it is observed that respondent himself has stated that petitioner has already sold one of the said shops and two other shops were already let out. Again regarding the vacation of shop, as mentioned in the additional affidavit, it is observed that the respondent has not specified anything that in what manner and why the said shop with three shutters was vacated by the Diamond Bakery in January 2025. Again it is also not specified in the additional affidavit if the said shop was situated in the same building where the subject premises are situated. Moreover, there is nothing on record to conclude if said Diamond Bakery was the tenant of the petitioner only. The respondent has mentioned about the said tenant in the application for leave to defend, however, same has been denied by the petitioner in his reply to said application. Moreover, it is for the land-lord / petitinoer to decide what shop will be of the best use for the business to be run by his son and it cannot be presumed that even if the other shop was allegedly vacated by the other tenant, it can be an alternate accommodation against the tenated premises.
8.11. Accordingly, I am further satisfied that the petitioner does not have any other alternate property available with her to fulfill her requirement, as discussed above.
Digitally signed by (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) VIVEK KUMAR VIVEK (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
Page no. 14 of 16 26.11.2025 2025.11.26 16:27:05 +0530 RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL 8.12. 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:-
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, the present petition for eviction is allowed and an application for leave to defend stands disposed of accordingly as dismissed. The Petitioner is held entitled to recover the possession of tenanted premises i.e. Goyal General Store, shop bearing no. 5669/80, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05 as shown in red color in 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. 10 It is further observed that the present eviction petition was filed in the April 2022 and the was pending before the court for more than three and half 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 for more than three and half years, the petitioner was deprived of the enjoyment of his own property. It is the case where the respondent falsely denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties and also the bonafide requirement of the petitioner.
Digitally
(Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
signed by
VIVEK
VIVEK KUMAR
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date:
Page no. 15 of 16 26.11.2025 2025.11.26
16:27:10
+0530
RC ARC 191/22 HARJEET SINGH Vs. GHANSHYAM GOEL
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. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is imposed the cost of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to be paid to the petitioner. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
Date: 2025.11.26
AGARWAL 16:27:17 +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 26.11.2025).
Note: This order contains 16 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.26 AGARWAL 16:27:24 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 26.11.2025 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), Page no. 16 of 16 26.11.2025