Delhi District Court
Rama Ahuja vs Ranjan Kapoor on 6 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
& RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT No.25/2025
CNR No. DLCT01-002519-2025
1. Ms. Rama Ahuja
W/o Shyam Ahuja
R/o B-44, Ground Floor,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
2. Deepak Ahuja
S/o Shyam Ahuja
R/o B-44, Ground Floor,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi. ...........Appellants
Versus
1. Ranjan Kapoor
S/o K.L. Kapoor
R/o 626, Double Storey,
New Rajinder NagarMs. Ra
New Delhi-110060
2. Sh. Bhushan Ahuja @ Bharat Bhusan Ahuja
S/o Sh. Ram Nath Ahuja
R/o F-31, Second Floor,
Moti Nagar, New Delhi.
(Dropped vide order dated 03.04.2025)
3. Smt. Veena Ahuja
W/o Sh. Joginder Ahuja
(Dropped vide order dated 03.04.2025)
4. Ms. Priyanka
D/o Sh. Joginder Ahuja
(Dropped vide order dated 03.04.2025) Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.10.06
16:24:37 +0530
RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 1 of 17
5. Sh. Deepanshu
S/o Joginder Ahuja
(Dropped vide order dated 03.04.2025)
6. Ms. Shubangi
D/o Joginder Ahuja
(Dropped vide order dated 03.04.2025)
All R/o 1/101, Old Rajender Nagar,
Upper Ground Floor, New Delhi
7. Smt. Indu Ahuja
W/o Sh. O.P. Ahuja
(Dropped vide order dated 03.04.2025)
............Respondents
Date of filing of appeal : 13.02.2025
Date of arguments : 04.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 06.10.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') impugning the order dated 27.11.2024, whereby the petition under Section 14(1)(j) of DRC Act was allowed and 4 months time was given to restore premises to its original shape and condition under Section 14(10) of DRC Act.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Smt. Kanta Kapoor (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner/respondent') filed the petition under Section 14(1)(j) of DRC Act against Sh. O.P. Ahuja & ors. alleging that corner room measuring 12X11' and a verandah measuring 12X7' of shop no.1, Double Storey Market, New Rajinder Nagar, New Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 2 of 17 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.06 16:24:43 +0530 Delhi was let out for non residential purposes at monthly rent of Rs.600/- exclusive of all other charges by Sh. Kundan Lal Kapoor, husband of petitioner/respondent to Sh. Ram Nath Ahuja, father of the respondents/appellants vide rent agreement dated 08.08.1975. After the death of Sh. Kundan Lal Kapoor, the petitioner/respondent became the owner/landlady of the property. Sh. Ram Nath Ahuja also died and the tenancy devolved upon his four sons i.e. respondents.
3. At the time of letting out, one corner room and verandah was let out as per the site plan. The respondents later on made additions and alterations in the premises in dispute causing substantial damage to the property as shown red in the site plan. They have closed the opening towards the verandah, erected two walls shown as AB and CD in the site plan thereby changing the verandah into a room and creating a new opening at R. They have further constructed a room and a tin shed verandah measuring 6.9X5.3 and 7.6X13.9" respectively on the Municipal Land towards main road shown red in site plan. It is alleged that respondents have caused substantial damage of the property of the petitioner by making additions and alterations in violation of the rules of the MCD.
4. Notice was sent to the respondents demanding the arrears of rent and remove the unauthorised construction. But they have neither tendered the rent nor removed the unauthorized construction. The petition is filed only on the ground of Section 14(1)(j) of DRC Act.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.10.06 16:24:48 +0530 RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 3 of 17
5. Notice of the petition was sent to the respondents. They had filed written statement taking preliminary objection that petition is barred by time and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is alleged that the premises are under the tenancy of the predecessor of respondents since 1975. The limitation for filing the eviction petition is 12 years. The petitioner has nowhere mentioned as to since when the unauthorized construction is there. In fact, it is there from the very inception. Therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected.
6. In reply on merits, the relationship of landlord and tenant is not denied and that it is being used for running the flour mill. It is alleged that the site plan is not correct. It is denied that the respondents are the joint tenants. There is no water facility in the premises. The electric meter is in the name of Ram Nath, father of the respondents.
7. Initially, the rate of rent was Rs.110/- per month, however, admittedly now the rent is Rs.600/- per month. It is denied that they have made additions or alterations or converted the verandah into a room. It is alleged that verandah was converted into a room by putting a shutter during the life time of Sh. Kundan Lal and with his consent. The walls AD and CD shown in the site plan were in existence at the time when the premises was let out to the father of the respondents. As a matter of fact, the super structure on the first floor of the property rest on these walls. The petitioner cannot make any grievance of it. Even otherwise, the relief is barred due to limitation. It is denied that Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 4 of 17 2025.10.06 16:24:52 +0530 any cracks appeared on the upper floor of the premises. The petitioner has never spent any penny on the maintenance of the premises. The cracks though not admitted, but appeared due to usual wear and tear.
8. It is denied that they were in arrears of rent. In fact, the petitioner was not prepared to issue rent receipts in favour of the respondents unless huge amount of premium is paid. The respondents immediately on receipt of the notice dated 20.05.1997 sent the entire arrears of rent by demand draft. The petitioner had got encashed the demand draft but not issued the rent receipted. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
9. Petitioner filed the replication to the written statement denying the averments made in the written statement and reasserting the facts mentioned in the petition. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence of the petitioner.
10. Smt. Kanta Kapoor, herself appeared in the witness box as PW-1, wherein she deposed on the lines of the petition. She proved the rent agreement as Ex.PW1/1. She deposed that in 1997, she went to the premises in dispute and found that respondents have covered the verandah measuring 12ft. X 7ft. and put the shutter outside the verandah after covering it. The respondent has also covered the verandah of the corporation and covered it into a room. She proved the copy of notice as Ex.PW1/2, the postal receipts are proved as Ex.PW1/3 to Ex.PW1/6, UPC is proved as Ex.PW1/7 to Ex.PW1/10, the AD cards are proved as Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date: BANSAL 2025.10.06 RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 5 of 17 16:24:57 +0530
11. She deposed that respondents did not remove the unauthorized construction despite service of notice. The building is very old and due to addition of new construction, there is every apprehension of its falling down. She also proved the site plans as Ex.PW1/13, which shows the present construction and Ex.PW1/14, which shows the original construction.
12. During cross examination she admitted that on 20.05.1997, she sent notice Ex.PW1/2 to all the respondents and that in reply to the notice, they have sent the pay order of up-to-date rent. She admitted carbon copy of the reply sent and same is Ex.1/R1. She does not remember if respondents filed a petition u/s 27 of DRC Act against the petitioner. She denied the suggestion that aggrieved by that petition, she filed this eviction petition.
13. There were no side walls in the verandah. There is a construction on the first floor above verandah. She denied the suggestion that side walls of the verandah were already in existence when the premises was let out. She admitted that respondent have put shutter in front of the verandah. She volunteered that after constructing side walls. The site plan Ex.PW1/13 is correct according to the site and is showing the shop no.1 and verandah in front of the shop which has been covered. Both the verandahs have been covered. There are rooms above both the verandahs. Again said that there is room above verandah mark X in Ex.PW1/13. The number of adjacent shop is also 1 which is Mark X1 in Ex.PW1/13. A bakery shop is being run from there. She denied the suggestion that there was a sun Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 6 of 17 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.06 16:25:01 +0530 shade in front of the premises in dispute and also in front of shop Mark X1 when it was let out.
14. Ram Nath Ahuja was running a flour mill. She denied the suggestion that as the flour used to flew due to air that is why the tenant of Mark X1 constructed the wall at Point A1, A2. She admitted that she is not the owner of portion Mark A1 and A2. She is not owner of verandah which is in front of the premises in dispute and is marked A1, A2, C and A3 which is also shown in site plan Ex.PW1/13. She denied the suggestion that respondents constructed wall from A1 to A4 to protect from rain and dust etc. She denied the suggestion that wall at point A1 to A4 was constructed about 10-15 years back. She volunteered that these were constructed in 1997 when she was ill and was not able to move.
15. She came to know in 1997 about the unauthorized construction. The construction was already complete when she visited the premises in dispute. She does not remember if earlier an eviction petition was filed against Ram Nath, Ishwar Das and Joginder with respect to property no. 626, Double Storey, New Rajinder Nagar. She denied the suggestion that her son was the power of attorney holder to pursue that case on her behalf. She does not know all those cases have been dismissed or all those cases are pending. She denied the suggestion that respondents have not carried out any unauthorized construction or shutter was affixed with the permission of her late husband. She also denied the suggestion that wall at point A1 to A2 was constructed by the Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.06 16:25:07 RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 7 of 17 +0530 tenant of shop Mark X1 with the consent of her late husband. Thereafter, she closed her evidence and the case was fixed for the evidence of the respondents.
16. Sh. Shyam Sunder Ahuja appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and filed his affidavit re-asserting the facts mentioned in the written statement. He also proved on record certified copy of petition u/s 26 of DRC Act as Ex.RW1/1, certified copy of the statements of parties and the order of the Court in the above mentioned petition is Ex.RW1/2 and rent receipt is Ex.RW1/3.
17. During cross examination he deposed that his age at the time of inception of tenancy was 25 years. He does not know if any rent agreement was executed at that time between his father and husband of the petitioner. He has the knowledge that his father took the premises on rent in 1975 being his son and member of the joint family. He denied the suggestion that he became aware of the tenancy from the rent agreement Ex.PW1/1 according to which a shop and open verandah in front of it was let out to his father. He volunteered that the shutter was affixed on the front of the verandah by his father after taking the consent of the husband of the petitioner in year 1978. The consent was not taken in writing. He denied the suggestion that verandah is part of the public property. He denied the suggestion that he raised walls in the verandah. He volunteered that the walls were already in existence. No fresh rent agreement was executed between his father and the petitioner in year 1978 when the shutter was affixed on the verandah. He admitted that AD cards Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 8 of 17 2025.10.06 16:25:11 +0530 Ex.PW1/11 and Ex.PW1/12 bears the signatures of his brother at point X and Y.
18. He denied the suggestion that he raised the walls in the verandah and placed the shutter in front of the verandah in May, 1997. He also denied the suggestion that when the petitioner visited the shop in May, 1997 and found the alteration, she issued notice dated 20.05.1997. He denied the suggestion that verandah was not the part of tenancy and only shop was given on rent. He denied the suggestion that because of the placing of shutter or raising of the walls in the verandah, cracks have developed in the entire property. He denied the suggestion that he has made additions and alterations in the shop let out to them causing substantial damage to the shop. Thereafter, he closed the evidence.
Thereafter, the case was fixed for final arguments.
19. Ld. ARC vide order dated 07.07.2005 allowed the petition under Section 14(1)(j) of DRC Act and one month time was granted under Section 14(10) of DRC Act to restore the premises to its original shape and condition.
20. The said order was challenged before Ld. ARCT and the order was set aside vide order dated 17.04.2012. During the pendency, Sh. O.P. Ahuja expired and his LRs Smt. Indu Ahuja and Rajeev Ahuja were taken on record who were joined as respondents no.2 and 3.
Digitally
signed by
VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
BANSAL Date:
2025.10.06
16:25:16
+0530
RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 9 of 17
21. The order of Ld. ARCT was challenged before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dated 07.03.2018 set aside the orders passed by Ld. ARC as well as Ld. ARCT, remanded it back directing that Ld. ARC shall give one opportunity to the petitioner to lead further evidence.
22. Accordingly, petitioner examined Sh. Kuldeep Rana, Sr. Secretariat Assistant, North MCD, as PW-2. He brought on record documents i.e. copy of letter bearing No.L&DO/PS-II/83 dated 25.01.2005. Same is Ex.PW2/1 and copy of letter dated 12.05.2005. Same is Ex.PW2/2. The testimony of PW-2 has gone unchallenged and uncontroverted.
23. Thereafter, petitioner examined Sh. Ranjan Kapoor as PW-3 who tendered his affidavit as Ex.PW3/A in support of his evidence. He has placed reliance of documents i.e. letter dated 25.01.2005 issued by Land & Development Office and letter dated 02.05.2005 issued by Land & Development Office.
24. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Court has to decide as to what was the extent of accommodation and whether there was any substantial damage caused to the tenanted premises. Ld. Counsel submitted that entire order of Ld. ARC is vague in this regard. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi remanded the case back with direction to the Ld. ARC to decide whether tenant/appellant herein have made unauthorized / illegal construction over the land / road, resulting in substantial damage to the interest of the landlord. Ld. ARC has totally missed the Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 10 of 17 KUMAR BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.06 16:25:23 +0530 material point in the judgment and caused grave prejudice to the appellant. There is nothing in the entire judgment as to what is the substantial damage caused. Trial Court has shown undue indulgence to the landlord and gave five opportunities to the landlord to produce the additional evidence and also recorded statement of Ranjan Kapoor who was also put to the test of cross- examination. Still after this evidence, Court has not decided the material question regarding unauthorized construction or any encroachment made by the tenant on the government land. In fact no such evidence has been brought on record by the landlord. On the other hand, there is evidence on record that the unauthorized construction on the government land has been made by none else but the landlady Smt. Kanta Kapoor and Sh. Ranjan Kapoor themselves. The documents Ex PW2/1 and Ex PW2/2 which have been produced after remand, clearly shows that encroachment on the government land / road has been made by landlord i.e. respondent no. 1 in this appeal.
25. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that on the spot near the tenanted premises there is a road but there is no encroachment or illegal construction or tin shed on the government land. Ld. Counsel submitted that eviction order under Section 14(1) (j) can only be passed if there is any illegal construction causing substantial damage or reducing utility of the premises. Ld. Counsel further submitted that Ld. ARC while deciding the issue has not considered law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as Waryan Singh v. Baldev Singh: (2003) 1 SCC; Vishwanath Prasad Jaiswal v.
Digitally signed by RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 11 of 17 VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.06 16:25:28 +0530 Satya Narain Sharma: 2014 (13) SCALE 740; G. Raghunathan v. K. V. Varghese: 2005 (5) Supreme 776; Om Pal v. Anand Swarup: (1998) 4 SCC 545; Savitri Devi v. U. S. Bajpai & Anr.: AIR 1956 Nagpur 60; Moti Ram Banarasi Dass v. Shiv Dayal Turst, 1948: (2) RCR (Rent) 421 (H.P.); G. Natrajan v. P Thandavaryam: 1969 RCR (Rent) 620 (Madras); Madan Lal Saggi & Anr. v. British Motor Car Company: 1984 (2) RCR 572; Mrs. K. Atma Ram & Anr. v. Kanwar Mohinder Singh: 1976 RCJ 336; Gurmit Singh v. Smt. Kirpal Kaur: 1992 (2) RLR 271; Vipin Kumar v. Roshan Lal Anand & Ors.:(1993) 2 SCC 614.
26. Ld. Counsel submitted that in fact walls and verandha were already there, as there was construction on the first floor also and the shutter was put with the permission and consent of the earlier landlord. There is no such report of any architect or expert showing that there is any substantial damage caused to the property. Ld. Counsel submitted that the construction in varandha have not materially damaged the building. In fact putting the shutter has improved the same and has not reduced its utility. Trial Court has no considered these facts. In absence of any such evidence that there is substantial damage or there is reduction in utility, order under Section 14 (1) (j) of the Act cannot be passed. It is prayed that keeping in view all these facts, appeal be allowed.
27. Ld. Counsel for respondent submitted that there is no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be rejected and dismissed at the Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 12 of 17 2025.10.06 16:25:35 +0530 outset. Hon'ble High Court has remanded back the matter to the Ld. ARC to decide whether there is unauthorized construction, which has caused substantial damage to the right of the respondent herein or reduced the utility of the premises. Ld. Counsel submitted that in this case as per the rent deed available on the file, one shop and varandha was rented out and property belongs to L&DO. Appellant herein have raised walls in the varandha and also put shutter. This fact that they have raised walls and put shutter is also admitted by them in their written statement that they have raised walls and shutter as flour from flour mill used to spread in the air and that is why they had done it. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no question of taking any consent from anybody and in fact no consent was taken. The varandha was an open verandha and besides that they have also covered the side path which is also shown in the site plan Ex PW3/X. The rent deed Ex PW1/1 clearly mentions in Clause 1 as follows:-
"The lessor has agreed to let out a corner room measuring 12' x 11' (approx.) having varandha measuring 12' x 7' in shop no. 1, Double Storey Market, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi facing Bus Stop to the lessee, for monthly rent of Rs. 110/-. The premises are fitted with electricity."
28. The site plan has also been proved on record as Ex PW1/14. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is another site plan Ex PW1/13 which shows the area in red which has been covered on the municipal land as well as varandha has been covered and included in the shop. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 13 of 17 BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.06 16:25:40 +0530 denial from the fact that it has been covered and the municipal land has been encroached. The reason given by the appellant / respondent is that as the flour used to fly from the flour mill, being run from the tenanted shop, they have done it. This suggestion that the walls were not in existence when the premises was let out has been specifically denied and respondent / appellant himself admitted that they put shutter in front of the verandha and then they themselves suggested that respondent constructed walls from portion A1 to A4 in Ex PW1/13 to protect from rain and dust. It is also denied that wall was constructed by owner of the another shop which is Mark as X1 in Ex PW1/13. Ld. Counsel submitted that all these facts clearly shows that the appellant herein not only have encroached upon but have also raised unauthorized construction that has no only diminished the value but has also affected the rights of the respondent herein, as he has received notice from L&DO asking them to remove the encroachment on the land. Their request for converting the premises from leasehold to freehold has also been declined merely because there is encroachment on the public land. Ld. Counsel submitted that all these facts clearly show that their rights have been compromised due to encroachment made by the appellant herein. The Trial Court has rightly considered all these facts and found that the encroachment and unauthorized construction raised by appellant herein have cause substantial damage to the rights of the respondent herein in the property and passed the order issuing directions to restore to the original. Ld. Counsel submitted that in support of his arguments, he has relied Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 14 of 17 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.06 16:25:45 +0530 upon judgments, Shakuntala Devi v. Avtar Singh: (2004) 76 DRJ 407; Pearey Lal & Anr. v. Surendra Nath & Ors.: 162 (2008) DLT 412 and Suresh Kumar Chauhan v. Dr. Puneesh Rohtagi: (2020) 257 DLT 397.
29. After hearing arguments and going through the record, I found that in this case Hon'ble High Court has remanded back the case to the Ld. ARC to decide afresh.
30. In the present case admittedly there is a rent agreement. Same has been proved on record as Ex PW1/1. In the said document, it is specifically mentioned as to what area was let out i.e. one corner room i.e. shop measuring 12' x 11' and varandha in front measuring 12' x 7'. From this document and also from the pleadings, it is clear that it was only one shop with verandha which was let out. There is no mention that any other area alongwith that was also let out. It is now admitted fact that verandha has been covered from both sides and shutter has been affixed. Claim of the appellant is that he has put the shutter with the permission but this fact has been denied. In fact it also alleged that the walls were raised and shutter was affixed as the flour from the flour mill used to flew in air but no such consent letter has been placed on record and there is no such evidence brought on record by the appellant as to when they raised this construction.
31. On the other hand, respondent has specifically deposed in the witness box that it was in 1997 when she visited the side, she found the encroachment i.e. the walls constructed and the shutter Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 15 of 17 Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.06 16:25:51 +0530 affixed. There is also evidence on record that the municipal land has been encroached upon. Though claim of the appellant is that it was done by the person occupying the shop X1 situated behind the shop let out to the present appellant but no such witness has been examined even the person who was occupying shop X1 as mentioned in Ex PW1/13 has not been examined. From this evidence, it is clear that initially there was only one shop with verandha which was let out but now the varandha has been covered and even municipal land situated at the site has also been encroached upon.
32. The issue is whether it has diminished the value or reduced the utility of premises and affected the rights of the respondent substantially. In this regard, respondents have placed on record two documents which are Ex PW2/1 and Ex PW2/2. Ex PW2/1 is letter wherein L&DO asked the appellant herein to remove encroachment from the public land which is also shown in the site plan. It is important to mention that this encroachment is shown in site plan Ex PW1/13. The second letter is Ex PW2/2 which is dated 02.05.2025 whereby request of the respondent herein to convert leasehold into freehold has been declined on the ground that they have encroached upon government land.
33. Keeping in view this proposition, it is clear that their valuable right of getting the property converted from leasehold to freehold has been affected due to encroachment and construction made by appellant herein and it caused substantial damage to the rights of the respondent. Keeping in view all these facts and the Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 16 of 17 2025.10.06 16:25:56 +0530 law on the point, I am of the opinion that Ld. Trial Court has rightly allowed the petition and there is no merit in the appeal, same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant herein is given one month time to restore the tenanted premises to the original condition from today.
34. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of the order to the Ld. Trial Court.
35. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR on 06th day of October , 2025 KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.10.06 16:26:01 +0530 (Virender Kumar Bansal) Principal District & Sessions Judge
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi(D) RCT-25/2025 Rama Ahuja & Anr. Vs Ranjan Kapoor & ors. Page 17 of 17