Delhi District Court
Bina Rani vs Pardeep Kumar Arora on 28 May, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. UPASANA SATIJA
SCJ-Cum-RC (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC ARC No. 950/2017
CNR NO. DLWT03-007243-2017
IN THE MATTER OF
1. Smt. Bina Rani
W/o Sh. Dal Chand
R/o 576 A, Kalani Nagar Bijason Road,
Indore Madhya Pradesh-452005
2. Sh. Mahender
S/o Late Sh. Bhola Ram
R/o 3588, Netaji Subhash Marg
Darya Ganj New Delhi .....Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Arora
2. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Arora
Add: M/s Arora Electricals
2157/2, Chah Indara, H.C. Sen Road
Delhi-110006 And
D-69, Hakikat Rai Road,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi ..... Respondents
(eviction order was passed against respondent Sh. Pradeep
Kumar on 11.12.2012)
Date of Institution : 17.07.2012
Date of Reserving the Order : 24.05.2025
Date of Decision : 28.05.2025
Decision : Petition Allowed
RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 1 of 42
Digitally
signed by
UPASANA
UPASANA SATIJA
SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28
16:41:47
+0530
JUDGMENT
(eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act)
1. Smt. Bina Rani and Sh. Mahender (hereinafter referred to as 'Petitioner No. 1' and 'Petitioner No. 2' respectively and collectively as 'Petitioners') filed present petition under Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25 B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') seeking eviction of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Arora and Sh. Kuldeep Kumar Arora (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent no. 1' and 'respondent no. 2' respectively and collectively as 'respondents') from Shop admeasuring 5ft x 10ft at ground floor, a part of property no. 2157, Chah Indara, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
PLEADINGS Brief Facts pleaded in the petition 2.1. Petitioners purchased the property ad measuring 39 Sq. yards bearing Municipal No. 2154 to 2157 Chah Indara, H.C. Sen Road from Sh. Bimla Devi vide sale deed dated 17.07.1975 duly registered with Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. Petitioner no.1 and Late Sh. Bhola Ram, father of petitioner no.2 had let out the tenanted premises to the respondents on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- per month.
2.2. The Petitioners are owners and landlord of aforesaid premises and have been paying the house tax regularly. Petitioner no.1 is having two sons and both sons are married. Petitioner RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 2 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:41:51 +0530 no.1 along with the family of her both son is presently residing at 576-A, Kalani Nagar, Bijason Road. Indore, M.P-452005.
2.3. The parental home of the petitioner no.1 is at premises no. 2146, Chah Indara, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi-6. Sh.
Ramesh Yadav brother of the petitioner No. l is carrying on the business of the electrical goods under the name and style of M/s Minakshi Electronics in shop at ground floor a part of premises no. 2154, Chah Indara, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi-6.
2.4. Sh. Abhishek, the elder son of petitioner no.1 is residing with his maternal uncle for the last 4/5 months and was learning the business of electronics goods and now he wants to start his own business.
2.5. The tenanted premises under the possession of respondents is in electrical market which is the biggest market in Asia. The tenanted shop is lying locked for the last 3-4 years and is not being used by the respondents. As such the premises under the possession of the respondents is required bonafidely by the petitioner no.1 for her son who wants to start his own business of electrical goods and the petitioner no.1 is not having any other alternative/reasonable accommodation to carry on business.
3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent no. 2 filed application seeking leave to defend which was allowed vide order dated 22.07.2019 and accordingly, reply to petition was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2.
RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 3 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:41:54 +0530 Brief Facts pleaded in the Written Statement of respondent no. 2
4.1. In his written statement, respondent no. 2 denied the averments made in the petition and further stated that the site plan is not correct as it does not depict the whole of the property and also does not describe the portions accurately and correct. He further stated that Sh. Ramesh Yadav has been carrying on the business from two shops in property no. 2154, Chah Indara which is owned by petitioner no.1 and he is not a tenant therein, but is in occupation thereof on account of his being real brother of petitioner no. 1. He denied that elder son of petitioner no. 1 wants to start his own business or the tenanted premises in the possession of respondents is in electrical market or that the same is biggest market in Asia. The elder son of the petitioner no. 1 is permanent resident of Indore, Madhya Pradesh where he is residing with his wife and son and other family members of petitioner no. 1.
4.2. The petitioner and her family are permanent resident of Indore as her husband Sh. Dalchand was working as a government employee with the Tax Department of Madhya Pradesh Govt. The said house has 2 shops and 2 rooms and the elder son Sh. Ashish has been running a general merchant business from one of the shops. Both daughter-in-law of the petitioner are running the business of beauty parlor from one of the two rooms on ground floor. In fact the entire ground floor has been converted into a commercial premises. The rest of the accommodation on the ground floor is available to the petitioner no. 1 and can be used and utilized by the petitioner and her son RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 4 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:41:57 +0530 though the same is reasonably suitable commercial accommodation.
4.3. The son of the petitioner namely Sh. Abhishek is not highly educated and as per the information, he could not even complete schooling. He has been working as an 'office boy' in the office of Mr. R. K. Gurbani & Co. and upon inquiry, it was informed that he has been regularly working in the said office for last several years. Petitioner no. 1 including her son Sh. Abhishek and his wife are all registered voters from assembly constituency, Kalani Nagar, District Indore. On enquiry from local occupants of the area, it was found that Sh. Abhishek has not been residing for 4-5 months or permanently and regularly with his maternal uncle Sh. Ramesh Yadav at 2146, Chah Indara, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi-6. He was also not found carrying on or learning any such business from his maternal uncle.
4.4. In property No. 2155 Chah Indara, H. C. Sen Road, there also exist two shops, one on the first floor and the other on second floor which has wrongly been shown as a halls in the site plan filed by the petitioners. The shop on second floor of this property bearing No. 2155 is lying vacant in possession of petitioner no. 1. Similarly, in property no. 2156, there are two shops where the shop on the second floor is lying vacant.
Petitioner no. 1 also owns three shops in property no. 2157, all on the ground floor. Thus, in properties bearing no. 2154 to 2157, petitioner no. 1 is having 2 vacant shops available to her which can be utilized by Mr. Abhishek if he intended to do some business.
RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 5 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:00 +0530 4.5. The mother of the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Bhagwati Devi also owns property bearing no. 2159, Chah Indara H. C. Sen Road measuring 90 sq. yds. The said property was residential but has been converted into a commercial market and comprises of ground floor, first floor and second floor. On the ground floor, 4 shops had been made which are all lying vacant. Said shops can be utilized by Mr. Abhishek, being grandson of Bhagwati Devi.
On the second floor, one of the shop/hall has been made which is also lying vacant. Smt. Bhagwati Devi also owns property bearing no. 2149, Chah Indara, H. C. Sen Road which is lying vacant. Said property was got vacated from LRs of Ramachandra after filing eviction petition under Section 14D read with Section 25B DRC Act but Bhagwati Devi got converted said residential property into commercial property and installed non-domestic electricity connection in the name of Varun Yadav s/o Ramesh Yadav. Sh. Ramesh Yadav does not carry on business in electronics as falsely alleged. Therefore the said son of petitioner no. 1 getting any experience in that field is not at all possible.
Brief Facts pleaded in the replication
5. In his replication, petitioner denied the averments made by the respondent no. 2 in his written statement and reiterated the facts pleaded in the petition.
6. After completion of pleadings, the matter was listed for evidence.
RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 6 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:03 +0530 EVIDENCE Petitioner's Evidence
7. In support of their case, petitioners examined two witnesses.
7.1. Petitioner no. 1 Smt. Bina Rani examined herself as PW1, who in her evidence by way of affdavit (Ex.PW1/1) reiterated on oath the contents of the petition. She relied upon following documents:
Ex.PW1/1: Copy of Sale Deed dated 17.07.1975 (OSR). Ex.PW1/2: Site Plan.
PW1 was cross-examined by Sh. Satish Sahai, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2. During her cross-examination, she deposed that the sale deed Ex.PW1/1 was executed in her presence and her brother Ramesh Chand was witness to the said sale deed and no one else had signed the said sale deed as witness. It was drafted in the cabin of a lawyer whose name she cannot recollect. She did not know the name of the draftsman who prepared Ex.PW1/2. Her brother Ramesh Yadav got the draftsman at the premises for preparing the same in the month of August, 2019 and she was present there. She admitted that plan Ex.PW1/2 do not give the particulars of the properties located in the north, west, east side as well as measurement of the portions mentioned therein. She did not know whether she had any sanctioned plan of the premises. She voluntarily said that her brother Ramesh Yadav has been managing the entire property and he will let them know about it. She further stated that she mostly not live in Delhi. She denied that site plan Ex.PW1/2 is not a site plan according to the site and it does not correctly show the entire property and the description given therein is also RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 7 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:07 +0530 wrong. She got married in the year 1973 with Sh. Dal Chand who has been a permanent resident of Indore, M.P. and after her marriage, herself and her entire family which includes two sons, their wives, her grand children are permanent resident of Indore, M.P. They all are registered voters from there and they all never resided or voted in Delhi. Sh. Abhishek who is her youngest son, obtained his qualification from Indore, MP. He did 2 nd year of graduation from College of Indore University but she did not remember the name of the said college. He was not good in studies and therefore, left the course but she did not remember the exact month and year of the same. She voluntarily said that he was thinking of doing private job. She admitted that Abhishek never obtained any degree or diploma course in electric field. Immediately after his leaving the college, he started working as an office boy with Sh. R.K. Gurbani & Company, a firm of Chartered Accountants based in Indore. He continued to work there till about a year ago when he left it. She voluntarily said that he started working with Patel Motors. He is most probably Assistant but not involved in any technical job there. She had not filed any documentary proof of her son Abhishek leaving the job of R. K. Gurbani & Company and joining in Patel Motors. He has not been issued any appointment letter from Patel Motors. He got married to Ms. Rupam about 10 years ago and he is blessed with two sons who born in Indore and have started going to school at Indore. She further deposed that her husband was a clerk in Sales Tax Department of M.P. Government at Indore and he also got retired from Indore. Her other son Ashish is graduate from Indore and living with his family in Indore. He also obtained education there and got married in Indore and blessed RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 8 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:20 +0530 with two daughters who born in Indore and getting their education at Indore. They all are residents of H. No. 576, Kalani Nagar, Bijason Road, Indore, M.P, which is owned by her husband. They all are living in the said house but are having separate kitchens. She voluntarily said that her elder son is residing on ground floor and Abhishek is residing with his family with her and her husband on upper floor. It is a one and a half storey building. She had not produced any site plan of that property as it is two storey house. She denied that they are all living a joint family. She had never managed the property of which tenanted premises is a part. The photocopy of Power of Attorney is the correct power attorney given by her to her brother Ramesh Yadav and same was Ex.PW1/R-1. Her brother Ramesh Yadav by acting on the said attorney is managing the entire property and had sold one of the shop i.e. 2157/1 in the property of which tenanted premises was a part in the year 2008. She admitted that she had to give the said power of attorney Ex.PW1/R-1 as herself, her two sons and her husband have no time to manage their property at Delhi. She belongs to Gali Chah Indara where she was born and so is her brother and it is her paternal place. She had given to her brother Ramesh Yadav two shops in the property of which the tenanted premises is a part. She voluntarily said that the intervening wall has been removed and the same has been made into workshop. She did not know when it was done. She voluntarily said that as her brother does all this. Her brother is a tenant. She had not got executed any rent note or issued any rent receipts to her said brother Ramesh Yadav in respect of these two shops. Ramesh Yadav is in possession of these two shops 1977-78. She was not aware whether Ramesh RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 9 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:24 +0530 Yadav's name is shown in property tax record as a tenant. Her brother does all this. She denied that her brother is occupying these shops as a license on account of his being her real brother. He is her only brother. She admitted that Abhishek is competent and capable to appear in this case to depose. He has not come today in Court from Indore. He is still in Indore. She admitted that she and her son Abhishek never appeared in this case earlier. She denied that Mr. Abhishek never came to reside at Delhi with his maternal uncle Sh. Ramesh Yadav at any time. Her brother deals in electronic items. She did not know in what items, he is dealing with. She again said that he deals in Fan, Tubelights & Mixer etc. Her said son had lived for one and half year in Delhi with his maternal uncle. She had no documentary proof to show that her son resided at Delhi with his maternal uncle or had any training or experience in the trade carried by her brother. She further denied that her son Abhishek does not have the aptitude, qualification, personality or experience to carry on the business of electrical goods. Further she admitted that Abhishek never did any independent business in the electric fields or any other field. Her eldest son runs a general store in a portion of the ground floor of their residence at Indore for the last more than 10 years under the name & style of Gauri General Store as the Gauri is the name of his daughter. Abhishek does not assist his brother in the said business. It is her eldest daughter in law Pooja who runs a beauty parlor in a portion on the ground floor under the name & style of Gauri Beauty Parlor. She denied that wife of Abhishek is also running a beauty parlor along-with Ms. Pooja. She had no idea whether the said beauty parlor is registered under the Shops & Establishments Act or any bank account as proprietor to run RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 10 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:28 +0530 the same is opened, as she had no interest in the same. There are two rooms on first floor at their residence at Indore. She admitted that ground floor of some more properties have been converted into commercial use by many occupants of that area. Abhishek never made any attempt to carry on any business. She admitted that property no. 2154, Chah Indara is three storey property, that there are three shops on ground floor in the said property. The third shop is in possession of Awon Electrical Co. besides two shops with her brother. She further admitted that in property no. 2155, Chah Indara, there exists two shops, one on the first floor and other on the second floor and that the said premises are used for commercial purposes. In one of the shops on the first floor, Govinda Light House is there. She denied that the other shop on the second floor, is lying vacant. She voluntarily said that there are two godowns on second floor and is in possession of Prince and second of Sai. She couldn't tell since when these two entities are in possession of said premises. She deposed that her brother can tell about it. She had never executed any rent note or issued any rent receipts to these two entities. She further stated that her other co-owner Mr. Mahender Kumar and her brother Ramesh Yadav must be knowing about it. She further admitted that she had not produced any documentary proof on record to show that these two shops/ godowns are in possession of aforesaid two entities. She denied that she had not produced any documentary proof as no such entities are in possession and these two shops/godowns are lying vacant.
In the first floor shop in property no. 2156, Hari Traders is in possession. On the second floor, there are two godowns and one is possession of Rajiv and Sai. She admitted RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 11 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:32 +0530 that she had not produced any documentary proof on record to show that these two shops/ godowns are in possession of aforesaid two entities. She further denied that she had not produced any documentary proof as no such entities are in possession and these two shops/ godowns are lying vacant. Her brother can tell about it. She had never executed any rent note or issued any rent receipts to these two entities. She voluntarily said that her other co-owner Mr. Mahender Kumar and her brother Ramesh Yadav must be knowing about it.
In the property no. 2157, there are three shops on the ground floor. In this property, shop no. 2157/1 was sold and in the third shop i.e. 2157/2 M/s. C.K. Brothers is in possession. She further denied that the shop was sold as they never required or that they sold the shop as they never required any commercial premises in Delhi even then. Her mother Smt. Bhagwati belongs to Indore where she had her parental home. All her four brothers i.e. her maternal uncles reside and settle at Indore. Her mother frequently goes to her brothers and also sometimes resides with her.
Her mother owns a property no. 2159, Chah Indara and she did do not know that it is built on 90 sq. yards area. This property was earlier a residential property but has been converted into a commercial market. It is three storey property comprising ground, first, second and third floor. She did not remember when she last visited the property no. 2159, Chah Indara. There might be four shops on the ground floor. She denied that all the four shops are lying vacant. She couldn't tell or give the particulars like names and details of the persons occupying these four shops. She had not placed any documentary on record to show that these RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 12 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:36 +0530 shops in property of her mother are not lying vacant but occupying. She did not know how many shops are there on the second floor of the said property of her mother. She denied that those shops are lying vacant. She couldn't tell or give the particulars like names and details of the persons occupying those shops. She had not placed any documentary on record to show that these shops in property of her mother are not lying vacant but occupying. She denied that her mother resides with her as one of her family member.
She admitted that her mother is also owner of 2149, Chah Indara and the said property no. 2149, Chah Indira was got vacated on 06.12.2010 by filing the petition U/Sec. 14-D, DRC Act, against the legal heirs of tenant namely Sh. Ram Chander. She voluntarily said that her mother is residing in premises no. 2149, Chah Indara. She did not know whether she has her Aadhar Card or any other identity card showing property no. 2149, Chah Indara as her residence. She further denied that she does not reside and could not reside in the said property i.e. 2149, as it has been converted into a commercial market and also do not know that a non-domestic electrical connection has been got installed in the name of Varun Yadav S/o Ramesh Yadav in the said property. She also did not know that the petition has been filed by legal heirs of Ram Chand for restoration of the possession of the said property on account of said property being converted into a commercial property. She denied that that property is also lying vacant and can be used for business purposes. She stated that her mother is residing in premises no. 2149, Chah Indara. She admitted that her son Abhishek never made any attempt to carry out any business from any of the portion of aforesaid properties RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 13 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:40 +0530 and her brother Ramesh Yadav is managing all the properties belonging to her and her mother. She also admitted that Ramesh Yadav also owns the property bearing no. 2140-2141 and 2146, Chah Indara and the entire ground floor of the said property is commercial and her brother Ramesh Yadav resides on the upper floor of the said property and her brother never carried on any business from the shops available on the ground floor of the aforesaid property and some of the shops have been let out at ground floor. She did not know one shop is lying vacant on the ground floor of the said property. She further deposed that it is her opinion, it is not so. She couldn't give any names and particulars of the persons occupying the shop which is alleged to be vacant. She further denied that her brother has been unreasonably occupying two of the shops owned by her instead of using his own property or that her brother has filed an eviction petition against one Rakesh Jain and another in respect of godowns measuring 21ft X17ft on the context of requiring the same or that said petition has been dismissed. However, she admitted that her brother have filed several cases in respect of her property and her mother's property as well as his own property. She voluntarily said that she did not know because she used to come to Delhi rarely. She denied that present eviction petition has been filed by her brother by misusing her name on a false pretext of Abhishek intending to start his own business which is false story or that her brother has threatened the respondents if they did any business from the tenanted shop. She further denied that her son will not shift to Delhi and carry on electrical business or any other business from Chah Indara or from portion of her property or that the present petition is based on her whims RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 14 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:44 +0530 and fancy and there is no bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises in question by her son or otherwise.
7.2. Sh. Ramesh Chand was examined as PW2, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit which was exhibited as Ex.PW2/A. PW2 was cross-examined by Sh. Satish Sahai, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2. During his cross-examination, he stated that his father Late Sh. Bhola Ram started carrying on business of electrical goods from two shops bearing private no. 1 and 2 in property no. 2154, ground floor, Chah Indara, Delhi after the purchase of the property by Smt. Bina in year 1975 and he started business from said two shops after 31.12.2003 and till date. His father and thereafter, he carried on the business under the name and style of Minakshi Electrical. It was a proprietorship business. No rent note / agreement in writing were ever got executed by him and his father in favour of Smt. Bina at any time. He voluntarily said that rent receipts were issued. Bina Devi herself never issued rent receipt. It was Sh. Mahender Kumar, who was co-owner who issued rent receipt to him and earlier his father. The rent always remained Rs. 150 for each shop per month in all Rs. 300 for both the shop per month. Rent of these shops never paid by him by cheques or through online.
Their firm Minakshi Electrical is assessed to income tax since inception. He did not know whether the payment of rent by M/s Minakshi Electrical is reflected in the ITR filed by the said firm. He has never perused his ITR of the firm since beginning till date. Sh. Akash Gupta, CA who has office in Chah Indara, Delhi and prior to it, one Sh. Sabarwal, whose complete name he did RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 15 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:47 +0530 not know and his office was at Chander Nagar, East Delhi. He does not possess any of the ITRs and assessment and the same is lying with CA. They had always been sending those rent receipts in respect of these shops to their CA. All the documents including receipts were sent by him or his paledaar to their CA. All the accounts Books are with their CA Sh. Akash Gupta. He did not know what kind of account books are maintained by their firm. He did not know whether the entries with regards to payment of rent of Rs. 300/- per month shows in the account books. He denied that they/M/s Minakshi Electrical is not a tenant in these above mentioned two shops or that they are occupying these two shops as a licensee of Smt. Bina on account of he being her brother and father and on account of love and affection in between them. Their CA can handover to him all the ITR record as well as account books. He never asked for return of these records of ITR and account books from their CA as they never felt the need to do so. He denied that he had invented the story of ITR for the first time as no rent is being shown in these records. Petitioner no. 1 got married to Sh. Lal Chand in year 1993 and since then she has been residing with her husband and family and their family belongs to Indore (MP). The husband of the petitioner no. 1 was working with sales department in MP. They have two sons namely Ashish and Abhishek. He admitted that both the sons got their education and bringing at Indore city itself. They got married at Indore, their children i.e. two daughter of Sh. Ashish and two sons of Sh. Abhishek also born at Indore. These children are having their school education from Indore City. All these persons are having Adhar Card and registered voter cards from Indore and they all cast their votes from Indore RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 16 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:51 +0530 itself. The house bearing no. 576A, Kalani Nagar, Bijasan road, Indore, MP is owned by Sh. Dalchand and it is one and half storey building. In a shop on the ground floor of the said property, Sh. Ashish elder son has been running a General Store with the name of Gauri General Store, being the name of his daughter. Sh. Ashish is a graduate and is now aged about 43 to 45 years old and he has been running said General Store since Graduation from Indore. Ms. Pooja has been running a beauty parlour from another portion of the ground floor of the above mentioned property under the name of Gauri Beauty Parlour. He denied that Smt. Rupam w/o Sh. Abhishek has also been running the same beauty parlour. He did not have any knowledge or document to show that Smt. Pooja alone has been running the said beauty parlour or that he did not know whether the said beauty parlour is registered and that the said beauty parlour is a firm of proprietorship firm. Petitioner no. 1's and his motherside (Nandsaal) are relative at Indore and his mother was born also at Indore and all five brothers still residing and settled in Indore. He and his mother keep on going to Indore on account of his nandsaal as well as his paternal side also permanent resident of Indore. Sh. Abhishek left the studies at the stage of 2 nd year of the college as he was dull and very poor in study. He admitted that after leaving the studies, he joined CA firm namely Sh. R.K. Gurbani and company at Indore as an office boy and continue to remain in the said firm for several years and he was a permanent employee in the said firm. As an office boy, he was serving tea, water and post belonging to the said firm. He left the said firm and thereafter, joined Patel motors at Indore. He did not know anything about this firm and he is also working there as an office RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 17 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:55 +0530 boy. He further deposed that he did not know what salary he was drawing at the CA Firm as well as Patel Motors. He had not brought any record with regard to employment of said Abhishek with Patel Motors. He admitted that petitioner no. 1 and her family including the family of her sons and their children never ever attempted to shift permanent from Indore to Delhi and settled in Delhi particular in Chah Indara area where the petitioner owns the property where the tenanted premises are part. He did not have any documentary proof to show that Sh. Abhishek came to reside with him for one and half year and about him taking any training in the business of electrical goods. He voluntarily said that he simply used to sit and watch sale and purchase electrical goods. He never purchased the goods during the said period. He did not have any proof of his selling electrical goods and he never signed the electrical goods. Their firm deals in sale of electrical appliances i.e. micsy, fan, geyser etc. and their firm is doing the business of retail. They have never snapped any photograph of Abhishek sitting and doing sale of electrical goods from their shop. Sh. Abhishek, if comes into witness box, he can described the details of like brand etc. and their price of various appliances in which their firm deals with. After Abhishek stay, he again went to Indore and settled there since then. Sh. Abhishek never ever shown as employee or trainee in his firm Minakshi Electricals. One requires a capital of approximately 5 lakhs for running the business of electrical goods like that of Minakshi Electricals if it is done from one shop. He couldn't tell even approximately that to how much income one can generate from such type of a business in a year or month. It depends on the sales. He couldn't even tell that to RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 18 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:42:58 +0530 how much income he is generating from Minakshi Electricals. He admitted that several people are doing business of the type of Minakshi Electricals from the area where the tenanted premises are situated and this business has become highly competitive. He denied that Shri Abhishek will never shift to Delhi and carry on Electrical business or that Shri Abhishek never stayed with him and learn the electrical trades any time and it is a false cooked up and a fictitious story generated by him for the purpose of getting this petition filed by using the name of his sister in order to settle score with the respondents and not because of any bonafide requirements on the part of petitioner and her son, Shri Abhishek. He admitted that Chah Indara area was purely residential and with the passage of time it is being converted into commercial area predominated and generally almost all the properties from ground floor to the top floor, comprising of three floors i.e. ground, first and second has almost been converted into commercial property. He further admitted that some of the properties have been converted for commercial use on the ground floor in Indore city as well. The residence of the petitioner in Indore comprises of the area 30X40 feet. He couldn't tell the accommodation available at the ground floor of the property of the petitioner and her husband at Indore except the two shops where general store and beauty parlour is being run. He couldn't tell the details and extent of accommodation available on the ground floor of the said property. He denied that the rest of the accommodation can also be used for commercial purposes and reasonable suitable for that purpose. He admitted that the type of business being run by him requires a lot of paper work like invoices, bills, operation of bank accounts, maintaining daily RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 19 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:02 +0530 books and daily books containing the details of sales and purchase in cash as well as in credit. He further admitted that he has been managing the property of his sister on her behalf since its purchase on account of her being a separated widow. He had been given a power of attorney by his sister later on. He admitted that PW1/R1 is the power attorney given to him by his sister. Whatever rent is being released by the property half of it used to be sent to his sister, petitioner No.1 as entire rent was being collected by Shri Mahendra Kumar. Rent never used to be released per month of the property of which tenanted premises are part and used to be released in 6 months or in a year. After the death of Shri Mahendra Kumar in April 2021, no rent has been released by him. Petitioner No.1 is owner to the extent of half undivided share in property no. 2154 to 2157, Chah Indara which is a three storeyed property. He admitted that there are three shops on the ground floor of this property, two of which are in his possession where Minakshi Electrical business is being done, who is carrying on business under the name and style of Al electricals. There is one shop on the first floor of 2155 Chah Indara and two shops on the second floor thereof property bearing No.2155. The shop on the first floor of which Shri Ram Chandra Gupta carrying on business under the name and style of Govinda Light House. He denied that shops on the second floor on premises No.2155 are lying vacant. On second floor, in one shop Prince Electrical and other shop are carrying on tenant and using the same as godowns. Both these firms are tenants for the last 8 to 10 years i.e. since construction of second floor which was constructed 8 to 10 years ago. No change of tenancy took place. He further denied that earlier one Shubham Industries and RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 20 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:05 +0530 another REET Electricals were stated to be tenants in respect of second floor of 2155, Chah Indara. No rent deed was got executed from Prince Electricals and Sai Electricals and no rent receipts have been issued. He further denied that these two firms Prince as well as Sai Electricals are not tenants and these two shops are lying vacant. On the first floor, in property No.2156, there is one shop on first floor in which Hari Traders is running. In one shop Sai Electricals and other shop Mr. Sanjeey is staying. He did not have any document to show that these two firms are tenants or in possession of second floor. He further denied that these shops on the second floor are lying vacant. They did not issue any rent receipts to these two firms. He/petitioner do not have record to show that these two firms are in possession of the second floor. He couldn't say about his sister. He admitted that petitioner No.1 is also owner of three shops of property No.2157, Chah Indara. One CK Brothers is tenant in 2157/3 and shop bearing 2157/1 on the ground floor was sold in which business in the name and style of Vikas Electricals was being operated. This shop was sold by petitioner No.1 and Shri Bhola Ram, the father of petitioner no.2 by means of registered deed. This shop was vacant when purchased by him and thereafter, it was sold by him and delivered vacant possession to Mr. Vikas Ved. He denied that petitioner no. 1 got vacant possession of several shops in property no.2154-2157, Chah Indara and after the said shops were let out. He had no knowledge that the shop bearing No.2157/1, Chah Indara HC Sen Road from where one electric shop was run under the name and style of Vikas Enterprises. This shop was sold to him by the petitioner but he did not remember the year of purchase. However, he sold this shop to Vikas Vaidh RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 21 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:09 +0530 in the year 2007-08. He denied that there are two shops lying vacant and available to the petitioner in property No.2154-2157, Chah Indara HC Sen Road which can be utilized by Mr. Abhishek if he intends to do some business. He admitted that in Chah Indara area shops exist not only on ground floor but from ground floor to top floor of several properties and trading and business being conducted from all the floors and the mother of the petitioner Smt. Bhagwati Devi also owns property bearing No.2159, Chah Indara HC Sen Road measuring about 90 sq. yds. This property was a residential property. He further admitted that the mother of the petitioner converted it into a commercial market comprising of ground floor, first floor and second floor and four shops are constructed in this property on the ground floor. He denied that the said four shops have been lying vacant and available to the petitioner. He can reveal the name of the persons to whom the said four shops have been let out. The names of the four tenants are VFM Electricals, Mahesh Kumar Bittu, Sh. Akash Gupta and Radhey Radhey Electricals. He had no knowledge about the date of letting and the said shops were let out by the mother of the petitioner. He denied that there exist one shop/hall on the second floor. In fact, there are seven shops exist on the second floor. He denied that these shops are lying vacant and available with the petitioner. He voluntarily said that all have been let out to Prince Electrical Traders, Manoj Sharma (two shops), Sh. Arvind Kumar carrying on business in the name and style of Sh. Ganesh Electrical, Satguru Electricals, Vishal Electricals and Sh. Bunty. All these persons are available and they may come to the Court. There is no documentary evidence with him or his mother with regard to these tenancies. His mother RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 22 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:19 +0530 had expired on 17.03.2022 and after her death he will be dealing with these tenants. He denied that Mr. Abhishek can utilize any of the abovesaid shops being the grandson of Bhagwati Devi had there been any requirement by him for doing business from Delhi. He admitted that petitioner's mother also own property bearing No.2149, Chah Indara HC Sen Road in which one Mr. Ram Chandra was a tenant and after his death his mother Smt. Bhagwati Devi filed eviction petition for her bonafide requirement against the LR of said Sh. Ram Chandra. He further admitted that on the ground of leave to contest was declined to them, an eviction order was passed on 06.12.2010 by the Court of Mr. Rakesh Kumar No.1. Addl. ARC, North and this property was got vacated from the said persons and that the said petition was filed by mother on the ground that she is a widow and bonafidely require the said premises for her business. He denied that the said property was converted into a commercial property instead of residential and it was utilized for residence by Smt. Bhagwati Devi. He admitted that a non-domestic electricity connection was installed in the name of Mr. Varun Yadav, his son and that the heirs of Ram Chandra filed a petition for restoration of the possession of the said property to them on account of violation of the eviction order. He further stated that the said petition was dismissed. All the papers regarding this litigation are available with him which he had not brought. He denied that all the properties which are owned by Bhagwati Devi have been inherited by the petitioner and himself. He voluntarily said that Smt. Bhagwati Devi had left behind a Will, the date of which he did not remember. He had brought the Will dated 02.12.1993 and by virtue of it the property bearing No.2149, Chah Indara HC RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 23 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:22 +0530 Sen was also bequeathed in his favour. Copy of the said Will was Ex.PW2/R1. He admitted that this Will does not relate to property No.2149, Chah Indara HC Sen Road. He again said that his sister, the petitioner herein relinquished her share in the property No.2149 and 2148, Chah Indara HC Sen Road, Delhi in his favour vide relinquishment deed dated 27.04.2022 and by virtue of that relinquishment deed, Smt. Veena relinquished her undivided share in his favour. He had brought the said relinquishment deed (Ex.PW2/R2). He denied that all the properties left behind by Smt. Bhagwati Devi were inherited by the petitioner. He and his sister are at very cordial relation and he looks after all the properties of his sister and manage them. He also own property bearing No.2140-41 and 2146, Chah Indara HC Sen Road. He admitted that the entire ground floor of this property is commercial and on the upper floor he resides and he never utilized the ground floor portion for his business and instead he had let out the same. He denied that still one shop has been kept vacant as available to him. He admitted that he had never attempted to utilize ground floor of his property for his business purpose and that he had never ever offered Sh. Abhishek, son of the petitioner to utilize any shop in the property owned by him. He admitted that he had also filed an eviction petition in respect of one godown measuring 21x14 not 21x17 on the ground floor of this property against Rakesh Kumar. He denied that he had filed this petition on the false pretext of requiring the said property for him and his son. He admitted that the said petition was dismissed and no eviction order was passed. He denied that the said petition was dismissed on the ground that the said petition was filed on false ground. The order of dismissal RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 24 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:26 +0530 has also not been brought by him. He further denied that he is a habitual litigant and has filed several cases against tenants on one pretext or the other by using his old name, name of his mother or that he had filed the present petition by using the name of his sister on false pretext of Mr. Abhishek residing with him and intending to start his own business which is a patent lie and a cooked up story. He admitted that he and petitioner do not have any documentary proof of Mr. Abhishek ever residing with him or having experience of business. He did not carry on any electronic business but only electrical appliances. The area Chah Indara around the tenanted premises is only utilized for electrical items and not fit for electronics.
Respondent's Evidence
8. In support of his case, respondent examined one witness.
8.1. Sh. Rajinder Kumar Arora, attorney of respondent no. 2 was examined as RW1, who filed his evidence by way of affidavit and the same was exhibited as Ex.RW1/A. He relied upon following documents:
i) Ex.RW1/1 is original Power of Attorney.
ii) Ex.RW1/2 is the photocopy of the voter's list, which is now marked as Mark A. RW1 was cross-examined by Sh. Ravinder Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for petitioner. During his cross-examination, he deposed that he is working as a Civil Contractor with Indian Railways. Mr. Kuldeep Arora (respondent no.2) who is his real brother had gone to Canada in the year 2011 and he settled there with his family. He voluntarily said that his wife has expired. He RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 25 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:30 +0530 is working as Driving Inspector in Driving School there. Earlier when he went to Canada he was operating a truck at that time. The respondent no.1 Pradeep Arora has been doing the business of supply electric items to buyers situated outside Delhi. The present petition stands decreed against respondent no.1 Pradeep Arora. He had no knowledge about the municipal number of his office situated in Gali Chaha Indara. The tenanted premises is situated in Chaha Indara, bearing municipal no.2157/2 is located behind Jublee Cinema. He further stated that in his opinion, the office of Pradeep Arora is in the same Chaha Indara in which the tenanted premises is also situated. His brother Kuldeep Arora will definitely come to India about 2 years time. His brother Kuldeep Arora is graduate. He had gone to the tenanted premises several times. He visited the tenanted premises about 10 years back. The tenanted shop was lying close for about 10 years from then. He voluntarily said that it has been forcibly closed on account of some dispute/misunderstanding between Pradeep Arora and Ramesh Chand the real brother of the petitioner and 2- 3 other shopkeepers. He denied that the tenanted shop has been closed by the aforesaid persons or that Pradeep Arora closed the tenanted shop on account of taking money from several persons or that Sh. Pradeep Arora is not working in Chaha Indara area.
He had gone on the upper floors of the building where the tenanted shop is located. It consists of 3 floors. He again said that only ground floor, 1" and 2nd Floors. On the ground floor, there are 3 shops each in 2154 and 2157 respectively. On the first floor there was only one shop in 2155 which is just above 2154. On the second floor, just above 2155 there are 2 shops. He admitted that both the first floor and second floor bears the same number RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 26 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:35 +0530 i.e. 2155. He denied that he had never visited these properties. He did not remember whether he had filed a site plan or not. He denied that the site plan filed by the petitioner is correct. He stated that as said earlier, after 10 years he had not entered the building where the tenanted shop is located but he had thereafter been visiting that area several times. He had never gone to City of Indore and area of Kalani Nagar personally. His attention was drawn to the paragraph 3 of the affidavit Ex.RW1/A. He stated that the contents of the said paragraph no.3 is based on the information obtained from the enquiry done by him through a friend namely Sandeep Gupta @ Raju, who has expired. Smt. Bhagwati Devi is the mother of Ms. Meena Rani the petitioner and Sh. Ramesh. He denied that Smt. Bhagwati Devi always used to reside in Chah Indara. He voluntarily said that she used to always reside at Indore. He had visited the home of Sh. Ramesh once many years back. They have several 8-10 properties in Chah Indara, however, he had not visited all the properties owned by Sh. Ramesh and Bhagwati Devi. He did not know whether Smt. Bhagwati Devi used to reside in 2149 Chah Indara. He had stated in his affidavit that the 2149 Chah Indara was got vacated by Smt. Bhagwati Devi on the basis of information given by Sh. Sandeep. Sh. Sandeep owned a shop in Chah Indara. He did not remember the number of the above mentioned shop. He denied that Sh. Sandeep had a shop in the second floor of premises of 2155, Chah Indara or that Sh. Sandeep was also tenant of petitioner or that contents of para no.4 of affidavit Ex.RWI/A are wrong. He knew about the relinquishment deed executed by Smt. Bina Rani in favour her brother Ramesh but that is not true. He did not know about the property in respect of which the said RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 27 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:39 +0530 relinquishment deed was executed. He had not read the contents of said relinquishment deed and he did not know whether it was registered or not. He also did not know whether the said relinquishment deed related to property no.2148 and 2149 Chah Indara or that it was duly registered. The present case is pending since 11-12 years. He denied that the son of the petitioner Sh. Abhishek had started sitting in the shop of Sh. Ramesh Chand his maternal uncle for 4-5 months prior to filing of the present eviction petition or that for the last 9 months he has been sitting at the shop of aforesaid maternal uncle or that contents of para no.5 of affidavit Ex.RW1/A are wrong. As per his knowledge the type of business which is alleged to have been carried by his maternal uncle cannot be done by Sh. Abhishek for the reason given by him in the affidavit. There exist two shops and one staircase between the shop of Sh. Ramesh Chand and tenanted shop. He denied that Sh. Abhishek was not doing any service for 4-5 months prior to the filing of the present eviction petition and till date or that contents of para no.6 of affidavit Ex.RWI/A are wrong. He admitted that he do not have personal knowledge about the accommodation described by him in para no.7 of the affidavit. He further denied that contents of para no. 8 of affidavit Ex.RWI/A are wrong. The visiting card of CA R.K. Gurbani was given to him by his friend Sh. Sandeep. His attention was drawn to para no.9 of Ex.RW1/A. He stated that he has no personal knowledge of the contents of the said para. He did not personally visit Indore. He denied that contents of para no.10 of affidavit Ex.RWI/A are wrong. His attention was drawn to para no.11 of Ex.RW1/A. He stated that he had personally made enquiry from the local occupants of Chah Indara where the tenanted property is RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 28 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:42 +0530 located. He had made a enquiry from a tea vendor whose name is Sonu. The tea vendor stall was situated approximately 50-100 mtrs. from the tenanted premises. He did not identify or recognize Sh. Abhishek. He had seen no other person in the shop other than Sh. Ramesh and his sons. He had not visited the shop on any fix time. Since the present petition has been filed he had not visited the shop personally, however, he passed from that area twice or thrice in a year. He admitted that most of the information in the affidavit is on the basis of what he has got to know from his friend Sandeep. He denied that the entire knowledge is hearsay and thus it has no value or that contents of para no.11 of affidavit Ex.RW1/A are wrong. He did not know whether Ramesh Chand Yadav is tenant in the shop, where he is running his shop under the name and style of M/s Meenakshi Electricial. He admitted that no godown is lying vacant in premises No. 2155, Chah Indare, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi and no shop is lying vacant in premises No. 2156, Chah Indara, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi. Two shops/godown are vacant at Second Floor of premises No. 2156 and one godown is vacant at the second floor of premises No. 2155. He denied that no shops/ godown is vacant at the second floor of premises Nos. 2155 and 2156. The business is not being carried out at all the floors in all the buildings located in Chah Indara. He voluntarily said that some portion in some buildings are being used for residential purposes. He denied that Bhagwati Devi was not residing with the petitioner as a family member or that Bhagwati Devi was residing with her son Ramesh Chand Yadav. He admitted that Bhagwati Devi was owner of property No. 2159, Chah Indara, however he denied that no shop is vacant in premises No. 2159, Chah Indara. He had RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 29 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:46 +0530 not seen property No. 2149 recently. He couldn't tell the details of the said property and did not know whether Bhagwati Devi was the owner of property No. 2149. He also did not know whether the property No. 2149 is commercial or residential or whether Bhagwati Devi was in possession of property No. 2149 or whether any shop is vacant in property No. 2140-2141 and 2146. He denied that Ramesh Chand Yadav is not habitual litigant or that contents of para no. 7 of his evidence affidavit are wrong. He admitted that Ramesh Chand Yadav is doing business of electrical goods and his brothers Pardeep Kumar Arora and Kuldeep Kumar Arora were joint tenant in the property in question. He further admitted that he is not aware of all the facts of the present case and do not have personal knowledge about all the facts of the present case.
9. Final arguments were heard.
10. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that ownership of petitioners and landlord-tenant relationship is not disputed. It was further argued that vague objections are taken by respondent regarding availability of two vacant godowns in 2145-2157 at second floor and no evidence was produced to show that said godowns are vacant. It was further submitted that property no. 2159, 2148 and 2149 belongs to mother of petitioner and property no. 2140, 2141 and 2146 belong to brother of petitioner and petitioner has no cncern with the said properties. It was further argued that even if any portion of said properties is vacant, the mother and brother of petitioner are not willing to provide the same for bonafide requirement of the petitioner. It RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 30 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:50 +0530 was further argued that even if the son of petitioner does not have any know-how about the proposed business, his maternal uncle can help him and respondent cannot direct the landlord regarding landlord's bonafide requirement. It was further argued that from testimony of RW2, it is evident that respondent no. 2 is settled in Canada and when respondent no. 2 can carry out the business in tenanted premises from Canada, similarly, son of petitioner can also carry out business from tenanted premises even though he is resident of Indore. It was further argued that entire testimony of RW1 who is attorney of respondent no. 2 is hearsay and cannot be relied upon. He relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Another v. Indusind Bank Ltd. and Ors. (2005) in this regard. He further argued that there is no bar to commence a business of which a person is having no knowledge. He relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Manmohan Singh v. Arjun Uppal and Anr. (2023) in this regard.
11. On behalf of respondent, it was submitted that ownership of petitioners and landlord-tenant relationship is not disputed. It was further argued that petitioner's case has to stand on its own and benefit cannot be taken of respondent's evidence. It was further argued that petitioner's son is not capable of running the proposed business as he is of dull acumen, has no personality, is working as an office boy and is settled in Indore with family. It was further argued that present petition was filed in 2012 when son of petitioner Abhishek was 30 years old and if the requirement was bonafide why no steps have been taken to commence any business till date. He had an opportunity and RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 31 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:54 +0530 space to commence the business from Indore as well as from property of petitioner's mother/brother but no steps were taken. In the petition, it is mentioned that son of petitioner wants to start a business- the word used is 'wants' and not 'requires' and hence, there is no requirement but merely a wish/desire. It was further argued that at some places it is stated that proposed business is of electrical goods and at some places, it is stated that proposed business is of electronic goods and hence, petition is contradictory and vague. It was further argued that shop is available with the petitioner at Indore and same can be utilized for proposed business. It was further argued that two shops out of three shops on ground floor are in possession of brother of petitioner not as a tenant but out of love and affection and hence, can be utilized for alleged bonafide requirement. It was further argued that when brother of petitioner can use the property of petitioner then why can't petitioner use property of his brother as brother of petitioner is also having several properties in his name. It was further argued that main witness i.e. Abhishek, for whose bonafide requirement the present petition is filed, was never examined. It was further argued that there is no proof that he ever came to Delhi or gained knowledge/experience as alleged. It was further argued that in replication, it is admitted that petitioner and her family are based in Indore. It was further argued that from entire record it is apparent that petitioner is permanent resident of and well settled in Indore and has no intention to shift to Delhi. It was further argued that certain shops of the petitioner are vacant and petitioner has merely denied the shops to be vacant without producing any tenant to testify in this regard. No cogent evidence was led to show that three shops on second floor of property RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 32 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:43:57 +0530 2156 are occupied. It was further argued that petitioner has given two shops on ground floor to brother thereby creating artificial shortage. He further argued that after death of her mother, petitioner no. 1 relinquished her share in her mother's property in favour of her brother and this shows that there is no bonafide requirement as alleged. Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 also relied upon certain judgments in support of his arguments.
12. Entire record is perused.
Applicable law and its application to present facts
13. The three essential ingredients which are required to be proved by the petitioner for securing eviction under Section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act are as follows:
(i) That petitioner is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises;
(ii) That petitioner requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him;
(iii) That petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
Ingredient (i) Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlord- tenant between Petitioner and Respondent:
14. It is the case of case of the petitioners that Petitioners purchased the property ad measuring 39 Sq. yards bearing Municipal No. 2154 to 2157 Chah Indara, H.C. Sen Road RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 33 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:44:00 +0530 from Sh. Bimla Devi vide sale deed dated 17.07.1975 (Ex.PW1/1) duly registered with Sub-Registrar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. Petitioner no.1 and Late Sh. Bhola Ram, father of petitioner no.2 had let out the tenanted premises to the respondents on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/- per month.
15. The fact that petitioners are the owners and landlords and respondent no. 2 is a tenant with respect to the tenanted premises is not disputed by respondent no. 2.
16. In view of the above, it is concluded that the petitioners are competent to have filed the present eviction petition as they are the owner as well as landlord in respect of the tenanted premises for the purpose of section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. Accordingly, ingredient (i) is established in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.
Ingredients (ii) and (iii) Requirement of premises bonafide by the petitioner for himself and for members of his family dependent upon him and non- availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation:
17. It is not on the mere asking of the landlord that premises are required for his bonafide requirement that an eviction order is to be passed; rather it is to be seen whether the requirement of the landlord is genuine or not and whether the landlord is having another reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi.
RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 34 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:44:04 +0530
18. The petitioners' claim is that petitioner no. 1 requires the tenanted premises for her son who wants to start a business of electrical goods from the said premises and that petitioner no. 1 or his son are not having any other suitable accommodation for said purpose.
19. It is the case of respondent no. 2 that there is no bonafide requirement of petitioner no. 1 or her son as alleged for the following reasons:
i. Son of petitioner no. 1 is not capable of running any business as he is of dull acumen, has no personality and is capable of working only as an office boy. ii. Petitioner no. 1 and her son with their family are settled in Indore and have no intention of shifting to Delhi. iii. Son of petitioner no. 1 never came to Delhi and never gained any experience from brother of petitioner no. 1 to run the proposed business.
iv. In the petition, it is mentioned that son of petitioner no. 1 'wants' to start business. The term used is 'want' and not 'requirement' and hence, the alleged bonafide requirement is mere wish/desire.
v. Different requirements are specified in the petition as at some places, proposed business is stated to be of 'electrical goods' and at some places, it is stated to be of 'electronic goods'.
vi. Had the requirement as alleged been bonafide, petitioner no. 1 and her son were having following alternate suitable accommodation from where the proposed business could have been commenced:
RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 35 of 42 UPASANA SATIJA Digitally signed by UPASANA SATIJA Date: 2025.05.28 16:44:07 +0530
a) Out of three shops on ground floor of the property no. 2154, two are in possession of brother of petitioner no. 1 from where he is running his business under the name and style of Minakshi Electrical. The said two shops are given out of love and affection by petitioner no. 1 to her brother and hence, are very much available for alleged bonafide requirement.
b) In property no. 2155, there are two shops- one on first floor and one on second floor and shop on second floor is lying vacant.
c) In property no. 2156, again there are two shops- one on first floor and one on second floor and shop on second floor is lying vacant.
d) Shops in property no. 2159 which belongs to petitioner no. 1's mother are also vacant.
e) Brother of petitioner no. 1 also owns several properties in the same area and when petitioner no.
1 is allowing his brother to use two shops in her property, similarly her son can also use the property of her brother for alleged bonafide requirement.
20. Regarding availability of alternate accommodation, Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.M. Qasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma (1981) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that if it is pointed out that there is some vacant premises with the landlord which he can conveniently occupy, the element of need in his requirement RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 36 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:44:10 +0530 would be absent. He also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Saroj Kumar v. Lalit Kumar & Brothers (2024).
Further Ld. Counsel for respondent relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahabhar Production Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon (1998) and of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Raj kumar v. Hari Prashad (deceased) thr. LRs (2003) and Sukh Dev Raj Sharma v. Kuljeet Singh Jass (2012) wherein the terms bonafide and requirement were discussed and were distinguished from mere desire or fancy or whim.
21. The pleas raised by the respondent are being examined in light of the principles/test laid down by superior courts. It is alleged by respondent no. 2 that son of petitioner no. 1 is incapable of running any business as he is of dull acumen, has no personality and is capable of working only as an office boy. Further he has been regularly working as office boy in Indore and is settled in Indore with his family and has no intention of moving to Delhi. Further, it is mentioned in the petition that son petitioner no. 1 wants to start the business; hence, there is no requirement to start the business but merely a wish/desire. Petitioner no. 1 has concocted a story that her son visited Delhi and stayed with his maternal uncle for gaining experience/knowledge whereas son of petitioner no. 1 is not having any experience/knowledge of running the alleged business. It is further contention of respondent no. 2 that different requirements are cited in the petition and it is not clear whether son of petitioner no. 1 wants to start of business of electric goods or of electronic goods which further goes on to show that there is no bonafide requirement.
RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 37 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:44:14 +0530
22. Merely because a person is not highly educated doesn't imply that he is of dull acumen and incapable of succeeding in anything. It is not for the respondent to assess the capability of son of petitioner no. 1.
23. The counsel has emphasized on the fact that word used is 'wants' and not 'requires'. If we go by dictionary meaning, then the word 'want' may signify wish or desire however, the fact that said words are used interchangeably in common parlance cannot be denied.
24. Similarly, the terms electric goods and electronic goods may signify different articles to a well educated person however, the said terms are again interchangeably used by common people. Even otherwise, there is no bar upon the landlord to utilize the tenanted premises for any business other than that mentioned in the petition. The exact nature of business proposed to be commenced may not be even mentioned in the petition.
25. Further, the fact that son of petitioner no. 1 is working as an office boy demonstrates the fact that he is not very well settled in Indore and hence, strengthens the alleged requirement to be bonafide.
26. Further, there is no pre requisite to start a business that a person should gain any knowledge or experience in the same. Lack of knowledge/experience is no bar to commence a RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 38 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:44:18 +0530 business. Accordingly, the plea of respondent no. 2 that there is no proof that son of petitioner no. 1 ever came to Delhi and that same is a concocted story is irrelevant.
27. Respondent no. 2 has alleged availability of alternate accommodation. Accommodation at Indore, even if available, will not qualify as other accommodation as the other accommodation is required to be available in Delhi. Even otherwise, suitability has to be seen from perspective of landlord.
It has been specified in the petition that son of petitioner no. 1 wants to commence the business from tenanted premises as the tenanted premises is located in Asia's biggest electrical market. The fact that tenanted premises is located in Asia's biggest electrical market was denied by respondent no. 2 however, the fact that area is commercial and there are several entities engaged in similar business in the said area has come on record.
28. Again, respondent no. 2 has alleged availability of shops at second floor of property no. 2155 and 2156. Petitioner no. 1 has denied the availability of said premises and has stated the same to be under tenancy. It is the contention of respondent no. 2 that petitioners merely denied availability of said shops but no document was produced by petitioner no. 1 in support of said fact nor did she examine the respective tenants. Although petitioner no. 1 did not produce any material to show that said shops are under tenancy; however, even respondent no. 2 did not produce any evidence to show that the alleged shops are vacant and available. Shop of respondent no. 2 and alleged vacant shops are part of same premises however, no efforts were made by RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 39 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:44:21 +0530 respondent no. 2 to place on record photographs to show that said shops are vacant. Even otherwise, even if available, again the suitability is to be seen from the perspective of the landlord. Alternate accommodation should be similar to tenanted premises to qualify as suitable accommodation. The alternate accommodation is alleged to be available on second floor whereas tenanted premises is a ground floor shop. Shops situated at first and second floor cannot be said to be similar to shops situated at ground floor as the shops situated at ground floor are bound to attract more customers than the shops situated at first and second floor.
29. Further, respondent no. 2 has alleged that there are two shops in property no. 2154 on the ground floor which petitioner no. 1 has permitted her brother to use out of love and affection. Petitioner no. 1 has denied the said fact and stated his brother to be a tenant in said shops. There is no reason to doubt the same. Mere absence of any rent receipt will not imply that there is no landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner no. 1 and her brother. Even otherwise, the fact remains that said shops are being used and hence, are not available.
30. As regards property of mother and brother are concerned, the tenant cannot dictate the landlord to use property of his/her relatives. When petitioner no. 1 is having her own property in the same area, why should she be at mercy of her mother or brother more so when the tenant is not even occupying or using the property. As per record, respondent no. 2 has not been using the tenanted premises since prior to filing of present RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 40 of 42 Digitally signed by UPASANA UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 16:44:25 +0530 petition and is settled in Canada. Almost 13 years have elapsed since filing of the present petition and respondent no. 2 never appeared in this case and has contested the case through his attorney. DRC Act was enacted to protect the interest of tenants and to protect them from unreasonable evictions. The fact that respondent no. 2 is settled in Canada, has never appeared in the present case during all these years and that he never testified in the present case suggest that defence of respondent no. 2 is not bonafide.
31. Petitioner no. 1 has thus, successfully established her bona-fide requirement of premises in question and that she or her son have no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. Accordingly, ingredients (ii) and (iii) are also established in favour of the petitioners.
Conclusion
32. Taking into view the facts and circumstances of the case, it is concluded that petitioner no. 1 has been able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14(1) (e) DRC Act.
33. Accordingly, the present eviction petition is allowed and eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioners and against respondent no. 2 directing respondent no. 2 to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. Shop admeasuring 5ft x 10ft at ground floor, a part of property no. 2157, Chah Indara, H.C. Sen Road, Delhi-110006 as shown in red colour in the site plan filed along with the petition in terms of Section 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The landlord however shall not be RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 41 of 42 UPASANA SATIJA Digitally signed by UPASANA SATIJA Date: 2025.05.28 16:44:28 +0530 entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this judgment.
34. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court.
On this 28th day of May, 2025 Digitally signed by UPASANA This Order contains 42 pages UPASANA SATIJA SATIJA Date:
2025.05.28 and each page is signed by me. 16:44:32 +0530 (UPASANA SATIJA) SCJ-cum-RC, Central District Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi RC ARC 950/2017 Bina Rani Vs. Pradeep Kumar Arora Page No. 42 of 42