Delhi District Court
Sh. Rohit Bhatnagar vs Sh. Sanjeev Arora on 17 September, 2022
____________________________________________________________________
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA
ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC (NORTH), ROHINI COURT, DELHI
____________________________________________________________________
RC ARC No. 37/2014 (Old)
132/16 (New)
In the matter of:-
1. Sh. Rohit Bhatnagar
271, First Floor, Dhakka,
Permanand Chowk,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 110009. .....Petitioner/ Landlord
VERSUS
1. Sh. Sanjeev Arora
2. Ms. Reenu Arora
Both at:
Shop No. 1, 271, Ground Floor, Dhakka,
Permanand Chowk,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 110009. .....Respondent/ Tenant
Date of Institution : 27.08.2014
Date reserve for order : 26.07.2022
Date of pronouncement : 17.09.2022
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION 14(1)(e)
READ WITH SECTION 25B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 1/16
JUDGMENT
1. This is an application under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (Act 59 of 1958) for recovery of possession of the premises i.e. Shop no. 1, 271, Ground Floor, Dhakka, Premanand Chowk, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009 (hereinafter referred as suit property) as shown in colour red in the site plan attached with the application.
2. The brief facts for the decision of the application as per petitioner is that the he is owner of let out of premises i.e. Shop No. 1, 271, Dhakka, Permanand Chowk, Kingsway Camp, Delhi and running a business in the name and style of M/s. Pragati Enterprises from the said premises and having his family fully dependent upon him. It is averred that shop No. 1 is situated at Ground Floor of property the suit property and was the joint property of petitioner. It is further stated the petitioner became owner of the suit property by virtue of decree dated 21.12.2010 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Suit No. CS (OS) No. 619/20058 titled as Rajnish Bhatnagar vs. Ramesh Behari Lal & Ors.,. petitioner became the sole and absolute owner of the said premises measuring about 163 sq. yds. consisting of ground floor, first floor and second floor with roof top.
Description of the suit property: It is averred that ground floor consisting of four rooms out of which one room is ad-measuring 80 sq. yards, two rooms ad- measuring 40 sq. yds. each and one room is about 3 sq. yards. It is averred that petitioner is in possession of room ad-measuring 80 sq. yds and re-structured the same for the purpose of showroom for his business and two rooms of about 40 sq. yds are being let out to tenant and the small room ad-measuring about 3 sq. yds is let out to Bank of Baroda for the purpose of ATM after the earlier tenant Sh. Pritam Singh Gill vacated the same.
Use of suit property and other property: It is averred that petitioner is using first floor of the premises as his corporate office for his business. It is further averred RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 2/16 that petitioner is also owner of the residential property bearing No. 172, First Floor, Delhi Bengali Hindu Co-Operative House Building Society, Tagore Park, Delhi- 110009 which is being used for residential purpose by the petitioner. It is further averred that due to shortage of space, petitioner took a premises bearing No. 16A, R.K Complex, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi from Sh. Naresh Gupta on a monthly rental basis for the purpose of storage of material such as pipes, lightening arrestors, earthing bags, metal plates, nut bolts, screws, copper strips, stage curtains and lights, CCTV, fire alarm, etc. Bona fide need and no suitable alternate accommodation available: It is averred that Sh. Naresh Gupta demanded the petitioner to vacate the premises by 30 th June, 2014. It is further averred that due to renovation work, petitioner shifted his family to second floor at bearing No. 271, Dhakka, Permanand Chowk, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-110009. Hence, petitioner has no other alternative and suitable accommodation to run his commercial activities. It is averred that the suit property let out to respondent is suitable for the storage purpose. Hence, the suit property is required urgently. In this backdrop, it is prayed by the petitioner that eviction order may be passed under section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act against the respondent.
3. Notice of present petition was issued to the respondent. After service of summons of the eviction petition, the respondent had filed leave to defend application and vide order dated 07.02.2017, leave to defend was granted to the respondent.
4. The application is contested by the respondent by way of written statement of defence, wherein preliminary objections are taken to the effect that the present petition has not been presented bonafide as the petitioner has filed this petition only to pressurize the respondent to vacate the suit premises. The petitioner himself admitted that he is having approx. 3680 sq. ft. commercial space in the same premises bearing No. 271, Dhakka, Parmanad Chowk, Kingsway Camp, Delhi, whereas respondent is having only 180 sq. ft. hence, the suit property is not required RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 3/16 by the petitioner. It is stated that the intention and motive of the petitioner to enhance the rent from Rs. 500/- per month to Rs. 5,000/- per month which was declined by the respondent. It is stated that respondent is having only one shop on ground floor with covered area of 180 sq. ft. only and petitioner is in possession of more than 720 sq. ft. on ground floor, more than 1470 sq. ft. on first floor and 1470 sq. ft. on second floor. Hence the petitioner has ample space and there is no bonafide requirement for the petitioner as he is in possession of more vacant space in the building. It is denied that no rent is being paid to the landlord from 27.10.2006 as his share being co-owner. It is stated that petitioner became absolute owner only on 28.12.2011 and prior to that all the due rent was duly paid to the owner of the premises, who had issued the rent receipts. It is submitted that when respondent got the notice from the petitioner immediately tendered the rent in cash in respect of tenanted shop till August 2013 and on his refusal, sent through demand draft which was duly encashed. It is submitted that thereafter respondent again sent the money-order till 05.05.2014 which was also refused by the petitioner and then respondent was forced to deposit the same in the court under section 27 of DRC Act. The petition under DR was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this court after refusal of the summons. It is submitted that petitioner himself admitted that he refused the DR petition. It is denied that petitioner has let out the property to the respondent and is the sole bread earning member of the family, however, the property was let out to the respondent by the maternal grand father of the petitioner about 30 years back and since then respondent is running his business. It is submitted that wife of the petitioner is in senior position in Government job and earning handsomely and paying handsomely income tax. It is further submitted that apart from the above entire property, petitioner is also having HIG Flat in good posh locality at Tagore Park, Model Town Delhi and also maintaining cars. The petitioner is well settled in business and have sufficient business accommodation already available to them.
RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 4/16 It has been alleged that the petitioner is owner and in possession of following properties:
1. First floor on the suit property measuring around 1470 square feet
2. Second floor on the suit property measuring about 1470 square feet
3. Property bearing No. 172, First Floor, Delhi Bengali Hindu Co-Operative House Building Society, Tagore Park, Delhi-110009
4. Shop No. 16A, R. K. Complex, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi
5. House at Model Town.
Therefore, the petitioner is already having sufficient commercial accommodations and premises for his business and he have no bonafide requirement of the premises in question. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. Replication has been filed by the petitioner to the written statement of the respondent wherein the averments made in the application for eviction have been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondent in his Written Statement is traversed.
6. In support of his case, the respondent got examined himself as RW1 who during his examinationin-chief, tendered his affidavit Ex. RW1/A. RW1 was cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and thereafter, evidence on behalf of the respondent was closed on 05.07.2017.
PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
7. Petitioner examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. P-1. She relied upon the following documents are as under:-
a) Final decree in a suit for partition as Ex. PW1/1 (OSR); b) Photographs of each floor as Ex. PW1/2, de-exhibited as Mark A. RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 5/16
c) No Due certificate from Owner Naresh Gupta as Ex. PW1/3, de-exhibited as Mark B.
d) Letter dated 06.04.2015 received from one of supplier i.e., BXB Co. Ltd.
through e-mail as Ex. PW1/4;
e) Certificate under section 65B of Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/5;
f) Site plan of premises occupied by respondent as Ex. PW1/6;
g) Photographs of shop of the tenant at Commercial space at 1424, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi- 110009 as Ex. PW1/7, de-exhibited as Mark C.
h) Computer print out of property tax payment receipt for the assessment year 2014-15 as Ex. PW1/8, de-exhibited as Mark D.
i) Photographs of the heavy material used in business as Ex. PW1/9, de-exhibited as Mark E.
j) Legal notice dated 27.10.2006 alongwith courier receipt as Ex. PW1/10, de-exhibited as Mark F.
k) Copy of notice dated 28.04.2014 alongwith postal receipt as Ex. PW1/11 and Ex. PW1/12.
Thereafter PE was closed on 22.05.2019 and matter was fixed for respondent's evidence.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
8. Respondent opted not to lead any evidence. Accordingly, vide statement dated 07.08.2019 of Sh. Sanjeev Kamra, Ld. Counsel for respondent, respondent's evidence was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
9. The present application has been made under clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958, which after passing of judgment in Satyawati Sharma's case (supra) is to be read as follows:
RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 6/16
10. In a petition for bonafide necessity filed under Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, four aspects have to be shown by the landlord to succeed, the onus of which is upon the petitioner/landlord.
Firstly, their exists a relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties.
Secondly, the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises. Thirdly, the landlord required the premises bonafidely for his needs/or for his family members.
Fourthly, landlord must not have an alternate, suitable
accommodation.
It has been alleged in the written statement by the respondent that the petitioner is owner and in possession of following properties:
1. First floor on the suit property measuring around 1470 square feet.
2. Second floor on the suit property measuring about 1470 square feet.
3. Property bearing No. 172, First Floor, Delhi Bengali Hindu Co-Operative House Building Society, Tagore Park, Delhi-110009.
4. Shop No. 16A, RK Complex, Mahendru Enclave, Delhi.
5. House at Model Town.
Therefore, the petitioner is already having sufficient commercial accommodations and premises for his business and he have no bonafide requirement of the premises in question. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
11. Replication has been filed by the petitioner to the written statement of the respondent wherein the averments made in the application for eviction have been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondent in his Written Statement is traversed.
RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 7/16
14.(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself or for any memberof his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whosebenefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation;
12. In the light of the provisions of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 and the pleadings of the parties following points fall for the determination of this court, namely:
1. Whether the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises?
2. Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
3. Whether the premises are required bona fide by the petitioner?
4. Whether the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation?
13. In so far as first point for determination is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that as per the contents of para 3(a) and 18(a) of the petition, the petitioner is the owner and the landlord of the suit premises. As per the corresponding paragraphs of the written statement, the respondent has not disputed the ownership of the petitioner qua the premises and he has also not disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. In fact the respondent has stated that after the partition deed, the rent was sent to the petitioner by way of money order which was refused by the petitioner. Thereafter the rent was deposited in the court by way of an application under section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act.
RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 8/16 Therefore, in the light of the pleadings of the parties and other material placed before this court, in so far as the purpose of clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 is concerned, it is clear that the petitioner is the owner/landlord and there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
14. The next questions which fall for the determination are whether the premises are required bona fide by the petitioner and also whether the petitioner is having sufficient alternate accommodation with her not.
As per the contents of the petition, the suit premises is required by the petitioner for storage of material such as pipes, lightening arrestors, earthing bags, metal plates, nut bolts, screws, copper strips, stage curtains and lights, CCTV, fire alarm, etc. Further, petitioner has also affixed photographs of the materials which comprises of steel rods , goods packed in wooden boxes which are of reasonably big size, goods packed in jute bags etc. It is contended by the respondent that the petitioner is having other reasonable suitable accommodations and there is no bonafide need of the petitioner.
15. In the present case to judge whether the premises are required bona fide by the petitioner for commercial purposes, the statements made by him in the application for eviction and replication and in the testimony are required to be noticed alalyzed.
Analysis of the evidence led by the petitioner-
(a) Site plan- The identity of the suit property i.e shop no.1 is not disputed. It is further stated that the suit property is stated correctly in the site plan Ex. PW1/6.
(b) Suit Property-The respondent states that the petitioner is in possession of 720 sq feet but it is not elaborated how this area is sufficient for the storage requirements of the petitioner. No evidence is led in the contradiction to show RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 9/16 that the space available on the ground floor is more than sufficient. Further, in written statement, it is alleged that the petitioner has filed a false site plan but no counter site plan is filed by the respondent. It is a settled law that in case no counter site plan is filed, the site plan filed by the petitioner stands admitted by the respondent. In the case of Rishal Singh Vs. Bohat Ram (2014) 144 DRJ 633 it was held, when the tenant controverts the accuracy of the site plan filed by the landlord, he is required to file a copy of the site plan he believes to be correct so as to guide the Court in finding the discrepancies of the site plan filed by the landlord; without such site plan filed, mere contentions raised to this effect will be considered meritless. Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Satish Kumar Vs. Subhash Chand Agarwal 2012 SCC OnLine Del 4447 (SLP (C) No.27431/2012 -15th October, 2012) held that if a tenant does not file his site plan showing that the plan filed by the owner is incorrect, then, the site plan filed by the owner would be assumed to be correct.
Hence, site plan filed by the petitioner is correct.
(b) Bona fide requirement of the petitioner In his evidence affidavit, the petitioner (PW1) re-iterated & re-affirmed the contents of the petition. The suit property is required for storage of material such as pipes, lightening arrestors, earthing bags, metal plates, nut bolts, screws, copper strips, stage curtains and lights, CCTV, fire alarm, etc. The petitioner further states that suit property is preferred for this purpose as the office of business operations is on the first floor and a show room can also be built within the same premises so that most of the business of the petitioner can be run from one place. Petitioner has also affixed photographs of the materials which comprises of steel rods, goods packed in wooden boxes which are of reasonably big size, goods packed in jute bags etc. These items appears to be heavy and the ground floor seems to be a better place of storage. While under cross examination, nothing material came out to support the contentions of the respondent. At no stage is stated by the respondent that the need to store the RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 10/16 goods for the business is not the bona fide need. Further, entire defence is that the space to store the goods is already sufficient, but no evidence is led on the point if the need it self is not a bonafide one.
The respondent has failed to prove availability of any shop which would be available as well as suitable for the bonafide need of the petitioner. In the WS , the respondent has given details of various suitable alternate accommodation. Each will be separately analyzed below.
(d) Ground floor- The respondent states that the petitioner is in possession of 720 sq feet but it is not elaborated how this area is sufficient for the storage requirements of the petitioner. No evidence is led in the contradiction to show that the space available on the ground floor is more than sufficient. It is also stated in the written statement the need of suit property is false as few months before filing the present application, the petitioner has rented out another shop at the same floor. It is further contended if the need of space was genuine, same would not have been rented out. No question is put to the petitioner as to how the shop rented out was not sufficient for the storage purpose. Use of a particular space is governed by various objective and subjective factors which could have been explained by the petitioner but no question was put to the petitioner in this regard. Hence, except suit property, there is no other space at the ground floor available with the petitioner for the storage purpose.
(e) First Floor- As per the application, the first floor is being used as corporate office and it is further stated that a showroom for display of his products is to be done. Considering the space is being used as corporate office, same is not suitable for storage. Photographs are place on record by the petitioner to prove that the office business is being run from this floor. In addition to that petitioner is also planning a showroom of display of goods. Considering the further, showroom in the same space, the space of storage may not be available on this floor as well. Further, it is stated by the respondent that area of 1470 sq. feet is sufficient for the business requirements is RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 11/16 not tenable as it is upto the landlord how the property will be used. It was held by the Apex Court in the matter "Uday Shankar Upadhyay & Ors. Vs. Naveen Maheshwari, VIII (2009) SLT 429", that once it is not disputed that the landlord is in bonafide need of the premises, it is not for the courts to say that he should shift to the first floor or any higher floor. Shops and business are usually conducted on the ground floor, because customers can reach there easily. The court can not dictate to landlord which floor he should use for his business. The Delhi High Court in re "Viran Wali Vs. Keldeep Rai Kochar, cited as 174 (2010) DLT 328", laid down that any business which is being run from the ground floor will attract more customers than the business being run from the basement and the tenant can not landlord as to how and in what manner the landlord should use his own property. The bona fide requirement i.e. storage of goods is not disputed hence the petitioner cannot be directed by the respondent how to use the space owned by him.
Hence, considering the discussion, first floor is not the alternate suitable accommodation.
(f) Second floor- Second floor is a residential property and the suit property is of commercial nature, hence they both cannot be compared as both serve different purpose. No evidence is led by the respondent to prove that second floor is not the property of residential nature. Petitioner has placed on record the photographs which to prove that the floor is being used as guest house. Further, petitioner seeks the suit property for storage purpose and taking all the material to second floor will be a cumbersome process. As per the photos of the storage items are placed on record, it consists of long steel rods, wooden boxes and jute bags . All these are heavy items and taking them all the way to second floor will be difficult and cumbersome and also a dangerous activity for the workers involved in the same. Further, tenant cannot dictate how the landlord must be using his property.
Further, as per the application , the second floor will be used as an accommodation for guests. In the case of Vinod Kapoor Vs. Kailash Sethi, 2008 RLR RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 12/16 576, the Hon'ble High Court held that the requirement of a guest room is bonafide. Further, being on second floor, it will not be suitable to be used for storage if a space at ground floor is owned by the petitioner.
Hence, this property cannot be considered as a suitable alternate accommodation as it is residential in nature and it is being used as a guest house, which is a bona fide need as already held by Hon'ble High Court.
(g) Tenanted shop at C-51, Mehendru Enclave -
It is contented by the respondent that the petitioner is the owner of the property. As per the petitioner, this was a tenanted premises and he has already vacated the same. NOC issued by the landlord showing that petitioner has vacated the shop is on record. But it is stated by the respondent that this is a false statement. The onus to prove that the property was owned by the petitioner is on the respondent and respondent has led no evidence in this regard. Further, considering the requirement of the petitioner, it is always better for the business if more and more of the operations are done from one place, so the requirement of storing the equipments at one place is good for the business.
Ex. PW1/4- this is a letter issued by one BXB Electronics Co. Ltd. whereby it is stated that "during inspection of store/warehouse it was found that the area of store is very less, the mics, speakers, amplifiers were stacked one above the other, there is lot of humidity, no air - conditioning, and lot of rodents. It is further suggested in the letter that petitioner should make a proper store with bigger space to accommodate the goods in proper manner and further recommended that the store / warehouse shall be close to your Head Office / showroom as during any inspection of client it will be easy to set up the test bench in practical and can demonstrate the product . We hope you will consider our request to make our partnership healthy and working". Nothing is brought on record by the respondent that this space is sufficient for the business for the petitioner. It is a settled law that as far as the usage of space is concerned, the landlord is the best judge for the same and RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 13/16 if it is established that there is a bon fide need then the manner of usage of space is the prerogative of the landlord.
Further, if the petitioner owns a space himself, he cannot be forced to use a rented space for his business requirements while the tenant enjoys the suit property. The petitioner cannot be expected to pay rent for running a business to earn livelihood when he has a space available with him and suitable for running the same business. On this subject, reference can be have to decision given in the case of "Kailash Chand Vs. Chand, 1998 RLR 603" wherein it was held that if an owner is living in the tenanted premises, he is entitle to seek eviction of his tenant and this desire cannot be held to be imaginary, fanciful or unnatural.
Further, as per the cross examination of the petitioner, this shop is already vacated. No separate oral or documentary evidence is brought on record by the respondent to show that the petitioner is the owner of this shop. Hence, the defence of the respondent that the petitioner is without merits. The petitioner's version that he has vacated this tenanted shop also stands unrebutted. Hence, this property cannot be considered as a suitable alternate accommodation.
It has been argued by the ld. Counsel for the respondent that petitioner has concealed material facts and also best evidence has not been produced by the petitioner. Moreover, there is no plea in the entire petition with respect to the suitability and nonavailability of alternative accommodation with the petitioner. This argument is not sustainable as I have gone through the petition and in the petition, the petitioner has very categorically mentioned that there is paucity of space with the petitioner and in the absence of suitable accommodation, the petitioner is suffering in his business. Therefore, premises in question is required bonafide by the petitioner .
Therefore, it is clear that no other suitable alternative accommodation is available with the petitioner and the respondent has failed to point out even a single property which is sufficient for the commercial needs of the petitioner. The respondent has also failed to bring any cogent evidence on record to show that the RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 14/16 need of the petitioner is not bonafide or genuine nor any contradiction came out from the cross-examination of the petitioner evidence.
16. Now the remaining defences raised by the respondent will be taken up. Petitioner was cross examined at length on the point regarding number of workers employed by the petitioner . It came out from the cross examination that at least 14 people are working permanently with the petitioner. This does not affects the bona fide requirement. Further, defendant stated in the written statement that he has sent the rent by way of money orders but they were not received by the petitioner as a result of which the respondent deposited the same by filing a petition under section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act. This aspect will not be dealt in this judgment as the petition is not moved under section 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control act.
17. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent has failed to disclose any of the properties belonging to the petitioner which may be stated to be sufficient alternate accommodation. Furthermore, the respondent has not placed on record any document on the basis of which he can say that any of the properties being owned by the petitioner is available and suitable for his bonafide needs.
18. From a reading of the application for eviction, replication and the testimony of the petitioner, it is clear that as per the version of the petitioner, he bona fide requires the tenanted premises. Therefore, the bonafide requirement of the petitioner stands established alongwith the factum that he has no other alternative accommodation available with him to meet his requirement. In the light of the material on record, especially the pleadings of the petitioner ,it is found that the premises is bona fide required by the petitioner for commercial his needs
19. In view of above discussion and the mandate of subsection (4) of section 25B of Act 59 of 1958, the present application for eviction is allowed. The petitioner RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 15/16 are found entitled to recover the possession of the premises i.e. Shop No. 1, 271, Ground Floor, Dhakka, Permanand Chowk, Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 110009 shown in colour red in the site plan attached with the application.
20. In view of the provisions of subsection (7) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 this order for recovery of possession of premises shall not be executed before the expiration of a period of six months from today.
In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on 17th September, 2022 (NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA ) ACJ-CUM-CCJ-CUM-ARC (NORTH) ROHINI COURT, DELHI RC ARC No. 132/16 Rohit Bhatnagar Vs. Sanjeev Arora Anr. Date of Judgment - 17.09.2022 Page No. - 16/16