Delhi District Court
Raj Kumari Moondhra vs Dhanpat Rai And Sons on 17 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAHUL VERMA, CCJ-CUM-ARC
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS
RC ARC 509/2018
CNR No. DLCT03-0003929-2018
In the matter of :
Mrs. Raj Kumari Moondhra
W/o Sh. Madan Lal Moondhra
R/o 3917, First Floor
Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak
Delhi 110006.
...Petitioner
Versus
M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons
Through its Partner
Mr. Jagdish Chand Kapoor
R/o D-13/12,
model Town-II
Delhi-110009
...Respondent
Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958
Date of Institution : 05.06.2018
Date of Decision : 17.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the eviction Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.1/20 2025.10.18 13:13:40 +0530 petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, the 'DRC Act') with respect to the demised premises i.e. one room on the ground floor, being part of building/premise No. 3917, Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006, The demised premises is shaded in blue and bounded in green colour in the site plan annexed with the petition.
2. It is averred in the present petition:
2.1 That, the demised premises was purchased by one Smt. Gopa Devi vide sale deed registered on 26.01.1934, and she bequeathed the same in favour of her daughter-in-law i.e. the Petitioner through Will dated 16.06.87. Upon her death on 20.06.1987 the petitioner became the owner of the demised premises.
2.2 That, the respondent was inducted as tenant in the demised premises, by Smt. Gopa Devi during her lifetime vide Rent Deed dated 18.01.1983. Post demise of the said Smt. Gopa Devi, the respondent attorned the petitioner as its Landlady. The Respondent has been accordingly making payment of the monthly rent(s), to the Petitioner.
2.3 That, the demised premises is bonafidely required by the petitioner for herself as well as for her daughter-in-law, namely, Mrs. Chhaya Moondhra, who is dependent on her, to establish stitching and embroidering unit. It is submitted by the petitioner that her daughter-
in-law was earlier working with Raman Bhuraria & Associates but left after 31.03.2016 to help her daughter academically who was studying in class 12th. It is submitted that thereafter her daughter in law took home tuition but the income from it was meager. It is submitted that as Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
2025.10.18 RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.2/20 13:13:47 +0530 the financial needs of her family are growing, therefore, the said daughter-in-law of the petitioner wants to start her own work in the suit premises so that she can cater to her family needs as well as support herself and the family financially. It is submitted that the petitioner alongwith her daughter-in-law Ms. Chhaya Moondhra intend to install a complete stitching & embroidering unit, to manufactures and sell suits, readymade garments, tunics etc. It is submitted that the suit premises is most suitable for as the petitioner and her daughter-in-law are both residing in the upper floor of the same building in which the demised premises is situated.
2.4 That, the demised premises alone would not suffice and cater to all the needs and bonafide requirements of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has/is instituting/filing separate Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, against the other tenant occupying the adjacent shop/room/godown, also situated at the Ground Floor of property no. 3917, Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, Delhi-110006.
2.5 That the petitioner has no other reasonable and suitable accommodation except the demised premises. Hence, the present petition has under Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act.
3. Summons of the petition in the prescribed format was issued to the respondent. However, the respondent did not appear to contest the petition. Instead, leave to defend application was filed by Tarun Kapur and Sumit Kapur. The application seeking leave to defend the eviction petition on merits was allowed by the Court vide order dated 12.07.2019, and thereafter WS was filed by Tarun Kapur. In his Written Statement, it is admitted that Late Smt. Gopa Devi had inducted the respondent firm M/s. Dhanpat Rai and sons through it's RAHUL VERMA Digitally signed by RAHUL VERMA Date: 2025.10.18 RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.3/20 13:13:52 +0530 partners vide a lease deed. However, it is contended that the said firm was dissolved in 1997 and the tenancy rights of the said firm were assigned to Sh. Krishan Kapur, Sh. Tarun Kapur and Sh. Sumit Kapur.
It is contended that therefore the present petition filed against the respondent firm is non est as the said firm has already been dissolved. It is further submitted that despite repeated requests of the answering respondents as well as Late Sh. Krishan Kapur, the husband of the petitioner never changed the receipt of the tenancy in the name of the deponent, his brother and his father. It is further submitted that though the petitioner was not a legal heir of the late Smt. Gopa Devi, however, believing the representations of her husband who was one of the legal heirs, rent used to be handed over to him for which he used to take signatures of the respondents partners till the year 1997, and thereafter of the answering respondents or their father who were assigned the tenancy rights of the tenanted premises. It is further submitted that the demised premises was not bequeathed to the petitioner in Will dated 16.06.87 and the petitioner has been collecting rent as landlord and not the owner. In the WS, the bona fide requirement of the petitioner is opposed on the ground that the petitioner's daughter in law Ms. Chhaya Moondhra has business interests in Moondhra Bros as well as Maheshwari Testile Agency. Further, that Ms. Chhaya Moondhra is also doing business in the name of another brand namely "K Sara." It is also averred in the WS that sufficient alternate accommodation is already available to the petitioner. It is submitted that many shops and rooms are lying vacant in the Ground, First Floor and Second Floor of the property in question i.e. property No. 3917. Further, that the petitioner owns one property bearing 487, Katra Asharfi, Delhi-110006, and one shop in RAHUL VERMA Digitally signed by RAHUL VERMA Date: 2025.10.18 RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.4/20 13:13:57 +0530 Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, from where the petitioner's family runs "Shri Rajlakshmi Trading Company." Further, that the petitioner has let out one shop at the ground floor of the property no. 3917, Roshan Pura, to a tenant who is running the business of Jaipur Goldern Transport. Further, one shop has also been let out by the petitioner to Om Sai Book depot and another shop to Umesh Book Seller. It is prayed that present eviction petition be dismissed.
4. After the completion of pleadings, the matter proceeded for trial. At the stage of PE, the petitioner examined her power of attorney holder as PW-1, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/X, and was cross examined and discharged. He relied upon the following documents:-
1. Power of attorney dated Ex. PW1/1 11.10.2019 2. Site plan Ex. PW5/1
3. Will dated 16.06.1987 Ex. PW5/1
4. Death certificate of smt. Gopa Ex. PW1/2 Devi
5. Rent deed dated 18.01.1983 Ex. PW1/3
6. Hindi Translation of rent deed Ex. PW1/4
7. Counter foils of rent receipts Ex. PW1/5 to Ex.PW1/12
8. Photographs depicting Ex. PW1/13 to Ex.
residential user arrangement PW1/20
9. Photograph of other premises Ex. PW1/21 owned by respondent 12. Cheque Ex. PW1/22 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
2025.10.18 13:14:02 +0530 RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.5/20
5. Thereafter, Ms. Chhaya Moondhra tendered her evidence by way of the affidavit as Ex. PW2/A and was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the respondent and discharged. She relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of employment certificate Ex. PW1/1 (OSR) issued by Raman Bhuraria & Associates.
2. Copy of Income tax returns for the Ex. PW2/2 (OSR), assessment year 2015-16
3. Copy of Income tax returns for the Ex. PW2/3 (OSR), assessment year 2016-17
4. Copy of Income tax returns for the Ex. PW2/4 (OSR), assessment year 2017-18
6. Thereafter, Mr. Sanjeev Moondhra tendered his evidence by way of the affidavit as Ex. PW3/A and was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the respondent and discharged. He relied upon Copy of lease deed dated 15.11.2017 Ex.PW3/1 (OSR).
7. Thereafter, PW-4 Mr. Vinod Kumar Section Officer had appeared as summoned witness and deposed that he has already been transferred to Delhi Archives Department, GNCT of Delhi, 18-A, Satsang Vihar Marg, Delhi. Thereafter, PW-5 Mr. Sevajit, Record Attendant from the Department of Delhi Archives was examined. He has brought copy of Will dated 16.06.1987 Ex.PW5/1 (OSR).
8. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed upon submission of Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
9. Thereafter, matter progressed to the stage of RE, where Mr. RAHUL VERMA Digitally signed by RAHUL VERMA RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.6/20 Date: 2025.10.18 13:14:06 +0530 Tarun Kapoor examined himself as RW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.RW1/A. RW-1 was duly cross examined by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
1. Copy of the dissolution deed of the Mark A partnership reflecting the assignment of the tenancy rights in favour of three of it's partners.
2. Photographs Mark B
3. Printouts of the web portals Mark C (Colly.)
4. Internet generated copies Mark D (Colly.)
10. Thereafter, Mr. Sumit Kapur tendered his evidence by way of the affidavit as Ex. RW2/A and was duly cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner and discharged and thereafter, respondent's evidence was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.
1. Copy of dissolution deed of the partnership Mark A reflecting the assignment of tenancy rights in favour of three of its partners, already relied upon by the RW-1
2. Photographs of the shop of Sh. Rajlaxmi Mark B Trading Co., already relied upon by the RW-1 (Colly.)
3. Photographs of the online web portal of Sh. Mark C Rajlaxmi Trading Co., already relied upon by (Colly.) the RW-1 Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA Date: VERMA 2025.10.18 13:14:11 +0530 RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.7/20
11. I have heard final arguments on behalf of both the parties. On perusal of the record, I now proceed to dispose of the case by the present judgment.
12. Before delving into the merits of the present case, it would be beneficial to refer to the law governing Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and leave to defend application. It is settled law that in order to succeed in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord is required to establish three conditions:-
i. The petitioner must be owner/landlord of the tenanted premises;
ii. The tenanted premises must be bonafidely required by the landlord either for himself or for his family members dependent upon him; and iii. There is no other alternate suitable accommodation available with the landlord.
In Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India, AIR 2008 SC 3148, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has extended the scope of the provision to include areas which are commercial in nature.
13. The facts of the case and evidence led on record shall be examined in the light of legal position enunciated above.
Landlord-tenant relationship:-
14. The first ingredient which the petitioner is required to satisfy in order to succeed in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is that there must be landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Further, the landlord is not obligated to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He needs to show only that Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.8/20 VERMA Date:
2025.10.18 13:14:16 +0530 he is more than a tenant. It was held in Shanti Sharma and Ors. v. Ved Prabha and Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 193 that "what appears to be the meaning of the term 'owner' is vis-a-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant." Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) DLT 383 wherein similar views were expressed.
15. It is the case of the petitioner that the demised premises was purchased by one Smt. Gopa Devi vide sale deed registered on 26.01.1934, and she bequeathed the same in favour of her daughter-in- law i.e. the Petitioner through Will dated 16.06.87. Further, that upon her death on 20.06.1987 the petitioner became the owner of the demised premises. It is further submitted that the Respondent was inducted as tenant in the demised premises, by Smt. Gopa Devi during her lifetime vide Rent Deed dated 18.01.1983. Post demise of Smt. Gopa Devi, the Respondent, attorned the petitioner as its Landlady, and has been paying monthly rent to the Petitioner.
16. On the other hand, in the WS filed by Tarun Kapur, it is admitted that Late Smt. Gopa Devi had inducted the respondent firm M/s. Dhanpat Rai and sons through it's partners vide a lease deed. However, it is contended that the said firm was dissolved in 1997 and the tenancy rights of the said firm were assigned to the following partners of the firm namely Sh. Krishan Kapur, Sh. Tarun Kapur and Sh. Sumit Kapur. It is contended that therefore the present petition filed against the respondent firm is non est as the said firm has already been dissolved. It is further submitted that despite repeated requests of the answering respondents as well as Late Sh. Krishan Kapur, the husband of the petitioner never changed the receipt of the tenancy in Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.9/20 2025.10.18 13:14:21 +0530 the name of the deponent, his brother and his father. Further, that the demised premises was not bequeathed to the petitioner in Will dated 16.06.87 and the petitioner has been collecting rent as landlord and not the owner.
17. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that it is not in dispute that the respondent firm was inducted as tenant through its partners Om Prakash and Jagdish Chand Kapoor by Gopa Devi vide rent deed dated 18.01.1983. The present petition was filed against the respondent firm through its partner Jagdish Chand Kapoor. However, WS in the present petition was not filed by the respondent firm through its partner Jagdish Chand Kapoor, rather by one Tarun Kapoor, contending that the respondent partnership firm M/s. Dhanpat Rai was dissolved in the year 1997 and that the tenancy rights were assigned to Sh. Krishan Kapur, Sh. Tarun Kapur and Sh. Sumit Kapur.
Though, RW-1 Tarun Kapoor relied upon copy of the said dissolution deed Mark A in support of the said contention, record shows that original of the same was not brought on record. In such circumstances, the said copy of dissolution deed Mark A cannot be said to have been proved, and hence no reliance can be placed upon the same. There is no other document on record to show that Tarun Kapoor was partner in the said firm and any tenancy rights have been assigned in his favour. In fact, in order to show that the said firm has not been dissolved in the year 1997, the petitioner has relied upon cheque Ex. PW1/22 which was issued towards payment of rent by respondent firm on 27.09.2012. The issuance of said cheque towards payment of rent is admitted by RW-1 and RW-2. RW-2 also admitted in his cross- examination that the respondent firm is paying the rent in respect of the demised premises to the petitioner even till date. In view of the Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.10/20 VERMA Date:
2025.10.18 13:14:26 +0530 same, this court finds merits in the argument of the petitioner that the firm has continued to pay rent till the year 2017 which shows that the firm was not dissolved in the year 1997.
18. In such circumstances, it is clear that the said Tarun Kapoor has not been able to prove that he was partner in the said firm or that the said firm has been dissolved, whereby tenancy rights has been assigned in his favour. There is no document on record to establish Tarun Kapur had been partner in the respondent firm. It is thus clear that Tarun Kapoor is not tenant in the demised premises and has no right to contest the present petition. Since the respondent Jagdish Chand Kapoor, who admittedly was partner in the said firm, has not appeared and contested the present petition, all the averments in the petition stands admitted. Consequently, in opinion of this court, the petitioner is entitled to eviction order on this ground alone.
19. However, considering that the entire case has been contested by Tarun Kapur, this court deems it fit to discuss the objections raised by him in the WS. In respect of ownership, it is contended in the WS that the demised premises was not bequeathed to the petitioner in Will dated 16.06.87 and the petitioner has been collecting rent as landlord and not the owner.
20. With regard to the objection as to ownership, settled law is to be noted that once the landlord-tenant relationship is admitted, the tenant is estopped from disputing the title of his landlord in view of the provisions of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Puran Chand Aggarwal v. Lekh Raj, 210 (2014) DLT 131. In the present case it is admitted that the partnership firm M/s. Dhanpat Rai and sons, from whom Tarun Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.11/20 2025.10.18 13:14:30 +0530 Kapoor is tracing his tenancy rights, was inducted as tenant through its partners by Smt. Gopa Devi (mother-in-law of the petitioner) vide rent deed dated 18.01.1983. It is also admitted that the rent has been paid by respondent firm to the petitioner. Therefore, since the landlord- tenant relationship is not in dispute even by Tarun Kapoor, the objection to the title of the petitioner is not legally tenable. Tarun Kapoor in any case has not stated as to who else is the owner of the demised premise if the not the petitioner. The afore-said contention challenging the ownership of the petitioner is rejected accordingly.
21. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is landlord qua the respondent in the demised premises. The first ingredient to succeed in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act accordingly stands satisfied.
Bona fide need:-
22. In respect of the question of bona fide requirement, it would be beneficial to note the settled law that bona fide requirement of the landlord must be presumed and that the burden to refute such presumption squarely lies on the tenant. A mere assertion on part of the tenant is insufficient. It was held in case of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119 that "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 bona fide. 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 in bona fide." Similar observations were made in case of Baldev Singh Digitally signed Bajwa v. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778, which are as under: by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA Date:
VERMA 2025.10.18 13:14:35 +0530 RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.12/20 "A heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine. The tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine."
23. In the present petition, the petitioner has averred that the demised premises is bonafidely required by the petitioner for herself as well as for her daughter-in-law, namely, Mrs. Chhaya Moondhra, who is dependent on her, to establish stitching and embroidering unit.
It is submitted by the petitioner that her daughter-in-law was earlier working with Raman Bhuraria & Associates but left after 31.03.2016 to help her daughter academically who was studying in class 12 th. It is submitted that thereafter her daughter-in-law took home tuitions but the income from it was meager. It is submitted that as the financial needs of her family are growing, the daughter-in-law of the petitioner wants to start her own work in the suit premises to cater to her family needs and to support herself and the family financially. It is submitted that the petitioner alongwith her daughter-in-law Ms. Chhaya Moondhra intend to install a complete stitching & embroidering unit, to manufactures and sell suits, readymade garments, tunics etc. It is submitted that the demised premises is most suitable as the petitioner and her daughter-in-law are both residing in the upper floor of the Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.13/20 2025.10.18 13:14:39 +0530 same building in which the demised premises is situated. In Ms. Chhaya Moondhra was examined as PW-2, wherein she reiterated the same.
24. As already noted, the present petition was not contested by the respondent, rather by a third person Tarun Kapur. However, since the entire present case has been contested by Tarun Kapur, this court deems it fit to discuss the defence raised by him in the WS.
25. In the WS, the bona fide requirement of the petitioner is opposed on the ground that the petitioner's daughter in law Ms. Chhaya Moondhra has business interests in Moondhra Bros as well as Maheshwari Testile Agency. Further, that Ms. Chhaya Moondhra is also doing business in the name of another brand namely "K Sara." It is argued that therefore the petitioner's daughter in law does not require to work and has no bona fide requirement of the demised premises. Though, PW-2 Ms. Chhaya Moondhra was cross-examined at length, nothing has come on record to disbelieve her testimony with regard to her bona fide requirement. Even if it is assumed for a moment that Ms. Chhaya Moondhra is running the afore-said business, it cannot be a ground to assume that she does not want to establish the business of stitching and embroidering unit in the demised premises. It is settled law that comfortable earnings or financial well-being of the petitioner or his/her dependent cannot be a ground for denying the eviction order sought in a petition founded on bona fide need. It was held in case of Shamshad Ahmad and Ors. v.
Tilak Raj Bajaj, (2008) 9 SCC 1, that:
"Even if the tenant was right in submitting that the Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA landlords belonged to a higher strata of society, it did not VERMA Date:
2025.10.18 13:14:44 +0530 RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.14/20 mean that all throughout his life after retirement, Matloob Ahmad, husband of applicant No. 6 should not do any work. If he wanted to get himself engaged in doing some business, it could not be held that he would not be entitled to possession of property for doing business since he was rich and even without doing any business, he could maintain himself."
26. Being guided by the afore-mentioned legal position and in view of the requirement of the demised premises as projected in the petition, this Court is of the opinion that if the petitioner requires the demised premises to start her aforesaid business, and also to settle her daughter-in-law, then such requirement cannot be said to be fanciful or whimsical desire. For the purposes of the said business, it would be natural and preferable for the petitioner to look for a place of business that she herself owns, and is in the same building in which she is residing. Therefore, no mala fide is found in the requirement of the demised premises by the petitioner.
27. Accordingly, it is clear that presumption of bona fide requirement has not been rebutted, and the case of the petitioner on the aspect of her bona fide requirement has not been discredited. The bonafide nature of requirement of petitioner for the demised premises stands established, thus.
Availability of suitable alternate accommodation
28. Coming now to the third ingredient of availability of other suitable alternate accommodation, it is to be noted that to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, an alternate accommodation must be Digitally signed RAHUL by RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
2025.10.18 13:14:50 +0530 RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.15/20 reasonably suitable, in comparison with the suit accommodation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507 has held that for an eviction petition to fail on the ground of availability of alternate suitable accommodation, the availability of another accommodation shall be suitable as well as convenient in all respects as the tenanted accommodation from which the landlord seeks eviction of the tenant.
29. As already noted, the present petition was not contested by the respondent. However, since the entire present case has been contested by Tarun Kapur, this court deems it fit to discuss the grounds raised by him in the WS on the aspect of availability of alternate accommodation. In the WS it is averred that sufficient alternate accommodation is already available to the petitioner.
30. It is submitted that many shops and rooms are lying vacant in the Ground, First Floor and Second Floor of the property in question i.e. property No. 3917. Here, it is pertinent to note that in the present matter, the petitioner has projected the bona fide need of the demised premise which is located on the ground floor. Therefore, shops at the upper floors cannot be considered to be suitable as well as convenient in all respects as the tenanted accommodation which is situated at the ground floor. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Uday Shankar Upadhyay v. Naveen Maheshwari, (2010) 1 SCC 503. Further, as far as the ground floor portion of the said property no. 3917, Roshan Pura, is concerned, it is evident from the testimony of RW-1 and RW-2 that no cogent evidence has been brought on record to prove that any portion on the ground floor of the said property is lying vacant. Only if the concerned property is shown to be vacant, the Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
2025.10.18 RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.16/20 13:14:55 +0530 question arises whether it is also suitable alternate accommodation. However, as noted, no property at the ground floor owned by the petitioner is proved to be vacant. In such circumstances, the afore- mentioned properties cannot be considered to be suitable as well as convenient in all respects as the tenanted accommodation, and thus does not satisfy the condition for being suitable alternate accommodation.
31. Next, further defence has been raised in the WS that the petitioner owns one property bearing 487, Katra Asharfi, Delhi- 110006, and one shop in Shankar Market, Connaught Circus, from where the petitioner's family runs "Shri Rajlakshmi Trading Company." The petitioner on the other hand has denied the said contention submitting that she is not the owner of the aforesaid properties. Son of the petitioner namely Sanjeev Moondhra PW3 deposed that the said shop in Shanker market has been taken on lease by him at monthly rent of Rs.65,000/-. He proved lease deed dated 15.11.2017 Ex. PW3/1 (OSR). Testimony of PW-3 and genuineness of the said lease deed could not be discredited during his cross- examination. Tarun Kapur during did not bring any material on record during his evidence to substantiate his contention as to ownership of the petitioner of the afore-mentioned properties. Here, settled law is to be noted that if the tenant alleges that the landlord is owner of some other properties, then mere filing of affidavit is not sufficient and he has to place on record documents to show such ownership. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Rajender Kumar Sharma v. Leela Wati, 155 (2008) DLT 383. In the present case, since no such ownership documents have been filed, the petitioner cannot be said to be the owner of the afore-mentioned properties. Even if she is Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.17/20 VERMA Date:
2025.10.18 13:14:59 +0530 assumed to be the owner of the same, mere ownership of a property cannot be a ground to conclude that such property is alternate suitable accommodation. There is no material on record to show that the said property is lying vacant and is suitable as well as convenient in all respects as the tenanted accommodation. Therefore, no merits is found in the availability of the afore-mentioned properties with the petitioner, no triable issue arises.
32. Lastly, it is also contended in the WS that the petitioner has let out one shop at the ground floor of the property no. 3917, Roshan Pura, to a tenant who is running the business of Jaipur Goldern Transport. Further, one shop has also been let out by the petitioner to Om Sai Book depot and another shop to Umesh Book Seller.
Pertinently, it is neither the defence raised in the WS nor it has been proved that these shops are lying vacant. Since the aforesaid premises are being occupied by the tenants, it would be relevant to note the settled law that landlord cannot be dictated that he should get the property vacated from other tenants instead of the respondent. Reliance in placed on the judgment of Anil Kumar v. Sardari Lal, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2792, wherein it was held that:
"15. It is not in dispute that the respondent/landlord is the master of his choice. He cannot be compelled to vacate the other particular tenants who are occupying the other parts of the premises. It is for the respondent to choose as to which tenant he wants to get vacated. The respondent/landlord cannot be dictated that he should get vacate the other tenant instead of the petitioner."
33. It is settled law that it is the landlord's prerogative as to in Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.18/20 2025.10.18 13:15:04 +0530 which location he prefers to run business and law should not and cannot prevent such preference by a landlord in order to meet his bona fide requirement. Therefore, if the landlord says that his/her requirement would be satisfied with the demised premises, the court cannot compel him/her to get other properties vacated or adjust in such other properties. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment of Gulab Chand Pukhraj v. R.B. Jinender Raj and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 752, wherein it was held that once it is not disputed that landlord is in bonafide need of premises, court cannot dictate to landlord which floor he should use for his business. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is any property available with the petitioner which can constitute reasonable alternate suitable accommodation for the requirement as disclosed in the eviction petition. On a scale of preponderance of probabilities, it stands established that no such reasonable suitable alternate accommodation is available with the petitioner.
Conclusion
34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant petition stands allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the the respondent. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent and Tarun Kapur/any other person claiming tenancy rights through the respondent in respect of one room on the ground floor, being part of building/premise No. 3917, Roshan Pura, Nai Sarak, Delhi- 110006, as shown shaded in blue and bounded in green colour in the site plan. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided u/s 14 (7) Digitally signed by RAHUL RAHUL VERMA VERMA Date:
2025.10.18 13:15:10 RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.19/20 +0530 of DRC Act. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.Digitally signed by RAHUL
Pronounced in open court: RAHUL VERMA
17th day of October, 2025 VERMA Date:
2025.10.18
13:15:20 +0530
(Rahul Verma)
CCJ-cum-ARC(Central)
THC/Delhi/17.10.2025
RC ARC No. 509/18 Raj Kumari Moondhra Vs. M/s Dhantpat Rai & Sons Page No.20/20