Delhi District Court
Rajiv Gupta Huf Through Rajiv Gupta vs Kishore Lal Sons on 11 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN, ACJ-cum-
CCJ-cum-ARC, PATIALA HOUSE COURT, DELHI
RC ARC NO. 1067/2014 (New NO. 78598/2016)
Rajiv Gupta HUF
Through its Karta
Sh. Rajiv Gupta,
S/o late Sh. Sudarshan Lal
of 4332/3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi - 110002. ..........Petitioner
Versus
1. Kishore Lal & Sons
Through Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta,
Proprietor 4328 & 30/3, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi - 110002
2. Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta
Son of late Sh. Kishori Lal
C/o Kishori Lal & Sons
4328 & 4330/3, Darya Ganj, New Delhi - 110002
3. Sh. Madan Lal Gupta
S/o late Sh. Kishori Lal
4. Ms. Bimla Gupta
5. Ms. Rama Gupta
6. Ms. Chameli @ Uma Gupta
(Respondents no. 4 to 6
daughters of late Sh. Kishori Lal
of 4328 & 30/3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi- 110002. ......Respondents
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 1 of 27
Date of Institution of the case 18.10.2014
Under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B, Delhi
Rent Control Act.
Date of reserving of Order 10.09.2025
Date of Order 11.11.2025
Decision Eviction petition is allowed
Argued by:
a) Sh. Bharat Deepak, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
b) Sh. Vineet Jain, Ld Counsel for respondents no 1 & 2
Vide circular bearing no. 41/DHC/Gaz/G-7/VI.E2 (a)/2025
dated 17.10.2025, the undersigned had been transferred. However, as
arguments had been heard by the undersigned in the present matter,
prior to transfer and matter is reserved for order, therefore, in view of
directions contained in Note no. 2 of the aforementioned circular, the
order is being pronounced by the undersigned
JUDGMENT
1) This judgment shall dispose of the eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called as the DRC Act).
PETITION
2) Briefly stated, it is alleged by the petitioner that property bearing municipal no. 4328-4334, situated at 3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as subject premises) was initially owned by Sh. Johri Lal and on his demise on 17.04.1993, the said property was inherited by his only daughter Shanti Devi (mother of Sh. Rajiv Gupta) by virtue of Will dated 03.01.1968. It is further stated RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 2 of 27 that Smt. Shanti Devi demised on 21.06.2004 and by virtue of Will dated 14.07.2002, Rajiv Gupta became the owner of the subject premises. It is stated that thereafter Rajiv Gupta put the said property into the common stock of his HUF and therefore, the property became HUF property. It is averred that one shop bearing no. 4328 and a kothri bearing no. 4330 adjoining the staircase of property bearing no. 4331, situated on the ground floor of property bearing municipal no. 4328-4334, situated at 3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises) was let out by previous owner to Sh. Ghasi Ram and on his demise, his son Kishori Lal as proprietor of Kishori Lal & Sons carried out business in the said premises. It is further stated that Kishori Lal died before 2005 and on his death, respondent no.2 herein started operating the business of Kishori Lal & Sons as proprietor thereof. It is stated that rent receipts are issued by the petitioner to and in the name of the respondent no.2 alone.
3) It is further averred that petitioner HUF consists of Rajiv Gupta, his wife Alka Gupta and their two sons. It is stated that the portion shown in green colour in the site plan on the ground floor is in the occupation of the petitioner in which Alka Gupta is carrying out her business of computer designing, desktop publishing and digital printing in the name of Images and Impression and Rajiv Gupta as proprietor is carrying out the business in the name of Touchstone Printers and Publishers. It is further stated that the portion as shown in blue colour on the first floor and duchhatti is also in the possession of the petitioner RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 3 of 27 as Rajiv Gupta's nephew Nitin Gupta is carrying out his business of publishing from there. It is further stated that the rest of the first floor of the subject premises without colour also in the possession of the petitioner. However, the portion as shown in yellow colour bearing no. 4329 is in the occupation of another tenant Mani Ram & Sons.
4) It is further stated that the subject premises is situated at Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi which is hub of publishers and book sellers who are main customers of the firms of the Rajiv Gupta and Alka Gupta. It is averred that the total space available with the petitioner as shown in green colour is about 400 sq. ft. However, with a total of seven employees of the said two firms as well as the necessary equipment and other accessories, there is not enough operating space. Hence, on account of shortage of space, the petitioner has to shift the duplicating machine, paper cutting machine, lamination and creasing machine on the first floor. It is stated that these are comparatively light machines and will be shifted back on the ground floor once the tenanted premises and the adjoining premises in yellow colour are vacated. It is also stated that there is no paper storage place on the ground for the said two businesses, therefore, paper is stored on the first floor in the uncoloured portion. Hence, it has to be constantly moved up for storage and down for printing work. It is stated that the paper is available in the market in large size and usually in bundle of about 60 KG. Further, this bundle due to its weight and being 2x3 ft. or more, is carried to the first floor by the labour through narrow staircase which is 2.5 ft. wide. Hence, labour RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 4 of 27 charges heavily for the said work and for the sometime the labour was not available due to which the job also get stuck. It is further averred that newer machines are also required to be installed by Rajiv Gupta and his wife which have lower operating cost, however, paucity of accommodation is a hurdle for the same. Hence, it is averred that the tenanted premises shown in red colour are required for bonafide need of furtherance and expansion of two businesses. It is averred that the petitioner shall integrate and shall join the premises in the suit which it already had in occupation with the tenanted premises as well as the adjoining premises as shown in yellow colour. It is averred that the said two business require New Model Digital Printing Machines which are heavy duty. It is further stated that the petitioner HUF, apart from subject premises, is also owner of (i) residential plots no. 65 & 76, DLF Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad; (ii) residential property no. 97, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi - used for the residence of the petitioner except the ground floor which was with a tenant who has vacated the premises with effect from 01.09.2014; (iii) Residential plot no. B-15/3, DLF Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad; (iv) half of residential plot no. D-27/C-5, Tronica City, Ghaziabad; (v) residential plot no. D-21/B1, Tronica City, Ghaziabad and (vi) residential plot No. B-68/C7, Tronica City, Ghaziabad. However, no suitable commercial accommodation is available for the projected bonafide need. Hence, it is prayed that eviction order may be passed against the respondents.
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 5 of 27 LEAVE TO DEFEND
5) Upon issuance of summons under the Third Schedule of the DRC Act, only the respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their leave to defend application within the prescribed time period. Therefore, vide order dated 22.11.2024, the petition qua respondents no. 3 to 6 was decreed by Ld. Predecessor of this court. However, leave to defend application of respondents no.1 and 2 was allowed vide order dated 11.12.2019.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
6) Thereafter, written statement was filed by the respondent no.1 and 2 wherein they have denied the contentions of the petitioner and stated that the eviction petition is not maintainable. Firstly, it is contended that petitioner is neither the owner nor landlord of the property but only a Rent Collector on behalf of the owner /landlord Johri Lal. Secondly, it is contended that the tenancy is commercial in nature and respondents are running grocery/parchune shop for the last 70 years and therefore, dependent upon it whereas earning of the petitioners is not less than Rs. 15,00,000/- per month. Thirdly, it is contended that petitioner is in possession of about 800 sq. ft. of the area on the ground floor and more than 1100 sq. ft. on the first floor and more than 1000 sq. ft on the second floor. Fourthly, it is contended that the petitioner is having alternative accommodation in the form of three properties bearing no. 65,76, and B-15/3, each in DLF, Ankur Vihar; one double storey well built property in Anand Vihar, Delhi; 50% share in two plots D-27/C5, RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 6 of 27 and 21/B1 and B-68/C7 in Tronica City. It is stated that the petitioner has not disclosed in the entire petition as to how the said properties are not suitable for the projected business. Fifthly, it is contended that the petitioner himself has stated that the requirement is for expansion of business but has not shown as to how the existing accommodation is insufficient. Sixthly, it is contended that the property falls in slum area and therefore, for integrating the tenanted premises and adjoining yellow colour portion with the green colour portion, structural change would be required for which slum permission is necessary, however, the same has not been obtained. Seventhly, it is contended that Alka Gupta is not dependent upon the petitioner for her bonafide need because she has been running her own business. Eighthly, it is contended that the need is not bonafide as the petitioner has mechanically shown his nephew Nitin Gupta in occupation of the blue portion of the first floor and duchhatti whereas the same is in the possession of the petitioner only. Ninethly, it is contended that the petitioner has already obtained the vacant possession of paan shop bearing no. 3/4334 and the same has been concealed by the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner has sold out his property bearing no. 4766/23, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Lastly, it is contended that the tenanted premises is not suitable for the projected bonafide need since the tenanted premises as well as adjoining portion as shown in yellow colour consists of area of around 40 sq. yard only and therefore, the machines projected to be installed would not fit in the said area. Hence, it is prayed that the present petition may be liable to be dismissed.
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 7 of 27 REPLICATION
7) Thereafter, petitioner denied the averments of the respondent no. 1 and 2 in the replication and reiterated the bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises.
TRIAL Petitioner's Evidence
8) In order to prove his case, Rajiv Gupta examined himself as PW-1. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/1 is site plan.
(ii) Ex. PW-1/1A is the clear copy of site plan.
(iii) Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) is copy of Will dated 03.01.1968.
(iv) Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) is copy of registered Will dated 14.07.2002 executed by my grandmother Smt. Shanti Devi
(v) Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) (colly) are copies of six rent receipts.
(vi) There is no document on record the DR petition which has exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5 in the affidavit.
(vi) Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR) (colly) are the copies of four invoices with regard to the purchase of card board from Arun & Co., paper from Anil Paper Co. and Prakash Trading Company.
(vii) Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly) are the five photographs.
(viii) Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR) is colored copy of brochure of K. M. Bizhub C-8000.
(ix) Ex. PW-1/9 is photograph showing the installation of machine.
(x) Ex. PW-1/10 (colly) are the six photographs of machines already installed.
(xi) Mark A are the copies of 13 manufacturers brochures showing the new machines.(The said document is de- exhibited Ex. PW-1/11 and now marked as Mark A).
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 8 of 27
(xii) Ex. PW-1/12 is list showing the space required for installation of new machines.
(xiii) Ex. PW-1/13 (colly) (OSR) are the photocopies of PAN Cards.
(xiv) Mark B are 28 copies of ITR Copies of P/L Account, balance sheet is Ex. PW-1/14(OSR). (The copies of ITRs were the part of Ex. PW-1/14 and now marked B).
(xv) Ex. PW-1/15 (OSR) is photocopy of registered Conveyance Deed dated 01.10.2007.
(xvi) Ex. PW-1/16 (OSR) is the photocopy of Property Tax payment receipt for the year 2014-2015.
(xvii) Ex. PW-1/17 (colly) (OSR) are the photocopies of Aadhaar Cards of my wife Smt. Alka Gupta, my sons namely Siddharth Gupta, Sahil Gupta as well as my aadhar card.
(xviii) Ex. PW-1/18 (colly) (OSR) are the photocopies of Election Identity Cards of my wife Alka Gupta, my son Sahil Gupta and my election identity card.
(xix) Ex. PW-1/19 (OSR) is photocopy of certificate of registration issued by Department of Sales Tax, Delhi. (xx) Ex. PW-1/20 (OSR) is photocopy of the allotment letter of TIN number issued by Department of Sales Tax, Delhi. (xxi) Ex. PW-1/21 (OSR) is photocopy of LIC policy in the name of Sh. Ravindra Prasad Gupta.
(xxii) Ex. PW-1/22 (OSR) is photocopy of judgment dated 08.12.1995 passed by the Court of Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, the then PO MACT.
(xxiii) Ex. PW-1/23 (OSR) is photocopy of passbook of Smt. Indra Gupta & Smt. Santi Devi.
(xxiv) Ex. PW-1/24 (OSR) is photocopy of degree of my son Siddharth Gupta.
(xxv) Mark C is photocopy of Property Tax Return filed by the respondent (The said document is de-exhibited Ex. PW- 1/25 and now mark C).
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 9 of 27 (xxvi) Mark D is photocopy of Property Tax payment receipt filed by the respondent. (The said document is de- exhibited Ex. PW-1/25 and now mark D).
(xxvii) Ex. PW-1/27 (colly) are the 08 photographs of the property of which tenant premises is a part.
9) He was cross examined at length by the counsel for respondent. No other witness was examined on behalf of petitioner. Matter was then adjourned for respondent's evidence.
Respondent's Evidence
10) Respondent no. 2 Suresh Chand Gupta examined himself as RW-1. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW-1/A. He was cross examined at length by the counsel for petitioner.
FINDINGS
11) Thereafter, final arguments were advanced by the respective counsels on behalf of both the parties. At the outset, it is stated that there is no doubt regarding the case laws relied upon on behalf of both the parties where the Superior Courts have laid down the principles with respect to provisions of the DRC Act, 1958 in different factual scenarios. However, each case has its own distinguishing facts and circumstances and each matter has to be decided in its own factual background. It is trite to state that in a petition u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act in order to get an eviction order the petitioner/landlord is required to establish the following: -
(i) That he/she is the owner/landlord of the property;
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 10 of 27
(ii) That he/she requires the premises bonafide and
iii) That he/she does not have any other alternative suitable accommodation for this purpose.
LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP
12) As far as the landlord-tenant relationship is concerned, though the respondents in the written statement had raised contention in this regard but no arguments were pressed at the time of final arguments. It was fairly conceded that the relationship of landlord and tenant is not in dispute. Even otherwise, at the time of deciding the leave to defend application, in order dated 11.12.2021, it was held by the Ld. Predecessor of this court that there exists landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. It is pertinent to note that though the respondents denied the ownership of Smt. Shanti Devi and Mr. Rajiv Gupta over the property, they had not denied the authenticity of the Wills, copy of which had been filed by the petitioner. Further, the respondents do not even have any locus to dispute the Wills relied upon by the petitioner. It has also not been denied that Mr. Johri Lal and Smt. Shanti Devi have died.
Since they have died, it was incumbent upon the respondents to disclose as to who really is the owner of the property if not the petitioner, and before him Smt. Shanti Devi. A mere bald denial of the title of the petitioner by the respondents does not give rise to any triable issue. In the case of Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti Teckchandani 2008(153) DLT 247, the Hon'ble High Court held that it was not in the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. It was observed that if a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his favour, he RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 11 of 27 is deemed to have discharged his burden of proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous objection about ownership, it cannot be entertained unless the tenant comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner. Furthermore, RW1 has admitted the rent receipts in his cross examination. Also, the identity and extent of the tenanted premises is also not in dispute since RW1 in his cross examination identified the tenanted premises as red colour portion in site plan Ex PW1/1A; the same portion as the petitioner. Accordingly, it can be stated that the petitioner is the owner /landlord of the tenanted premises and the respondents are the tenant in the said premises. Thus, the first ingredient of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties in the present case, stands established.
BONAFIDE NEED & NON-AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION.
13) Moving forward, in order to succeed in their petition, petitioners are required to establish their bonafide need. Petitioner HUF has averred that the tenanted premises is required for bonafide need of the business of its members Alka Gupta and Rajiv Gupta. However, it is contended that the need is not bonafide as Alka Gupta is not dependent upon the petitioner as she too is the owner of the properties of HUF. But the Hon'ble Supreme court in Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 has held that whenever a landlord seeks eviction of the tenant for bonafide need, the controller shall presume the need as genuine and bonafide. Additionally, the burden to refute the said RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 12 of 27 presumption squarely lies on the tenant and mere assertion on the part of tenant is insufficient. Moreover, it is not in dispute that HUF is the owner of the subject premises and Alka Gupta is also the member of the HUF. In M M Quasim v/s Manohar Lal Sharma, (1981) 3 SCC 36, the Apex Court has that the landlord does not have an unfettered right to choose the premises but merely showing that the landlord has some other vacant premises in his possession may not be sufficient to negative the landlord's claim if the vacant premises were not suitable for the purpose for which he required the premises. Further, the provision of Section 19 (2) of DRC Act is to be emphasized which protects a tenant in case the landlord recovers possession of any premises 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 having obtained the possession, the same are re-let to any other person within three years from the date of obtaining the possession. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abid-ul-Islam Vs. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30 has held that Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act creates a presumption in favour of the landlord regarding bona fide need, which is rebuttable only with substantive material. It was further held that the burden of proof is on the tenant to demonstrate, with cogent evidence, that alternative accommodation is vacant and suitable for the projected bonafide need of the landlord. Thus, the said contention is also devoid of merits.
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 13 of 27
14) Secondly, it is contended that the respondent is dependent upon the tenanted premises whereas Rajiv Gupta and his family members are earning more than 15 lacs per month. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that a person cannot be expected to sit idle and reach a state of starvation before his need is considered bonafide. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. M/s Chaganlal Sunderji & Co. AIR 1999 SC 3864 wherein it was observed that :
'A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business."
15) Furthermore, in case titled as "Satyawati Sharma Vs. U. O. I. AIR 2008 SC 3148", it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Section 14 (1)(e) of the 1958 Act is violative of the doctrine of equality embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India in so far as it discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential purposes when the same are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him and restricts the latter's right to seek eviction of the tenant from the premises let for residential purposes only. Thus, there is no bar on landlord for seeking recovery of non-residential premises on the ground of bonafide need under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. Also, it is a well settled principle of law that a Rent Controller has to see the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and not the comparative hardship of the RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 14 of 27 respondent. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the Apex Court's decision in Bega Begum and Ors. v. Abdul Ahad Khan and Ors (1979) AIR 272 that the inconvenience loss and trouble resulting from denial of decree of eviction in favour of the landlord far outweigh the prejudice or the inconvenience which will be caused to the tenant. Thus, the contention of respondent that the tenanted premises is being used by him for commercial purpose and so the provision of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act is not applicable is misconceived and is hereby rejected.
16) Next, it is contended that petitioner has alternative accommodation in the form of (i) residential plots no. 65 & 76, DLF Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad; (ii) Residential plot no. B-15/3, DLF Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad; (iii)half of residential plot no. D-27/C-5, Tronica City, Ghaziabad; (iv) residential plot no. D-21/B1, Tronica City, Ghaziabad and (v) residential plot No. B-68/C7, Tronica City, Ghaziabad. However, in the case of Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, the Hon'ble Supreme court held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter.
Reference may also be made to the case of Prativa Devi (Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353. Thus, it is the prerogative of the landlord to determine which business he intends to start and from where the said business is to be run. Moreover, requirement is for a place of business in Delhi and therefore the said properties at Ghaziabad cannot be considered to be alternative accommodations.
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 15 of 27
17) Next, it is contended that alternative accommodation is available in property no. 97, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi with the petitioner. But no material has been produced by the respondent to show that any vacant commercial space is available in the said property. Therefore, a bald assertion in this regard without any cogent material qua availability of the purported commercial space in the said alternative accommodation does not assist the case of respondent. Neither any material has was put PW1 in his cross examination in this regard, nor the RW1 produced any material in this regard in his evidence. Further, it is trite to state that the burden is upon the tenant to show that other alternative suitable accommodation is available with landlord and how the said premises were suitable for the pleaded requirement. Reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Lalta Prasad Gupta Vs. Sita Ram, 2017 SCC Online Del 13026, wherein it was held as under: -
"18. Thus, if the tenant seeks leave to defend controverting the requirement pleaded by landlord on the ground of the landlord, though at the time of requirement having alternate premises, having not used the same and instead having commercially exploited the same, the tenant must plead (a) the particulars of such premises; (b) the right/title of the landlord to the same; (c) that the said premises were vacant and available for use at the time of pleaded requirement of landlord; (d) how the said premises were suitable for the pleaded requirement; and (e) how the landlord has deprived himself thereof i.e. by sale or letting and support the said pleas with material on the basis whereof such pleas will be proved."
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 16 of 27
18) In the present matter, despite leave being granted, no evidence has been led by respondent to show any availability of commercial space in the said accommodations. Therefore, the said plea is of no assistance to the respondents
19) Further, it is contended that the essential pleadings are missing as the respondent has not pleaded the lack of alternative accommodation. Here, I find it pertinent to refer to the case of Nalini Kant Gupta Vs. Lajja Gupta, 2017 SCC Delhi 10247, wherein it was held that once the tenant has had full opportunity and the parties have gone to trial on all facts, the petition for eviction for self-requirement cannot be dismissed on the ground of suppression. It was held that the argument of concealment is not available in as much as no prejudice can be said to have been suffered by the tenant after having an opportunity to lead evidence on all pleas. Therefore, even if the petitioner had concealed certain facts, the same is not a ground for dismissal of the present eviction petition since the parties had an opportunity to lead evidence. Hence, the said plea of respondent is also devoid of merits.
20) Next, it is contended that it is a case of additional accommodation and therefore the need is not bonafide. Counsel for the respondent has also relied upon various judgments to contend that 'in cases where additional accommodation is asked for, normally leave to defend should not be refused'. However, the said contention is misconceived and devoid of merits. While the case of additional RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 17 of 27 accommodation or expansion of business may be a ground for grant for leave to defend but that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the eviction petition. The said judgments do not lay down any principle of law much less salutary principle of law to be applied irrespective of the facts of the case. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in A. M. Shah vs Pushpa Sodd, 92 (20010 DLT 694. Further, only by looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it can be determined whether bonafide need is made out or not. It is always the prerogative of the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bonafide use for expansion of his business, then, it is not for the respondent/tenant to dictate the terms and advice as to what and what not should the landlord do when he has other premises available. Reliance in this regard is also placed upon Chand Daga vs Inder Mohan Singh Rana, 2002 (610) DRJ 410 and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi cited as Sh. Gurcharan Lal Kumar vs Smt. Satayawati & Ors. RC Rev, no. 285/12 decided on 24.04.2013. It is also a matter of common knowledge that litigation can continue for many years and therefore, the petitioner cannot be expected to remain idle during the said period. From the record, it is clear that though the present petition was instituted in the year 2014 and it is only after eleven years that the matter has reached the stage of judgment. Therefore, for these years, it would be unjust to expect the petitioner to sit idle. Hence, the said contention does not assist the case of the respondent. Reference is also made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s A.K. RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 18 of 27 Woolen Industries and Ors. Vs. Shri Narayan Gupta RC Rev. 495/2017 dated 31.10.2017 in which the following was held: -
"19. The law to be applied in this regard has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679, Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimlabai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252 and Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja (2014) 15 SCC 610. It has been held that even if the landlord has other commercial premises available to him and even if the landlord is carrying on other businesses, if it is found that the landlord intends to use the premises in occupation of the tenant for carrying on his business therefrom, the landlord is entitled to an order of eviction and the Courts cannot intervene in the same.
21) Further, it is contended that property is residential and not mixed use or commercial; therefore, not suitable for the projected commercial use. In this regard, reliance is placed upon internet generated copy of property tax receipt for the year 2015-16 where it is mentioned as residential property. However, it is not in dispute that business is already being run in the subject premises and respondent is also using for commercial purpose only. Furthermore, it is no longer res integra that the landlord possesses the prerogative to determine his specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. It is not within the purview of the courts to impose directives on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage of the tenanted premises.
Therefore, the courts refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the landlord's choices (residential or commercial). Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 19 of 27 in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs. Parmanand Garg in RC. Rev. No. 56/2018 decided on 09.11.2023. Hence, the said contention is devoid of merits.
22) Next, it is contended that the landlord intends to integrate the tenanted premises with the adjoining portions but the petitioner has not taken the permission of the competent authority (Slum). In this regard, it has been admitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner during oral arguments that the property falls within the slum areas, however, it is stated that there is no requirement for seeking the requisite permission as the present petition is a petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. On the said aspect, it is necessary to refer to the case titled as Shafait Ali Vs. Shiva Mal (Dead) by LRs AIR 1988 SC 214, where in reference was made to judgment delivered in Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. Rattan Lai Bhargava AIR 1984 SC 967 and it was held that:
"Section 14A, 14 (1)(E), 25A, 253 & 25C of Delhi Rent Control Act are special provisions so far as the landlord and tenant are concerned and further in the view of the non- obstante clause in the Section, these provisions override the existing law, so far as the new procedure is concerned. In that view of that matter, we are of the opinion that the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 would have no application in these cases covered by Section 14A and 14 (1)(E) of the Delhi Rent Control Act specially in view of provisions which were added by the Amending Act of 1976.
In view of the procedure in Chapter IIIA of the Rent Act, the Slum Act is rendered inapplicable to the extent of inconsistency and it is not, therefore, necessary for the landlord to obtain permission of the Competent Authority RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 20 of 27 U/s. 19(1) (A) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for eviction and coming within Section 14(1) (e) of the Rent Act."
23) Accordingly in view of the above law, no permission was required by the petitioner before filing the present petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. As far as, the claim regarding the structural changes is concerned, it is pertinent to note that PW1 has clarified in his cross examination, that no structural changes are required to made. He categorically deposed that to access the adjoining portion and the same can be done by opening a door in the partition wall between the premises. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that that the DRC act is silent about any requirement of the landlord for giving details/divulging anything qua the nature/purpose of the proposed business. Hence, the landlord is not required to disclose the exact nature of use of premises in eviction petition. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in H S Banka vs Mohan Lal 2025 SCC Online Del 6372. Even otherwise, in the case of Raj Kumar Khaitan & Ors. Vs. Bibi Zubaid Khatun & Ors, AIR 1995 SC 576, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that even if the nature of business would have been indicated, nobody could bind the landlords to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated. Thus, it is the prerogative of the landlord to determine which business he intends to start and whether the tenanted premises is suitable or not for said purpose. Thus, the said contention is also devoid of merits.
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 21 of 27
24) Further, it is contended that the petitioner has sold 4766/23 and therefore, the need is not bonafide. But the said plea is also of no assistance to the respondent. In the cross examination, RW1 stated that he does not know when the said property was sold by the petitioner. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the case of Shyam Sunder Ahuja Vs. Sushil Kumar, 2017 SCC Online Del 10624, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that the plea that the landlord has sold some property or let out some property is not a ground to deny the order of the eviction to the landlord. The relevant extract is reproduced here under:-
"16. Not only so, the petitioner/tenant also di not state that there was no change in the requirement of the respondent/landlord since then. Merely taking a plea that the respondent/landlord has in the past sold som property or let out some property has in Narender Kumar Shah Proprietor Jay Bharat Steels Vs. Malti Narang 2014 SCC Online Del 3839 and Anil Kumar Bagania Vs. Shiv Rani 2014 SCC Online Del 6645 been held to be not a ground for denying order of eviction to landlord on the ground of self-requirement of premises."
25) Next, it is contended that the need is not bonafide as petitioner has alternative accommodation in the form of portion in blue colour in the site plan which the petitioner has falsely stated to be his nephew. It is contended that the said portion is lying vacant. In the alternative, it is contended that the said portion even if occupied, is with nephew of petitioner from whom the petitioner can get the same vacated. But nothing has been brought on record to show that the said portion is lying vacant. Rather, the PW1 has in his cross examination clarified that the RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 22 of 27 said blue colour portion is with his nephew Nitin Gupta since 1999 and prior to that it was with his sister. However, even if, for the sake of arguments the said portion is assumed to be vacant, it is pertinent to note the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Uday Shankar Upadhyay v. Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503, where it was held that it is not for the Courts to say that the landlord should shift to the first floor or any higher floor as it is well known that shops and businesses are usually conducted on the ground floor, because the customers can reach there easily. It was reiterated that the Court cannot dictate to the landlord which floor he should use for his business and that is for the landlord himself to decide. It is trite to state that landlord being the best judge of his own requirement is the best person to decide as to which premises he has to choose for conducting his business and a tenant cannot force the landlord to conduct his business from the basement or upper floors. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendera Kumar Tandon 72 (1998) DLT 629 that the landlord is not disentitled from seeking recovery of the possession of a ground floor merely on the plea that he is also in possession of first floor and second floor so long as the court is satisfied with respect to the bonafide requirement of the landlord for the tenanted premises. Hence, it cannot be held to be an alternative accommodation.
26) Lastly, it is contended that sufficient space is available with the portioner at the ground floor itself. It is contended that petitioner is in possession of about 800 sq. ft. of the area on the ground floor. However, RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 23 of 27 the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have 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. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Praveen & Anr. Vs. Mulak Raj & Ors. RC Rev. 417/2016 in this regard. Thus, the court cannot make choices for the landlord as to how he should run his business. It is also pertinent to note though with the leave to defend application counter site plan was filed by respondent, however, the said counter site plan was not tendered in evidence by the respondent and only when confronted in cross examination did, he admit the same. In the case of V.S. Sachdeva Vs. M.L. Grover 1997 (2) RCR 302, it was held that if no site plan is filed by tenant, then the site plan filed by the landlord is deemed to be correct. Also, in the case of Rishal Singh Vs. Bohat Ram & Ors. 2014 (144) DRJ 633, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that it is settled law that when the tenant contests the accuracy of the site plan filed by the landlord, he is required to file a copy of the site plan, he believes to be correct so as to guide the Court in finding the discrepancies in the site plan filed by the landlord. It was observed that without such site plan being filed, the mere contentions raised to this effect will be considered meritless. The said conduct of non-tender of the site plan by the respondent shows that plea regarding 800 sq ft being available with petitioner at ground floor is a bald averment. Moreover, in the said RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 24 of 27 counter site plan as well no dimensions have been mentioned for assisting the plea of respondent that 800 sq ft of area is available with petitioner on the ground floor. Per Contra, as per the dimensions given in site plan of the petitioner, the said area is around 400 sq ft only. No contradictory material is on record to show that it is 800 sq ft. In this regard, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the case of Mohd. Naseer Vs. Mohd. Zaheer and Anr. RC Rev. No. 267/2016 dated 03.11.2016 is to be noted in which it was held that mere raising of baseless contentions against the landlord cannot be a ground denying eviction order to the landlord. Furthermore, while deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else the landlord could have adjusted. It is not for the court or the tenant to dictate to the landlord to adjust in a smaller portion when on the contrary he can use the tenanted premises. Therefore, even if the landlord has other commercial premises available to him and even if the landlord is carrying on other businesses, since the petitioners intend to use the premises in occupation of the tenant for needs of business already being carried out from subject premises, the Court cannot intervene in the same. Even in the case of K.K. Sarin Vs. M/s Pigott Chapman & Co. 46 (1992) DLT 352, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that the tenant has to produce material on which he is relying upon. Since no material has been placed on record by the respondent, there is no reason to believe that the petitioner has alternative reasonable accommodation. Also, in case the petitioner fails to occupy the premises as has been claimed by RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 25 of 27 him, the Delhi Rent Control Act also provides for recovery of possession by the respondent/tenant of the tenanted premises for his re-entry and occupation. It is pertinent to note herein the case of Ravichandran and Ors. Vs Natrajan Nadar and Ors. (2004) 1 MLJ 458, wherein it was held:
"Even assuming that other premises are available, then the choice is left to the landlord to decide as to which non- residential premises he should occupy, and the tenant cannot have any say in the matter. If the landlord is able to show the bonafide, then the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord that he should occupy some other building and not the one mentioned in the petition."
27) Thus, it is neither open for the court nor for the tenant to decide as to how else the landlord could make adjustments in his property. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid observations and findings, I find that petitioner has been able to establish his bonafide need and respondents have failed to show any suitable alternative accommodation for the said bonafide need.
RELIEF
28) Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, I hold that the petitioners have been able to establish the ingredients of the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The net result is that petitioners have been able to establish that the tenanted premises is required bonafidely by them for the expansion of business of Rajiv Gupta and Alka Gupta and that no other reasonably suitable alternative RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 26 of 27 accommodation is available to them for this purpose. Respondent has failed to prove his defense. Accordingly, petition stands allowed and eviction order is passed in terms of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent with respect to the tenanted premises i.e. one shop bearing no. 4328 and a kothri bearing no. 4330 adjoining the staircase of property bearing no. 4331, situated on the ground floor property bearing municipal no. 4328-4334, situated at 3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and more specifically shown in red color in the site plan Ex. PW- 1/1A. No order as to cost. Eviction petition stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. File be consigned to the record room.
Digitally signed by RUPINDER RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN
SINGH DHIMAN Date: 2025.11.11 15:50:47
+0530
(RUPINDER SINGH DHIMAN)
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC,PHC
Delhi/11.11.2025
RC ARC No. 78598/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Kishori Lal & Sons Page no. 27 of 27