Delhi District Court
Surinder Kumar Kalra vs Satbir Singh on 11 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY SINGH PARIHAR
ACJ-CUM-ARC, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI, DELHI
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
CNR No. DLNT030006282015.
Surinder Kumar Kalra
S/o Late Mohan Lal Kalra
R/o H-7/A, First Floor
Model Town III, Delhi
......Petitioner
VERSUS
Dr. Satbir Singh
S/o Late Attar Singh
R/o F-5/3, Model Town II
Delhi-110009
And also available at:
Shop in Property bearing no. H-7/A
Model Town III, Delhi-110009 .....Respondent
Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh AJAYPage 1 of 46 by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:50:51 +0530
Date of Institution : 09.04.2015
Date of reserving the order : 09.01.2025
Date of pronouncement : 11.06.2025
ORDER
1. The present petitioner seeks the eviction of the respondent from one shop on ground floor of property bearing no. No. H-7/A, Model Town III, Delhi, as indicated in red color in the site plan annexed to the petition (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") under section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act"), read with Section 25B of the DRC Act.
2. In essence, the petitioner assert ownership of suit property vide registered sale deed dated 14.01.1997 executed by Sh. Mulakh Raj Juneja in his favour. It is averred that respondent is a tenant in the suit premises and is running a Clinic with the aid and assistance of his wife Dr. Manpreet Kaur. It is averred that petitioner's family consist of himself, his wife and three daughters out of which one daughter Ms. Jyoti Kalra has been married. It is averred that eldest daughter of petitioner namely Ms.Taruna Kalra has done Diploma in Fashion Designing and has also done Diploma in Aviation and Hospitality and she has not married and wants to establish her own business with the aid and assistance of Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY Page 2 of 46by
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:50:57 +0530
petitioner. It is further averred that the younger daughter of petitioner namely Ms. Neha Kalra has also done a Diploma in Dietician and Nutrition and she also intends to start her own business. It is averred that the petitioner and his daughters do not have any other reasonable or suitable commercial accommodation available with them for carrying on their business. It is averred that although Ms. Neha Kalra is owner of shop bearing no. F-6/2, Model Town, Delhi but the same has already been let out by her to Khalsa Glass House at a monthly rent of ₹19,000/- besides other charges and as such, the said premises are also not available with her for carrying on her business. It is averred that married daughter of petitioner Ms. Jyoti Kalra also intends to start her business as her husband is not having any independent business and had been assisting his father in his business but there is friction between them and thus, the petitioner also wish to establish him independently.
3. It is averred that all three daughters of petitioners are dependent upon the petitioner for their need of commercial accommodation and as such, the petitioner requires the suit shop. It is averred that petitioner has been carrying on business of property dealer and of Tent House in property no. H7A, Model Town, Delhi and the said shop has no other space which can be given for the use and occupation of petitioner's daughters and rather petitioner also faces shortage Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 3PARIHAR of 46 SINGH Date:
2025.06.12 PARIHAR 16:51:04 +0530 of space due to non availability of proper godown for Tent House business run by him and a shop which was previously occupied by Sh. G D Tuteja has been got vacated pursuant to order dated 08.07.2015 of Ld. Rent Control Tribunal and the said portion has been clubbed with the shop of petitioner for doing his aforesaid business of property dealer and Tent House. It is averred that neither the petitioner nor his family members i.e. his daughters have any other sufficient and alternative accommodation which could enable them for running the businesses and as such, the tenanted premises are required by the aforesaid daughters bonafide for carrying out business.
4. Summons were served upon the respondent who filed leave to defend application with document(s) alongwith separate detailed affidavit, however on 29.09.2018 respondent filed amended leave to defend. The respondent has taken following grounds inter alia which can be outlined as follows:
5. It is averred that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands. The petitioner has misrepresented and concealed true facts. It is submitted that for the purpose of making easy money, petitioner purchases properties and institutes false litigation against tenants for their ejectment and thereafter, sells the property at a higher price. It is argued that when the petitioner purchased the subject property all the four shops Digitally signed Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir AJAY by AJAY SINGH RC ARC No. 238/2016. Singh Page 4 of 46 PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:51:10 +0530 were occupied by tenants out of which three shops were got vacated by the petitioner. It is argued that petitioner wants to evict the respondent so that he can sell the property at very higher rate.
6. It is further averred that the petitioner purchased suit property from Sh. Mulakh Raj Juneja in 1997. Right after the purchase, the petitioner pressurized respondent to vacate the subject property. Since respondent did not vacate the subject property, the petitioner instituted eviction petition against respondent under section 14(1)(b) of DRC Act. In the said eviction petition, it was alleged that respondent sublet the property to Dr. Manpreet Kaur, however the petitioner did not disclose that Dr. Manpreet Kaur is the wife of the respondent. The petition was dismissed by the learned Controller on 13.04.2011 and appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 26.04.2014. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 29.08.2014. The SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 16.03.2015. It is argued that intention of the petitioner is to harass the respondent by keeping him entangled in litigation.
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner has three vacant shops in the subject property consisting of four shops out of which one shop is rented out to the respondent. The adjoining Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Page 5 of 46 Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:51:19 +0530 shop was under the tenancy of Sh. Tuteja (Chemist). Other two shops were under the tenancy of Sh. Jain. It is submitted that said three shops were got vacated by the petitioner recently and these three shops are lying vacant. The vacancy of three shops shows that petitioner has no commercial accommodation need for himself or for his daughters. It is submitted that the petitioner is not letting out these three shops as he wants to sell the whole building after getting all the shops vacated in the building.
8. It is averred that daughters of petitioner namely Ms. Taruna Kalra, Ms. Jyoti Kalra and Neha Kalra are 37 years, 34 years and 27 years of age respectively and none of the daughters have done any business till date. It is submitted that petitioner has not mentioned the name and type of business which his daughters wants to start. It is thus argued that the daughters of the petitioner do not have any requirement of commercial accommodation, and it is a false story created by the petitioner to vacate the respondent.
9. It is averred next that the petitioner, his wife and daughters are the owners of numerous properties. However, the petitioner has not disclosed all the properties owned, possessed or rented by him, his wife and daughters. The petitioner has not disclosed as to which of the properties are tenanted and did not disclose details of tenants.
Digitally signedAJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir SINGH Singh PageDate:
6 of 46 PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:51:29 +0530
10.It is averred that Ms. Jyoti Kalra is married in a very rich family and her husband is the owner of various factories, including a factory at Maya Puri. It is submitted that Ms. Jyoti Kalra owns property worth crores of rupees and already having income of lakhs of rupees. As per income tax return for the year 2014-15 of Ms. Jyoti Kalra, she has shown her annual income of about ₹6 lakhs which includes income from property also.
11.It is further averred that petitioner has falsely alleged that he is carrying on business of property dealer and of Tent House from the present property. It is argued that had the requirement of daughters been genuine then they would have started their business from recently vacated three shops.
12.It is further averred that the petitioner has misrepresented the facts. It is submitted that Ms. Jyoti Kalra is married to Sh. Varun Nagpal and she is living with her in-laws and husband in Maya Puri. It is argued that she has cordial relations with her in-laws and that she had a male child 3-4 months back. It is argued that a housewife who gave birth to a son at the age of 33 years instead of bringing up the child would not rather start some new business at this age. It is argued that Ms. Jyoti Kalra is not dependent on the petitioner.
13.It is further averred that Ms. Neha Kalra, daughter of Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh PagePARIHAR 7 of 46 SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:51:38 +0530 petitioner also owns various properties. She has let out one shop forming part of property bearing no. F-6/2, Model Town, Delhi to Khalsa Glass House about an year back. It is argued that had she been in need of any commercial premises then she could not have let out the said shop. It is also argued that she is in service and her annual income is already more than 7 Lacs. and therefore, it can not be imagined that she will leave service and start some unknown business.
14.It is averred that Ms. Taruna Kalra is also earning more than 5 Lacs per annum and it can not be imagined that she is dependent on the petitioner.
15.It is thus argued that none of the daughters of the petitioner are dependent upon him as all the daughters are having annual income in lakhs of rupees.
16.It is averred that elder daughter of petitioner, Ms. Taruna Kalra got the degree of BA in 1999 and got her diploma from Aptima Air Hostess Academy in 2003. She also got the diploma from Lisa Institute of fashion Private Limited in 1999-2000. It is submitted that she has finished her studies more than 12 years back. It is further submitted that Ms. Jyoti Kalra and Ms. Neha Kalra also finished their studies about 10 years and 5 years back respectively. It is thus argued that daughters could have been accommodated in one of the shops Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH AJAY PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 8 of 46 SINGH Date:
2025.06.12 PARIHAR 16:51:50 +0530 in the subject property which got recently vacated. It is argued that this conduct of the petitioner shows that he concocted false ground of bonafide need after he lost eviction petition filed on the ground of subletting. It is also submitted that the petitioner was having vacant shops in property bearing no. F-14/16 Model Town, Delhi, the petitioner could have given any shop from the said property to his daughters.
17.It is further averred that petitioner is the owner of property bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi comprising of four shops out of which one shop was let out to Guru Kripa Enterprises a few months back. Second shop was let out to Divine Petals about two years back. Third shop was let out to Spice Hotspot about 3-4 years back and fourth shop was let out to M/s Anytime about four years back. It is therefore argued that had the petitioner been in need of commercial property for himself or for his daughters then he could not have let out these four shops. It is argued that after filing of affidavit of leave to defend, the shop occupied by Guru Kripa Enterprises got vacated in August, 2017 which was let out recently by the petitioner to Sh. Tarun Nagpal who is carrying out business of readymade garments in the name of 'Bliss'. It is argued that one shop on the first floor of property bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi was also vacant which was let out to Sh. Pankaj Jindal 2-3 months back.Digitally signed
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh by AJAY SINGH PagePARIHAR 9 of 46 SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:51:56 +0530
18.It is averred that present property i.e., H-7A, Model Town, Delhi is about 500 sq. Yds. in which on one side there are four shops and on other side (front side) there are four commercial rooms which are vacant and lying locked. It is thus argued that these commercial rooms can be utilized by petitioner for his needs.
19.It is further averred that petitioner has not filed site plan of entire building instead petitioner has filed site plan showing only shop in dispute. It is argued that petitioner has concealed the fact of other shops by not filing site plan of entire building.
20.It is next averred that the wife of the petitioner Ms. Rani Kalra is the owner of commercial property bearing no. H-3, Model Town, Delhi having area of 450 sq. yds. It is thus argued that wife of the petitioner is in possession of three commercial rooms situated on the ground floor which are lying vacant. It is argued that this fact is also concealed by the petitioner.
21.It is submitted that present petition is barred by Order 2 rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (herein after referred as CPC). It is argued that present ground of bonafide requirement could have been taken by petitioner in previous eviction petition filed on the ground of subletting.Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 10 of 46 SINGH Date: PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:52:01 +0530
22.It is averred that the petitioner has concealed the fact that his wife Ms. Rani Kalra had also filed eviction petition against Sh. Jai Narain in respect of one shop in property bearing no.
H-3, Model Town, Delhi wherein the ground for eviction is same as in the present petition.
23.It is averred that petitioner is having his office of sale purchase of properties in bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi, however it is falsely stated by petitioner that he is carrying out his property dealing business from present property i.e., H-7A, Model Town, Delhi. It is argued that whole of the first floor of property bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi is lying vacant and locked.
24.It is lastly averred that Ms. Rani Kalra (wife of petitioner) sold one commercial property two years back and earned capital gain of more that ₹2 lakhs. It is argued that had the petitioner been in need of any commercial property the wife of petitioner would not have sold the commercial property.
25.The leave to defend is contested by petitioner by filing reply stating therein that the application for leave to defend moved by respondent does not make out any triable issue and is an attempt only to delay the eviction petition and as such, deserves rejection. The averments made in the leave to defend have been denied by the petitioner. It is averred that Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh by AJAY SINGH Page PARIHAR 11 of 46 SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:52:06 +0530 unfortunately as the petitioner was not fully aware of facts when he filed the earlier eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (b) DRC Act hence could not specifically plead the fact of sub-letting and assignment by respondent to M/s Herb-e-Hyatt which was being run by his wife Dr. Manpreet Kaur Ahuja and his brother Gurbir Singh and due to said reason, petitioner could not succeed. It is averred that respondent himself is a government employee being a Doctor in a government hospital and can not carry on any commercial activity or practice but he has been doing so, by playing fraud upon the Government. It is submitted that Ms. Jyoti Kalra and Ms. Taruna Kalra own a godown at Ghaziabad Border which is let out to a Transport Company since June 2000 and thus, the same can also not be used for commercial activity and to substantiate the same, petitioner has annexed copy of rent agreement and copy of Income Tax returns. It is reiterated that petitioner has no other commercial accommodation available to him except the suit premises. It is stated that though Ms. Jyoti Kalra has been married to Sh. Varun Nagpal and is residing at her matrimonial home, she can still be dependent on petitioner for her need of commercial accommodation as petitioner has three daughters who have to succeed to his estate. It is denied that petitioner is owner of property no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi and it is submitted that petitioner had purchased only 812 sq feet area in the said property comprising of one shop, one latrine and one miani Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY by AJAY Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page SINGH
12 of 46 PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:52:14 +0530 constructed above latrine and courtyard with right to use common passage through sale deed dated 29.10.1997 and said portion was converted by petitioner into two shops where two old tenants i.e. Hot Spot Retials Pvt Ltd./ Spice Shop and Sh. Sanmit Singh of Guru Kripa Enterprises is runing a Samsung Showroom for last several years. It is further averred that the shop of Guru Kripa Enterprises was let out more than three years back. It is stated that shop of M/s Anytime belongs to his brother Sh. Narender Kalra and shop of M/s Divine Petals is belonging to the nephew of petitioner Sh. Rahul Kalra and such, no portion is available to petitioner. It is also submitted that Ms. Neha Kalra has taken up service at present with a Gym as she has no commercial space available with her to start her own venture. It is averred that respondent has failed to disclose any alternative property available with the petitioner and his family to meet his current requirement and thus, no triable issue is raised in the leave to defend.
26.Arguments heard. Record perused.
27.In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish that:-
i. He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 13 of 46 SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:52:20 +0530 member of his family dependent upon him.
iii.He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
28.In case of eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, the Rent Controller has to see the affidavit filed by the tenant and the counter affidavit filed by the landlord. The controller is not required to conduct a full fledged trial and should only see that if the affidavit of the tenant raise any triable issues.
29.In Precision Steel Engineering Works and Anr. Vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1518", the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :- "If the averments in the affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that facts alleged and disclosed are controverted by the landlord because the stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly possible that a tenant may fail to make good the defence raised by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are materially different from each other and one cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility has to be shown.".
30.It was further held :- "Statutory duty is cast on the Controller to give leave as the legislature uses the expression 'the Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 14 ofby 46 AJAY SINGH AJAY PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:52:33 +0530 Controller shall give' to the tenant leave to contest if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord for an order for recovery of possession. The Controller has to look at the affidavit of the tenant seeking leave to contest. Browsing through the affidavit if there emerges averment - of facts which on a trial, if believed, would non-suit the landlord, leave ought to be granted. Let it be made clear that the statute is not cast in a negative form by enacting that the Controller shall refuse to give to the tenant leave to contest the application unless the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order etc.... The language of sub- section 5 of section 25B casts a statutory duty on the Controller to give to the tenant leave to contest the application, the only precondition for exercise of jurisdiction being that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of 13; possession of the premises on the ground mentioned in section 14(1) (e).
31.In Nirmala Kumari & Ors vs Girish Kakkar & Anr RC.REV.
156/2018 (17th May 2024), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that ARC is only required to sift/comb through the application for leave to defend and to take stand of landlord as genuine. It was held :- "27. The learned ARC is not required to take a magnifying glass and minutely scrutinize the averments made Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 15 of 46 PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:52:40 +0530 in the Eviction Petition. Once the landlord has stated that he requires the tenanted property for a particular use, the Courts are required to believe the statement to be true and genuine, unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical. The learned ARC is further required only to sift/comb through the averments made in the leave to defend application and see whether the tenant has established with cogent and material defence, facts which disentitle the landlord from an Eviction order. This Court in "Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Prakash"
[2010 SCC OnLine Del 351] has clearly held that:- Praveen v. Mulak Raj, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7721, "7... The Controller is required to sift/comb through the application for leave to defend and the affidavit filed therewith and to see whether the tenant has given any facts/particulars which require to be established by evidence and which if established would disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction. The test is not of the tenant having controverted/denied the claim of the landlord and thus disputed questions of fact arising; the test is to examine the pleas of facts and then to determine the impact thereof.".
32.In light of the above guidelines enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High court, this court has to see whether affidavit of leave to defend raises any triable issues.
Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. SINGHPage 16 ofDate:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh 46PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:52:46 +0530 Ownership and landlord-tenant relationship
33.In leave to defend affidavit the respondent has not challenged or denied the ownership or landlord status of petitioner. In view of the deemed admission of respondent it can be safely said that there is tenant-landlord relationship between petitioner and respondent. Hence first ingredient of sec 14(1)
(e) is fulfilled by petitioner.
Bonafide requirement
34.Qua bonafide requirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100, held :- ".....The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Page 17by Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh AJAY SINGH of 46 PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:52:53 +0530 deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. Facts such as the cordial relationship between a landlord and her daughter-in-law or that he is comfortably residing in the present building are not relevant in judging the bona fides of the claim of the landlord. Otherwise it would appear that landlord can think of residing in his or her own residential building only when cracks develop in the relationship between him and his other kith and kin".
35.In Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. Bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should not be normally interfered with.
36.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by LRs. vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co.observed that the word `reasonable', connotes that the requirement or need is not fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire. The Word `requirement' coupled with the word reasonable means that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. A reasonable and bona fide requirement is something in Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. SINGH Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 18 of 46 Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:52:59 +0530 between a mere desire or wish on one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity at the other end. It may be a need in presenti or within reasonable proximity in the future.
37.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors, 1979 AIR 272, 1979 SCR (2) 1 while dealing with civil appeal in relation to Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 held :- "...The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire as the High Court has done in this case. It seems to us that the connotation of the term 'need' or 'requirement should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for one landlord to get a decree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act which affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds. This appears to us to be the general scheme of all the Rent Control Acts, prevalent in other State in the country. This Court has considered the import of the word requirement and pointed out that it merely connotes that there should be an element of need."
38.In light of above broad guidelines set by Hon'ble Courts, it has to be seen whether the requirement of petitioner is Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Page 19by Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh AJAY SINGH of 46 PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:53:06 +0530 bonafide or not.
39.It is contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has not come to the court with clean hands; that he has misrepresented true facts and concealed true facts; for making easy money, petitioner purchases properties and institute false litigation against tenants for their ejectment and sells the property at a high price; that when petitioner purchased the subject property all four shops were occupied by tenants out of which three shops were got vacated by petitioner. It is vehemently argued that petitioner want to evict the respondent so that he can sell the property at very high rate. It is argued that petitioner filed another eviction petition against respondent on the ground of subletting, however petitioner concealed this fact. It is urged that present petition is barred by Order 2 rule 2 of CPC and the ground of bonafide requirement could have been taken by petitioner in previous eviction petition filed on the ground of subletting.
40.With regard to the argument of the respondent that petitioner has filed present eviction petition in order to sell the subject property at higher rate, to my mind, the said contention is liable to be rejected as the respondent has not mentioned any earlier incident where the petitioner has done so. Merely filing of eviction petition does not lead to the conclusion that the respondent is trying to sell the subject property and the Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. SINGH Page 20Date:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh of 46 PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:53:11 +0530 same merely seems to be an apprehension of the respondent without any basis.
41.Section 19 of DRC Act provides for restoration of possession to tenant if the tenanted premises is not used or transferred by landlord. Section 19 of DRC reads :- "(2) Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises as aforesaid and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises are held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or the premises having been so occupied are, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession, re-let to any person other than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Controller under sub-section (1) or the possession of such premises is transferred to another person for reasons which do not appear to the Controller to be bona fide, the Controller may, on an application made to him in this behalf by such evicted tenant within such time as may be prescribed, direct the landlord to put the tenant in possession of the premises or to pay him such compensation as the Controller thinks fit".
42.Hence, if the landlord obtains eviction and does not occupy the premises, let out the same or transfers the possession then tenant can always apply for restitution under section 19 of the DRC Act. Therefore, this ground does not raises any triable Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh SINGH Page 21Date:
of 46 PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:53:17 +0530 issue and accordingly stands rejected.
43.As far as earlier eviction petition filed by petitioner is concerned, the same is a separate cause of action being filed on the ground of subletting. Each ground mentioned in section 14 of DRC Act provides for separate ground of eviction on the basis of different cause of action. The petitioner has clearly disclosed filing of earlier petition of subletting in the present petition. Hence, this contention raised on behlaf of the respondent is meritless.
44.It is next contended on behalf of the respondent that the present petition is barred by Order 2 rule 2 of CPC. It is therefore, argued that this relief could have been claimed in earlier petition filed on the ground of subletting. This argument is misconceived for two reasons, first, CPC does not apply to proceedings under Chapter III A of DRC Act dealing with grounds of eviction enumerated in section 14(1)
(e) and section 14 A, B, C, D of DRC Act and second, bonafide requirement is different ground of eviction having separate cause of action. The petitioner may join two cause of actions, however by itself separate suit filed on the basis of independent cause of action can not be dismissed due to operation of bar of Order 2 rule 2 of CPC. It can be understood by an example :- if a landlord requires a tenanted house for his bonafide requirement then he can file an Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Page 22 by Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh AJAY SINGH of 46 PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:53:22 +0530 eviction petition on this ground. Suppose the tenant has not paid rent for last several months then landlord can also file eviction petition on the ground of non payment of rent. If the submissions of Ld. Counsel for respondent is taken to be correct then in this example the landlord has to wait for at least two months for filing eviction petition for bonafide requirement as for filing eviction petition on the ground of non payment of rent landlord has to give notice of two months for payment of rent. Such interpretation is not only absurd but also inconsistent with the scheme of section 14 of DRC Act. Each ground mentioned in section 14 of DRC Act provides separate cause of action for which a landlord can file separate eviction petition. In such scenario, the submissions of Ld. Counsel for respondent in this regard stand rejected.
45.Arguments qua daughters of petitioner. • Ms. Jyoti Kalra - It is argued that Ms. Jyoti Kalra is married in a very rich family and her husband is the owner of various factories, including a factory at Maya Puri; owns property worth crores; having income of lakhs of rupees; has shown her annual income of about ₹6 lakhs in her income tax return inclusive of income from property also; that she is living with her in-laws and husband in Maya Puri and having cordial relations with her in-laws and that she gave birth to a male child 3-4 months back and therefore, it was contended that housewife who got a son at the age of Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir SinghSINGHPage 23 of 46 Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:53:31 +0530 33 years instead of bringing up the child would not rather start some business which she has never thought of starting till the age of 33 as she finished her studies about 10 years back. Hence, it was argued strenuously that there is no bonafide need and she is not dependant on the petitioner.
• Ms. Neha Kalra - It is urged that Ms. Neha Kalra also owns various properties; let out one shop forming part of property bearing no. F-6/2, Model Town, Delhi to Khalsa Glass House about an year back and hence, no need of any commercial premises else she would have let out the shop ; she also finished her studies about 5 years back and that she is in service and her annual income is already more than 7 Lacs. It is contended vehemently that it can not be imagined that she will leave her service and start some new business. • Ms. Taruna Kalra - It is submitted that elder daughter of petitioner, Ms. Taruna Kalra got the degree of BA in 1999 and got her diploma from Aptima Air Hostess Academy in 2003 and another diploma from Lisa Institute of fashion Private Limited in 1999-2000 as well as finished her studies more than 12 years back. It is argued that Ms. Taruna Kalra is also earning more than 5 Lacs per annum and she is also not dependent on petitioner.
46.With regard to dependency of married daughter, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Swaranjit Singh & Anr. vs Shrimati Saroj Kapoor RC.REV. 21/2023 held as follows:- "11. This Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH AJAY PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 24 of 46 SINGH Date:
2025.06.12 PARIHAR 16:53:37 +0530 Court finds that the bona fide requirement of a married daughter in an Eviction Petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, has been considered and a consistent view has been taken that the requirement of a married daughter, would be t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f t h e R e s p o n d e n t / L a n d l a d y. 11.1 In a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sunder Singh Talwar vs. Kamal Chand Dugar, in which, while dealing with a similar factual situation, it was held that it is not a universal rule that a married daughter can never be dependent upon her parents: "30. The Supreme Court in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, (2002) 5 SCC 397:
AIR 2002 SC 2256, held as follows: ""24. We are of the opinion that the expression "for his own use" as occurring in Section 13(3)(a)(iii) of the Act cannot be narrowly construed. The expressions must be assigned a wider, liberal and practical meaning. The requirement is not the requirement of the landlord alone in the sense that the landlord must for himself require the accommodation and to fulfill the requirement he must himself physically occupy the premises. The requirement of a member of the family or of a person on whom the landlord is dependent or who is dependent on the landlord can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord for his own use. In the several decided cases referred to hereinabove we have found the pari materia provisions being interpreted so as to include the requirement of the wife, husband, sister, children including Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016.
SINGH Page 25Date:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh of 46 PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:53:43 +0530 son, daughter, a widowed daughter and her son, nephew, coparceners, members of family and dependents and kith and kin in the requirement of landlord as "his" or "his own" requirement and user. Keeping in view the social or socio- religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or a particular 2018 SCC Online Del 8376 region, to which the landlord belongs, it may be obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. If the requirement is of actual user of the premises by a person other than the landlord himself the Court shall with circumspection inquire : (i) whether the requirement of such person can be considered to be the requirement of the landlord, and (ii) whether there is a close inter-relation or identify nexus between such person and the landlord so as to satisfy the requirement of the first query..............." 32. Hence, it is not a universal rule that married daughter cannot be dependent upon her father. Even otherwise in my opinion, in the present day and age it would be futile to argue that once the daughter is married she ceases to be responsibility of her father. A daughter has equal rights in the estate of the parents in case of intestate death. There can be no reason as to why the father would not like to settle his daughter in Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh by AJAY SINGH Page 26 of 46 PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:53:50 +0530 business or profession in the same way as he would like to settle his son. The plea to the contrary in the present facts is completely misplaced. It may also be noted that in the present case there is a clear and categorical averment that the daughter does not own any other property in Delhi and is dependent on the father to be settled. 11.2 This Court is in agreement with this interpretation. In keeping with the times, a married daughter is certainly a member of the family of the Respondent/Landlady and her requirement could be considered as the requirement of the Respondent/Landlady.".
47.Similarly, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Anil Kumar Gupta vs Deepika Verma RC. REV. 138/2015 held "12. Customarily or in common parlance a dependent would be defined as any person who is reliant on another either for financial or physical support for sustenance of life. It is pertinent to note that the word dependent or as to what constitutes a family has nowhere been defined in the Delhi Rent Control Act. Rather, the legislators consciously and deliberately have used the words "any member of family dependent on the landlord" instead of defining a clear degree of relations so as to construe a wider meaning to the aforesaid words as man is a social creature and part of a complex societal system involving myriad of relations from which he cannot be isolated. It is significant to understand that the dependency is not restricted to financial or physical Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 27 PARIHAR of 46 SINGH Date:
2025.06.12 PARIHAR 16:53:55 +0530 but will also include emotional reliance on another person. Reliance in this regard is placed on the findings of this court in M/S. Jhalani Tools (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs B.K. Soni; AIR 1994 Delhi 167, wherein the court observed that the social set up of our society is such where a married daughter continues to enjoy a place of pride in her maternal home and therefore while considering the requirement of the landlord her married daughter and her expected visits cannot be lost sight of. Similarly in Sain Dass v. Madan Lal; 1972 Ren CJ (SN) 8 (Delhi), this Court has acknowledged that the word "himself"
has to be construed to mean "himself" as cohabiting with his family members with whom he is normally accustomed to live. Therefore, contrary to the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner financial or physical incapacitation cannot be the sole premises for determining dependency on another.".
48.Thus, dependency is not only physical or financial but emotional too. Ms. Jyoti Kalra may be physically and financially dependent on her husband, however she seems to be dependent emotionally on the petitioner i.e., her father. In Indian social structure, married daughters continue to be part of their parents family, in fact, often look upto their parents for the purpose of settling not only in their marriage but also for their employment in order to lead a financially independent life. It is argued on behalf of respondent that Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 28 of 46 SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:54:00 +0530 since she is married and living with her husband who is very rich having sufficient means, therefore she can not be said to be dependent on petitioner. However, the respondent has not averred or shown how many properties are owned by Sh. Varun Nagpal as well as their details and location and whether such property is suitable for her to start a new business. Merely alleging that her husband is rich and has factory is not suffice. Respondent has specifically averred that her husband owns a factory at Maya puri without giving further details. This court fails to understand, as to how a business can be started in a factory. How it can be suitable for any other business. The accommodation should not only be available but has to be suitable too. The petitioner can not be faulted for his desire to settle her daughter though married as would be done by any respectful father. In such circumstances it can be safely said that Ms. Jyoti Kalra is dependent on her father for her need of commercial space for starting new business.
49.It is next submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that relation between Ms. Jyoti Kalra and her husband are not cordial whereas it is argued on behalf of respondent that their relation is cordial and they were recently blessed with a child. The said contention is devoid of any merit as to my mind, a women should not be left at the mercy of her husband or in- laws. If a father wants to support her daughter to establish her Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
Page 29 of 46
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:54:05 +0530
business instead of her husband then the same can not be taken as ground to treat his need on that score as concocted and fanciful. The husband of the daughter of the petitioner may be rich, he may be having factories but that does not mean that she has to depend only on her husband to establish her own business. The contention on behalf of the respondent that Ms. Jyoti Kalra can not be expected to start a new business instead of child rearing completely illogical and misconceived. A woman can do a job or start a business and at the same time can look after her child. Expecting a woman to leave a job or not to start a business for her child is a regressive thinking which needs to be done away with. Such chauvinistic arguments are required to be rejected. This argument has travelled well beyond safeguarding tenancy thus turning into disrespect to the ambition of women. Ex facie, this argument is not justified in any sense and hence stands rejected.
50.It is also contended that all three daughters have completed their studies many years back and therefore the desire to now start their business seems to be fanciful. This argument is also devoid of merits as a person may start a business at his pleasing and at any stage of life. It is not uncommon that people often leave their jobs and start some startup. In the present case, it can not be expected from daughter to first leave their job/service and then start business.
Digitally signedAJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. SINGH Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 30 of 46 Date: PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:54:10 +0530
51.At the cost of repetition it is to be reiterated that the obligation of the petitioner being a father to settle her married daughter to make her economically independent cannot be thrown away merely for the reason that her husband is very rich and owns factory vis a vis the fact that the respondent has failed to show any suitable accommodation available with husband of Ms. Jyoti Kalra. Further, merely for the reason that the proposed business intended to be started is not disclosed by petitioner is not sufficient to dispute the bonafide need of the petitioner. It is argued on behalf of petitioner that all daughters are well qualified and their qualifications have already been disclosed in petition. It is argued that the nature of business will be pertaining to their qualifications. It has been disclosed that Ms. Taruna Kalra has diploma in fashion designing and aviation, and Ms. Neha Kalra has diploma in dietician and nutrition. The contention that daughters of petitioner namely Ms. Taruna Kalra, Ms. Jyoti Kalra and Neha Kalra are 37 years, 34 years and 27 years of age respectively and none of the daughters have done any business till date is ex facie meritless as merely lack of experience can not stand in the way to start a new business.
52.In Ram Babu Agarwal vs Jay Kishan Das Civil Appeal No. 1388 of 2003, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that a person can start new business even if he has no experience. It was held as follows "6. However, as regards the question Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY Page 31by Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh AJAY SINGH PARIHAR of 46 SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:54:16 +0530 of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction was that in the petition the landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, hence there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also." In view of the court, absence of experience can not by itself create triable issue.
53.It is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent that all three daughters are earning having income in lacs hence they are not dependent on petitioner. This argument is also without merits for a simple reason that a person can not be expected to sit idle at home in the hope that he/she will start business as an when a premises is available for starting business. Any self respecting person will not be unemployed despite having qualifications. Since all daughters are doing some job they would be earning, however due to this earning it can not be said that they are not dependent on petitioner for their Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016.
SINGH Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 32Date:
of 46 PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:54:22 +0530 commercial need.
54.The deposition by the respondent does not raises any terrible issues so far as bonafide requirement is concerned. The facts in hand show that the petitioner genuinely requires the tenanted shop and therefore, the bonafide need stands duly established by the petitioner. Once it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that need is really bonafide then adverse inference cannot be drawn. Hence, this court is of the view that need of the petitioner is bonafide and a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated and same is duly proved on record.
Availability of alternate reasonable suitable accommodation
55.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan & Ors. 2025 INSC 271, recently reiterated that tenant cannot dictate landlord to get another property vacated for bona fide need. It was held :- "10. The law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord is well settled. The need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH AJAY PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 33 of 46 SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:54:54 +0530 landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction.
56.Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shri Om Prakash Bajaj vs Shri Chander Shekhar 2003IAD(DELHI)669, 102(2003)DLT746, 2003(67)DRJ674 observed "11. ... Suitability of the alternative premises cannot be determined by mere counting the rooms. But it has to be determined keeping in view the totality of the facts, the nature of need pleaded by the landlord, his and his family's standard and style of life and the purpose to which the landlord wants to actually put it after coming it into possession. The landlord has right to choose which of the accommodation is required by him for himself and the members of his family...".
57.It is further observed "14. A landlord, who did not want his tenant to occupy the premises may terminate the tenancy or upon efflux of time stipulated in the lease ask the tenant to quit in accordance with the provision of Transfer of Property Act. The Rent Acts have put a clog on this right. The landlord cannot now evict the tenant on his whims and fancy. He has to satisfy the Controller about existence of one or more of the ground of eviction specified in Section 14(1) of the Act. Right of landlord is not absolute but curtailed by various provisions of Rent Acts. Crux of the ground of eviction under clause (e) on which eviction of the petitioner is sought is that the Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 34 of 46 SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:55:01 +0530 requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenant premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires the suit premises for her own residence the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. Once the bonafide of the requirement of the premises for occupation is established by the landlord the tenant cannot ask the landlord how else he adjust without disturbing his own possession in the suit premises. Therefore, it will be unnecessary to try to ascertain as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself at another place...".
58.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh & Anr. v. Sudarshan Kumar & Anr. in case bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 231-232 of 2021 observed that it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate. It has been further observed that the genuine need of the appellant to secure vacant possession of the premises for the proposed business is found to be established. The adequacy or otherwise of the space available with the landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant to dictate.
59.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 case held that for a petition Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 35 of 46 SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:55:08 +0530 for eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act to succeed, the concept of bonafide need is required to be looked at practically in view of realities of life, neither a too liberal nor a too conservative approach must be taken. If the alternate accommodation available does not satisfy the need of the landlord or the convenience or safety of the landlord and their family members, the same cannot be held to be reasonable suitable accommodation. It was further held that the Court must consider the profession/vocation of the landlord and its family members, their style of living, habits, and their background.
60.In Nirmala Kumari & Ors vs Girish Kakkar & Anr RC.REV. 156/2018 (17th May 2024), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the Court is not to sit in the armchair of the landlord. It was held :- "29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to be best utilized by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his property and is the best person to decide which property is to be utilized in what way. The respondent cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to utilize his property. If the respondents/landlord states that the alternate premises are unsuitable to meet his/her needs, the Court is to believe the same. The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard.".
61.In light of above pronouncements it has to be seen whether Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh AJAY Page 36 of 46by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:55:15 +0530 respondent has been able to raise any triable issues so far as alternate accommodation is concerned.
62.It is contented on behalf of the respondent that three shops were got vacated by the petitioner recently and the same are lying vacant and that the daughters could have started their business from recently vacated three shops. In reply to leave to defend, the petitioner has averred that petitioner is carrying on his business of tent house and property dealer from the present property which comprises tenanted premises. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that after the vacation of three shops, the petitioner has removed partition wall and is using the space as one shop for his business of ten house and property dealer. Ld. Counsel for respondent has argued that petitioner is doing his business from property bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi.
63.The respondent has neither filed any rejoinder to the reply/ counter affidavit of petitioner nor has filed any documentary proof with his leave to defend. Merely making bald allegation that 3 shops are lying vacant is not sufficient when petitioner has categorically stated in reply/counter affidavit that these shops are being used by him for his tent and property dealer business and his is not carrying on his business from property bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi. The respondent chose not to file any rejoinder to controvert the reply/counter Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH AJAY PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 37 of 46 SINGH Date:
2025.06.12 PARIHAR 16:55:22 +0530 affidavit of petitioner for the reasons best known to him. To my mind, these contentions are liable to be rejected as there is is nothing on record to substantiate the same i.e any visiting card containing the details of the work being carried on by the petitioner from the property bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi or photograph of any hoarding or banner displaying the same.
64.In such circumstances it can not be said that 3 shops are lying vacant in subject property. Even otherwise there is nothing on record to substantiate if the said shops are suitable for the requirement of the petitioner. It is well settled now that it is the petitioner himself or herself who is the best person to explain as to what is his/ her necessity and tenant can not dictate landlord as to how he may fulfill his needs.
65.It is argued on behalf of the respondent that petitioner is the owner of property bearing number F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi. In this property, there are four shops. One of the shop was let out to Guru Kripa Enterprises a few months back. Second shop was let out to Divine Petals about two years back. Third shop was let out to Spice Hotspot about 3-4 years back and forth shop was let out to M/s Anytime about four years back. It is argued that had the petitioner been in need of commercial property for himself or for his daughters then he could not have let out these four shops.
Digitally signed by AJAY SINGHRC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh PagePARIHAR 38 of 46 SINGH Date:
2025.06.12 PARIHAR 16:55:27 +0530
66.It is next contended on behalf of the respondent that after filing of affidavit of leave to defend, the shop occupied by Guru Kripa Enterprises got vacated in August 2017 which was let out recently by the petitioner to Sh. Tarun Nagpal who is carrying out business of readymade garments in the name and style of 'Bliss'. It is argued that these shops should not have been let out by petitioner if he wanted to settle his daughters.
67.In reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that there is no vacant shop in property bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi. It is deposed that he purchased only 812 sq. Feet of this property which was converted into two shops.
It is deposed that one shop was let out to Hot Spot Retails Pvt. Ltd./Spice Shop and another shop let out to Guru Kirpa Enterprises, both shops were let out more then 3 years back from filing of present petition. It is also deposed that Guru Kripa Enterprises vacated the shop and the same was let out to Sh. Tarun Nagpal who is carrying on business in the name of 'Bliss' at a monthly rent of ₹1,27,700/-. Petitioner has also filed rent agreement. It is also deposed that other two shops namely Divine Petals and M/s Anytime do not belong to petitioner. It is deposed that shop with Devine Petal is owned by his nephew Sh. Rahul Kalra and shop with M/s Anytime is owned by his brother Sh. Narender Kalra. It is also deposed that Devine Petal has vacated the shop and same has been let Digitally signed RC ARC No. 238/2016. AJAY Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh by39AJAY Page of 46 SINGH PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:55:38 +0530 out to M/s Lechero. Perusal of rent agreement reveals that two shops on ground floor in this property are owned and let out by Sh. Narender Kalra and Sh. Rahul Kalra. The respondent has not controverted this fact by way of any rejoinder, hence both rent agreement sufficiently prove that two shops on ground floor of this property are not owned by petitioner. Other two shops owned by petitioner are already let out. Landlord can not be expected to forego additional income by way of rent to start a business when he has his own property. Moreover, the petitioner being landlord is best person to decide which property is to be utilized in what way, the controller shall not sit in the armchair of the landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to be best utilized by him.
68.It is also argued that one shop on the first floor of property bearing no. F-14/16, Model Town, Delhi was also vacant which was let out to Sh. Pankaj Jindal 2-3 months back. In reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that he has not concern with other the floor in this property. Petitioner has filed rent agreement qua first floor, perusal of which shows that Sh. Tapin Kalra is owner of first floor and he has let out first floor to My Exotic Holidays. This document makes it clear that petitioner do not own the first floor, hence the argument of Ld. Counsel for respondent is again meritless.Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh
PARIHAR
Page 40 of 46
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:55:45
+0530
69.The next contention is that present property i.e., H-7A, Model Town, Delhi is about 500 sq. Yds. in which on one side there are four shops and on other side (front side) there are four commercial rooms which are vacant and lying locked. It is argued that these commercial rooms can be utilized by petitioner for his needs. In reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that the area of this property is 435 sq.yards and there are only four shops. Other area of this property is used for residential purpose. It is also deposed that there is no other commercial rooms in this property. The said contention is also liable to be rejected as respondent did not controvert the above fact by way of rejoinder and as whether the four commercial rooms are vacant or not is not substantiated. There is complete lack of details as to when the same were got vacated; no photograph has been annexed in order to show whether the same are lying locked ; there is no mention regarding the dimensions of the rooms in order to assess the suitability thereof. Accordingly, there is no merit in the argument in this regard raised on behalf of the respondent.
70.It is next argued that the wife of the petitioner Ms. Rani Kalra is the owner of commercial property bearing number H-3, Model Town, Delhi measuring 450 sq. yds. and is in possession of three commercial rooms situated on the ground floor which are lying vacant. It is urged that the petitioner has concealed the fact that his wife Ms. Rani Kalra had also filed Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH RC ARC No. 238/2016.
AJAY Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh PagePARIHAR 41 of 46 SINGH Date:
2025.06.12 PARIHAR 16:55:51 +0530 eviction petition against Sh. Jai Narain in respect of one shop in property bearing no. H-3, Model Town, Delhi wherein the ground for eviction is same as in the present petition. Again, the said contentions are unsubstantiated and lack sufficient details as to the dimensions of the commercial rooms and as to when the same got vacated and as to who were the tenants therein. Merely for the fact that there was an eviction petition filed by the wife on the basis of same ground cannot come in the way of the present petition if the said shops are not available and suitable for the purpose of the petitioner. In reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that there is no commercial space available in this property. It is deposed that the property is required to settle three daughters hence another eviction petition filed by wife of petitioner was required to be filed. Another eviction petition is subjudice and in such circumstances it can not be said that the shop in this property is available. The requirement of present ground of eviction is that alternative property should be available, since there is tenant in this shop for which eviction petition is being contested same can not be said to be 'available' with in the meaning of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. Hence, the pendency of another eviction petition is of no consequence. The arguments raised on behalf of the respondent will not suffice to overthrow the genuine need of the petitioner only on the basis of bald averments and assertions.Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016.
SINGHPage 42 ofDate:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:56:01 +0530
71.Next it is submitted that Ms. Rani Kalra (wife of petitioner) sold one commercial property two years back and earned capital gain of more that ₹2 lakhs. It is argued that had the petitioner been in need of any commercial property the wife of petitioner could not have sold the commercial property. In reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that his wife has not sold any property. The respondent has not provided details as to which property has been sold by Ms. Rani Kalra.
The said contention is meritless due to lack of details with regard to sale and non availability thereof.
72.It is also submitted that the petitioner, his wife and daughters are the owners of numerous properties. However, the petitioner has not disclosed all the properties owned, possessed or rented by him, his wife and daughters. The petitioner has not disclosed as to which of the properties are with tenants and did not disclose details of tenants.
73.In reply/counter affidavit the petitioner has deposed that Ms. Neha Kalra is the owner of a shop bearing no. F-6/2, Model Town, Delhi which has already been disclosed in petition. It is further deposed that she has let out the shop to Khalsa Glass House in the year 2009. It is also deposed that Ms. Jyoti Kalra and Ms. Taruna Kalra owns godown in Gaziabad, UP which is let out to transport company since June 2000. It is clear that petitioner has disclosed other property of his Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016.
SINGH Page 43Date:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh of 46 PARIHAR 2025.06.12 16:56:07 +0530 daughters, however these properties are already let out and same can not be said to be available for staring business by any of them. The respondent has not provided details as to what other properties are owned and possessed by petitioner, his wife and daughters. This contentions also hold no merit as it was for the tenant to substantiate the availability of other numerous properties and details thereof in his application for leave to defend and not for the landlord to disclose the names of all the tenants in the properties, if not vacant. The burden cannot be conveniently shifted by the tenant on the landlord and thus, same cannot be treated as a triable issue.
74.It is contended that petitioner has not filed site plan of entire building instead petitioner has filed site plan showing only shop in dispute. It is argued that petitioner has concealed the fact of other shops by not filing site plan of entire building. This contention is also meritless as the respondent has not placed on record any counter site plan in order to contradict the site plan filed on behalf of the petitioner. Even otherwise the purpose of site plan is to outline and demarcate the property in question hence merely not showing other property in site plan will not raise any triable issue.
75.In written submission it is argued Ld. Counsel for respondent that petitioner have also one another property bearing no. 102, Tagore Park Extension, Model Town, Delhi. This Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH AJAY PARIHAR RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh SINGH Page 44 of 46 Date: 2025.06.12 PARIHAR 16:56:38 +0530 argument can not be dealt with as controller has to limit the findings on the grounds taken in leave to defend affidavit. Since this ground has not been taken in leave to defend same does not deserve to be dealt with.
76.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh, has specified that the Leave to Defend to a tenant cannot be granted on mere asking or in a routine manner as it will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter III-A of the Act and what has to be seen while granting leave to defend is that there is a strong prima facie case against the landlord who is seeking eviction. In the matter at hand, no ground is made out to grant leave to defend.
77.The said contentions raised questioning the non availability of alternative accommodation of petitioner are also devoid of any merit being unsubstantiated and on the contrary, makes it manifest that the said shops/space are not available to the petitioner for his needs and thus cannot be considered as alternative accommodation by any stretch of imagination.
78.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that respondent has failed to raise any triable issue vide his leave to defend application. The application for leave to defend is hereby dismissed.
Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
RC ARC No. 238/2016. SINGHPage 45 Date:
Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh of 46
PARIHAR 2025.06.12
16:56:44 +0530
79.Consequently, petitioner has proved all the ingredients of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, hence petitioner is entitled for an eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the respondent to vacate the suit property one shop on ground floor of property bearing no. No. H-7/A, Model Town III, Delhi, as indicated in red color in the site plan annexed to the petition filed with the eviction petition, in terms of Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
80.No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
2025.06.12
PARIHAR 16:56:50
+0530
Announced in Open Court (Ajay Singh Parihar)
on 11.06.2025. ACJ-cum-ARC-North
Rohini Court/ Delhi
RC ARC No. 238/2016. Surinder Kumar Kalra VS Satbir Singh Page 46 of 46