Delhi District Court
Sh. V.P. Yadav vs Sh. Rakesh Jain on 29 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY NAGAR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No: 25315/2016
Sh. V.P. Yadav,
S/o Sh. Asha Ram,
R/o House No.252, Village Hastal,
Delhi. .... Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Rakesh Jain
S/o Late Sh. N.K. Jain
R/o 215, Starlite Apartment,
Sector-14, Rohini,
Delhi. .... Respondent
Date of filing : 19.11.2012
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that on 19.11.2012, the petitioner filed a petition Under Section 14 (1) (d) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this court to pass an eviction order in favour of the petitioner and against respondent in respect of one room with balcony, kitchen and toilet on the second floor of property No. C-7, Shivaji Park, Delhi; as shown in red colour in the site plan attached with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
2. The case of the petitioner is that earlier Shri Ram Bhagat Yadav son of Sh. Surat Singh was the owner/landlord of the ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -2- tenanted premises and the respondent's father Late Sh. N.K. Jain had been a tenant under him. The said Sh. Ram Bhagat Yadav sold and transferred his portion of the property which includes tenanted premises in favour of Sh. Tulsi Dass, HUF and Sh. Darvesh Kumar vide sale deed duly registered dated 25.09.1995. That the then tenant Sh. N.K. Jain was attorned to Sh. Tulsi Dass, HUF and Sh. Darvesh Kumar. That Sh. N.K. Jain started paying rent to the new owner/landlord. That thereafter the aforesaid Sh. Tulsi Dass, HUF and Sh. Darvesh Kumar sold and transferred the property which they had purchased from Sh. Ram Bhagat Yadav in favour of Smt. Chandan Devi @ Chandana Devi, wife of Sh. Asha Ram by means of registered sale deed dated 22.02.1996. That Sh. N.K. Jain was attorned to Smt. Chandna Devi as her tenant and started paying rent to her. That Smt. Chandan Devi @ Chandna Devi expired on 08.11.2001 leaving behind the petitioner as her only son and Smt. Raj Kumari as her only daughter. That Smt. Chandan Devi @ Chandna Devi had executed a Will. Accordingly, not only being the legal heir of late Smt. Chandan Devi @ Chandna Devi but also being a sole legatee under the aforesaid property, the petitioner became owner/landlord of the tenanted premises.
That the petitioner served a notice dated 29.01.2007 to late Sh. N.K. Jain, who had been a tenant in the tenanted premises demanding arrears of rent. That Sh. N.K. Jain failed and neglected to comply with the said notice and the petitioner filed a petition against Sh. N.K. Jain U/Sec. 14(1)(a) & (c) of D.R.C. Act and the said petition is pending disposal.
ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -3- That after the death of Sh. N.K. Jain, it is the respondent alone, who now is the tenant at present under the petitioner in respect of the aforesaid tenanted premises.
That neither the respondent/tenant nor any of his family members are residing and has not been residing in the tenanted premises for the last over six months. That the respondent is residing and has been residing at Flat No. 215, Starlite Apartment, Sector-14, Rohini Extension, Delhi along with all his family members. That the respondent and his family members are having election roll identity card of the said flat.
That the tenanted premises is being used for commercial purposes only and there are absolutely no attributes in the tenanted premises of the respondent or his family members viz. Ration Card, LPG Gas connection, beds etc. and in the tenanted premises there is nothing except office furniture, table and chair for the use of customer. That the respondent is running transport business from the tenanted premises under the name and style of M/s Asha Oil Carrier. That the respondent himself has given his residential address of Flat No. 215, Starlite Apartment, Sector-14, Rohini Extension, Delhi in the two earlier petitions pending in this court U/Sec. 14(1)(a) &(c) of D.R.C. Act and also in the appeals filed by the respondent in the court of Ld. Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi.
Lastly, it is prayed that eviction in respect of the tenanted premises as shown red colour in the site plan may be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
3. On the other hand, written statement was filed by the ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -4- respondent in response to the petition filed by the petitioner U/S 14 (1)(d) of D.R.C Act, praying to the court to dismiss the present petition with costs.
In his written statement, the respondent has inter-alia stated that the present petition is liable to be dismissed and is not maintainable on the sole ground that the petitioner has not impleaded the legal heirs of late Sh. N.K. Jain. That the respondent is still using the tenanted premises for his mother, who is an old lady and widow of late Sh. N.K. Jain (Original tenant) and she is living in the tenanted premises. That the tenanted premises is used only for the residential purpose by the respondent for his mother.
That there is no relation between the petitioner and the respondent. That the tenanted premises belongs to Sh. Ram Bhagat Yadav S/o Late Sh. Surat Singh, who is the landlord till date of the tenanted premises. That he was never informed by Sh. Ram Bhagat Yadav that the aforesaid property has been sold out or handed over to any person. That no notice in terms of D.R.C. Act or Transfer of Property Act has been served by the landlord Sh. Ram Bhagat or petitioner upon the respondent. That the documents filed in the form of photographs and the visiting card in the name of Asha Oil Carrier do not belong to the respondent. That the municipal number of the tenanted premises is C-7, 2nd floor, Shivaji Park, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026. That the tenanted premises is used by the respondent for the residential purpose. The another legal heir of late Sh. N.K. Jain i.e. Smt. Anjana Devi is residing in the tenanted premises and the property bearing No. 215, Starlite ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -5- Apartment, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi belongs to Smt. Asha Rani W/o Sh. Rakesh Jain and to look after the mother, the respondent is regularly visiting and caring the mother at tenanted premises and also used to live there along with his mother. That earlier, the rent was Rs. 100/- per month in the initial stage when the tenanted premises was let out to the deceased father of the respondent. Further, it was enhanced and the last rent was paid @ Rs. 550/- excluding electricity and water charges to Sh. Ram Bhagat Yadav. That it is admitted to the extent that Sh. Ram Bhagat Yadav S/o Sh. Surat Singh was the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and late Sh. N.K Jain (deceased respondent) had been a tenant under Sh. Ram Bhagat. Further, the contents as stated that Sh. Ram Bhagat Yadav sold and transferred his portion of the property which includes the tenanted premises in favour of Sh. Tulsi Dass, HUF and Sh. Darvesh Kumar by means of registered sale deed dated 25.09.1995 are not in the knowledge of the respondent or the father of the respondent.
That the last rent was Rs. 550/- p.m. excluding electricity and water charges but the same was paid only to Smt Anaro Devi and Sh. Ram Bhagat, except them, the rent was never paid to any person. That during the pendency of the earlier petition, Sh. N.K. Jain died leaving behind the legal heirs namely Sh. Rakesh Jain, Sh. Balesh Jain, Sh. Umesh Jain, Sh. Hitesh Jain, Smt. Anjana Devi and Smt. Ritu Jain. That all these legal heirs were impleaded in the earlier case.
That the flat No. 215, Starlite Apartment, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi is in the name of Smt. Asha Jain and the ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -6- respondent has to take care of his mother, therefore, most of the time, the respondent is residing in the tenanted premises along with his mother. That the Election I.D-card of the respondent and his family members are matter of record. That the respondent and his mother are having the Ration Card etc., there is bed, utensils, crockery etc. in and for the kitchen, sofa- set, corner table with other household living articles for the room. Moreover, there is fridge, television, room cooler, every household articles. That the respondent often used to visit the flat in Rohini but most of the time resided at the tenanted premises. It is correct that the respondent had given the address of flat No. 215, Starlite Apartments, Sector-14, Rohini Extension, Delhi because it is his permanent address.
Lastly, it is prayed that the present petition may be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Record reveals that the replication was filed by the petitioner in which the petitioner has reiterated and reasserted his stand taken in the petition.
5. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for Petitioner's Evidence. Petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and he was cross examined at length and thereafter, petitioner closed his evidence.
Thereafter, the matter was fixed for Respondent's evidence and Sh. Rakesh Jain examined himself as RW-1 being only witness. RW-1 was cross examined at length. No other witness was examined by the respondent and thereafter, ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -7- respondent's evidence was closed.
6. I have heard the arguments at length advanced by Ld. Counsels for both the parties and also gone through the entire record and case law relied upon. I have also carefully gone through the testimonies of all the witnesses, documents and material on record.
LANDLORDSHIP:-
7. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has claimed to be landlord and owner of the tenanted premises on the basis of Will executed by his mother Smt. Chandna Devi. It is claimed by the petitioner that respondent was tenant under Sh. Ram Bhagat who sold the tenanted premises to Sh. Tulsi Dass and Sh. Darvesh Kumar and they further sold out the tenanted premises to Smt. Chandna Devi in the year 1996.
On the other hand, although the respondent has admitted the landlordship and ownership of Sh. Ram Bhagat, but disputed the landlordship and ownership of the petitioner on the ground that he was not informed by Sh Ram Bhagat or any one else about the change of ownership and landlordship. It is claimed by the respondent that respondent always paid rent to Sh. Ram Bhagat @ Rs. 550/- per month and denied the fact of transfer of ownership qua tenanted premises to other persons for want of knowledge.
As such, record clearly shows the that respondent has admitted that he is tenant in the tenanted premises but under the landlordship of Sh. Ram Bhagat and not under the ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -8- landlordship of petitioner.
On the other hand, petitioner has placed on record copy of Sale Deed executed by Sh. Ram Bhagat in favour of Sh. Tulsi Ram and Darvesh Kumar and copy of Sale deed in favour of mother of petitioner Smt. Chandna Devi by the aforementioned Tulsi Ram and Darvesh Kumar.
As such, it is clear from the record that Smt. Chandna Devi is the landlady and owner of tenanted premises on the basis of sale deed which is a registered document and these documents have not been disputed by the respondent. Instead it is claimed by the respondent that he was not having the knowledge of such transfer of ownership as he was never informed by Sh. Ram Bhagat or anyone else.
It is well settled principle of law that petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient if the petitioner is able to prove that he is something more than the tenant. Moreover, while deciding the petition U/Sec. 14(1)(d) of D.R.C. Act, it is landlordship which is required to be determined by the court and not the ownership. Moreover, perusal of record manifestly shows that the petitioner has been able to prove that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
As such, ingredient in respect of landlordship is satisfied.
8. SECTION 14(1)(d) OF D.R.C. ACT:-
Section 14(1)(d) is reproduced as under:-
"Section -14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -9- 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:-
(d) That the premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor member of his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the date of filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof."
As such, in view of Section 14 (1) (d) the following ingredients are to be satisfied by the petitioners to obtain the eviction order U/S 14 (1)(d) of DRC Act:-
i) Premises should have been let out for use as residence only.
ii) Neither the tenant nor any member of his family should have been residing there for a period of six months immediately before the date of filing of the eviction application.
9. Let us discuss the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(d) D.R.C. Act:-
i) Premises should have been let out for use as residence only.
ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -10-
10. Perusal of the record shows that is it claimed by the petitioner that the tenanted premises was let out to the respondent for residential use but it is being used by the respondent for running an office.
On the other hand, the respondent has claimed that the tenanted premises was let out for residential use and it is being used for residential purposes only.
As such, there is no dispute in respect of letting out of the tenanted premises.
As such, it is proved on record that the tenanted premises was let out for residential purposes only.
Consequently, this ingredient of 14(1)(d) of D.R.C. Act is satisfied.
ii) Neither the tenant nor any member of his family should have been residing there for a period of six months immediately before the date of filing of the eviction application.
11. Perusal of record shows that the claim of the petitioner is that neither the tenant nor any member of his family are residing in the tenanted premises for a period of six months immediately before the date of filing of the eviction application and the petitioner has further claimed that the respondent and his family members are residing at Flat no. 215, Starlite Apartment, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi and the tenanted premises is being used commercially for running an office and there is no item in the tenanted premises for residential use. Instead it is having furniture such as table, chair for use of customers and the ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -11- respondent is running a transport business in the tenanted premises in the name of M/s Asha Oil Carrier and the respondent has himself has given his residential address of Flat no. 215, Starlite Apartment, Rohini, Delhi in the earlier two eviction petitions as well as in the two appeals.
On the other hand, respondent Sh. Rakesh Jain has claimed that he is still using the tenanted premises for his mother Smt. Anjana Devi, who is an old lady and widow of Sh. N.K. Jain and she is living in the tenanted premises. It is further contended by the respondent that flat no. 215, Starlite Apartment belongs to his wife Smt. Asha Rani and to look after his mother, Respondent is regularly using the tenanted premises for caring the mother and also uses it to live there along with his mother. As such, record manifestly shows that the respondent has denied the allegations of the petitioner as averred in the eviction petition.
12. Perusal of the record shows that the present eviction petition was filed on 19.11.2012. As such, this court has to determine whether respondent or members of his family are resided in the tenanted premises between the period i.e. 19.05.2012 to 19.11.2012 or not.
The electricity bills have been placed on record Ex. RW-1/P-1 qua tenanted premises for the month of February, 2019, which shows that it is not pertaining to the relevant period in question. As such, it does not prove that the respondent did not reside in the tenanted premises during the relevant period. Certified copy of the Certificate of Incorporation i.e. RW-1/P-2 ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -12- (Colly) have also been placed on record which shows the incorporation of Navin Old Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Issued by Competent Authority in 1986.
Perusal of record shows that this court need not determine whether the respondent or his family members are residing intermittently there in flat no. 215, Starlite Apartment, but instead it is to be determined whether the respondent or his family members resided in the tenanted premises during the relevant period i.e. six months prior to filing of the present eviction petition or not.
Perusal of record and the testimonies of the witnesses show that the respondent and his family are residing in the starlite apartment but it does not prove that whether the respondent or his family members resided in the tenanted premises during the period i.e. 19.05.2012 to 19.11.2012 or not.
Section 14(d) of D.R.C. Act clearly shows that the period should be of six months that too prior to filing of eviction petition. The case of the petitioner is that respondent and his family members are not residing there in the tenanted premises instead office is being run therein.
Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has placed on record copy of of appeal showing address of the respondent of Flat No.215, Starlite Apartment by Sh. Rakesh Jain/ respondent.
13. I have perused the record. In my considered view, this record also does not prove the fact that the respondent or his family members never resided in the tenanted premises during the relevant period. Copy of the water bills issued by the Delhi ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -13- Jal Board and electricity bills also do not prove these facts. Although, the petitioner has placed on record visiting card of Asha Oil Carrier having office address as C-7, Shivaji Park, New Delhi and residence as A-439, Madipur, JJ Colony, New Delhi but this document also does not prove the non residence of respondent or his family member in the tenanted premises during the relevant period.
Perusal of record shows that the petitioner has placed on record some photographs i.e. Ex. PW-1/45 to PW-1/48 but these documents also do not prove the claim or allegations of the petitioner that respondent or his family members never resided in the tenanted premises during the relevant period. In the photographs although Table-Chair have been shown to prove the commercial use of the tenanted premises by the respondent. But, in my considered view these table- chair do not prove the commercial use by the respondent and this kind of set up may be done by any person even by the person who is using the premises for residential use only.
In the case titled as 'Ranjit Singh Vs. B.S. Sethi 49 (1993) DLT 531; it was observed as under:-
"18. In case for the said relevant period of six months the premises in question had remained in occupation, the tenant could have easily produced on record the electricity bills of consumption of electricity for the relevant six months but the tenant did not bother to produce on record the electricity bills of the relevant period except for one bill Ex. RW-1/3 which in fact showed that there has been no consumption of electricity at all in the said premises. He brought on record Ex. RW-1/1 and RW-1/2 electricity bills of subsequent years. Mere fact that subsequent to the filing of petition, the landlord has made efforts to consume electricity in the demised premises would not be of any help to ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -14- the tenant to rebut the case of the landlord that for the relevant six months, the premises remained unoccupied. Reliance was being placed by the tenant on electoral rolls Ex. RW-3/1 and RW-3/2 but they pertained again not to the relevant year. They were of the period after 1983 and so were of no help in showing that either tenant or any of his family members had been in occupation of the premises during the relevant six months."
It was further observed as under:-
"19. It was a question of fact to be decided by appraising the evidence as to whether the premises had remained unoccupied for the relevant six months or not and the two authorities below have given finding of fact after appraising the evidence that the landlord has been able to prove this ground of eviction and that finding also does not appear to suffer from any illegality or any infirmity."
In the case titled as Sushil Chander Gupta vs Radha Krishan Bhatija AIR 1980 Delhi 110, Hon'ble High Court observed as under:-
"16). There is a fetal flaw in the tenant's case. He did not appear before the Additional Controller. He did not give evidence. The best evidence was his own.
But he was not willing to be subjected to the cross- examination of the opponent. In the fire of cross- examination truth is elicited. The Additional Controller adversely commented on the non- appearance of the tenant. The evidence of the two witnesses he found entirely unsatisfactory. As regards the tenant he could discover no cogent reason or explanation of his non-appearance. The tribunal recognised this 'fetal' weakness. But he diluted the effect by saying that "non-appearance of the appellant in the witness box would have been very fetal to the case of the appellant if from other evidence it had not been proved that the appellant resided in the demised premises at the relevant time." I cannot accept this reasoning. The tribunal held that the evidence of Girdhari Lal and the homoeopath corroborated the tenant's case of residence. "Corroboration" is not a technical term. It simply means "confirmation" or "support". But ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -15- confirmation of what? It is confirmation of a presumption? This is what it really comes to. The tenant's Individual testimony is conspicuously absent. On the corroborative testimony of a plurality of witnesses the tribunal found in favor of the tenant. In my opinion the controller was right in holding that the best evidence had been withheld from him and that the evidence such has it was did not prove the tenant's case of residence.
(17) A presumption of adverse inference can properly be raised in these circumstances against the tenant. This is what the controller did. His approach was simple and direct. Witnesses do not carry conviction with a court a tribunal when the party himself keeps away and is not really to stand the test of cross-examination. The question of residence non-residence is not a question of presumption. It is a question of fact. It is not a question of inference but of positive proof. The landlord cannot prove the negative except by his statement. The tenant is required to prove the positive. The burden at once shifts to him to show that he was residing during the period in question."
14. As such it is well settled that the landlord cannot prove the negative except by his statement. The tenant is required to prove in positive. As such, the burden at once shifts to the tenant/respondent to show that he was residing in the premises during the relevant period in question. It is also well settled that mere casual visit is not considered sufficient to prove that tenant was residing therein during relevant period. Actual dwelling of the tenant or any member of his family is necessary and not the constructing dwelling. It is enough for a landlord to establish that tenant and his family member has not been residing continuously for the last six months prior to the filing of the eviction petition.
15. Perusal of record reveals that in the present case, landlord/petitioner has discharged his burden as respondent ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -16- himself has admitted in his written statement as well as during the cross examination that he is residing in another premises and also he has stated that the tenanted premises is being used by the respondent for the residential purpose as another legal heir of late Sh. N.K. Jain i.e. Smt. Anjana Devi is residing in the tenanted premises and the property bearing No. 215, Starlite Apartment, Sector-14, Rohini, Delhi belongs to Smt. Asha Rani W/o Sh. Rakesh Jain and to look after the mother, the respondent is regularly visiting and caring the tenanted premises and also used to live there along with his mother.
As such, perusal of record shows that the respondent has himself admitted in his written statement that flat no. 215, Starlite Apartment is also being used by him but the contention of the respondent is that the flat no. 215 belongs to his wife Smt. Asha Rani. Moreover, in the written statement also he admitted that he also used to live there along with his mother. As such, the contents of the written statement clearly shows that the respondent has not claimed to have used the tenanted premises continuously instead he has claimed that the tenanted premises is being used by his mother Smt. Anjana Devi, who is also one of the L.Rs of Sh. N.K. Jain.
Furthermore, it is evident that whether a person has a legal right to a particular place or not can easily be proved by that person himself. As such, this fact should have been proved by the respondent herein easily but he omitted so.
It is well settled that this is the question of fact to be decided by appraising the evidence as to whether the premises had remained unoccupied for the relevant six months period or ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -17- not.
Perusal of record and testimonies of witnesses show that in the present case respondent has not been able to prove the fact of residence in the tenanted premises during the relevant period.
16. In my considered view, it could have easily been proved by the respondent by producing the documentary evidence such as electricity bill, Gas cylinder refill receipt, water bill, telephone bill etc. etc. It is well settled that the question of residence or non residence is not a question of presumption. It is not a question of inference but of positive proof and the landlord cannot prove the negative except by his statement. The tenant is required to prove the positive and the burden at once shift to the tenants to show that he was residing during the relevant period. It is also well settled that mere casual visit is not considered sufficient to prove that tenant was residing therein during relevant period and actual dwelling of tenant or any member of his family is necessary and not constructed dwelling. It is not enough for the landlord to establish that tenant and his family members has not been residing continuously for the last six months prior to filing of the eviction petition.
Perusal of record shows that the respondent has not been able to discharge his burden by placing on record any document which show the proof of residence of himself or his members of family in the tenanted premises during the relevant period. Perusal of record shows that the respondent has placed on ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -18- record two photographs Ex. RW-1/1 and RW-1/2 and no other document has been placed on record excepting afore- mentioned two photographs. Even, no independent witness has been examined by the respondent to prove the residence of himself or members of his family in the tenanted premises during relevant period.
I have gone through the afore-mentioned two photographs Ex. RW-1/1 and RW-1/2. In my considered view, these two photographs do not prove that these photographs are pertaining to relevant period i.e. of the year 2012.
17. As such, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence of the witnesses and material on record, I am of the view that petitioner has been able to prove the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(d) of D.R.C. Act. On the other hand, the respondent has not been able to prove that he has been residing in the tenanted premises for six months immediately prior to filing of eviction petition.
CONCLUSION:
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, settled position of law, material on record, this court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has been able to satisfy all the ingredients of section 14(1)(d) of D.R.C. Act also. As such an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. one room with balcony, kitchen and toilet on the second floor of property No. C-7, Shivaji Park, Delhi; as shown in red colour in the site plan ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain -19- attached with the petition.
19. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed
Announced in the open court
AJAY by AJAY NAGAR
on 29th August, 2019. NAGAR Date: 2019.08.29
17:09:16 +0530
(This judgment contains 19 pages)
(AJAY NAGAR)
Additional Rent Controller,
West District, THC, Delhi.
ARC No.25315/16 Sh. V.P. Yadav Vs Sh. Rakesh Jain