Delhi District Court
Narain Singh Mehra vs Gurmukh Singh Barmi on 4 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI, SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, SHAHDARA
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, NEW DELHI
RC ARC No. 234/2016
CNR No. DLSH03-000270-2014
NARAIN SINGH MEHRA (SINCE DECEASED)
Through His Legal Heirs
i). SHARAD MEHRA (Son)
S/o Narain Singh Mehra,
R/o A-74, Madhuban, Shakarpur,
Delhi-110092.
ii). RAJSHREE CHOPRA (Daughter)
D/o Narain Singh Mehra,
R/o 83 Kikenny Drive,
Dannemora Auckland,
Newzeland.
Also At:- A-74, Madhuban, Shakarpur,
Delhi-110092.
Iii). SMT. PRAMILA MEHRA (Wife)
W/o Late. Narain Singh Mehra,
R/o A-74, Madhuban, Shakarpur,
Delhi-110092.
...Plaintiff
Vs.
GURMUKH SINGH BARMI (SINCE DECEASED)
Through His Legal Heirs
a) MS. VEENU SURI,
D/o Lt. Sh. Gurmukh Singh Barmi
62/2191, Gurudwara Road
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-11005
Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 1 of 45
signed by
PRAGATI
PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04
18:16:47
+0530
b) RANVEER SINGH BARMI,
S/o Lt. Sh. Gurmukh Singh Barmi
62/2191, Gurudwara Road
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-11005
c) Brahamdeep Singh Barmi,
S/o Lt. Sh. Gurmukh Singh Barmi
62/2191, Gurudwara Road
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-11005
...Defendant
EVICTION PETITION U/S 14(1)(e) R/W Section 25B OF
DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT.
Date of Institution : 02.09.2014
Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2026
Decision : Allowed.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the DRC Act) for eviction of tenant/respondent.
Petition :-
2. Briefly stating, the case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the property bearing No. 657D, Kabul Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032 admeasuring 406 sq. yds. That the respondent is a tenant in respect of a portion (243 sq. yds) of the aforesaid property bearing No. 657D, (hereinafter referred to as the tenanted premises) since 01.01.2005, shown with red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. That initially the rate of Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 2 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:16:57 +0530 rent was Rs. 1100/- per month and it was agreed that the same shall be increased at 10% every three years. That the period of 3 years lastly expired in December, 2013, thereby increasing the rent to Rs. 1464/- per month.
3. That the area in which the tenanted premises is located is a residential area. That the East Delhi Municipal Corporation has sealed the tenanted premises, however, the respondent is still using it illegally in violation of the sealing order passed in the year 2001. That the respondent has been allotted a plot for relocation under the Bawana Industrial Area Scheme bearing Plot No. 296, Sector L. Bhargar, Bawana Industrial Area, Phase II, Delhi, admeasuring 250 sq.yds., in lieu of the tenanted premises.
4. That the family of the petitioner is the owner of ground floor of property bearing no. A-74, Block A, Madhuban, Delhi- 110092. That the petitioner is residing in the said property alongwith his family consisting of his wife, his son, his daughter- in-law, and three grandchildren. That the said ground floor consists of 3 bed rooms only and there is scarcity of space in the said accommodation.
5. That the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for his own bonafide need to accommodate his large family by converting the tenanted premises into a residential unit.
6. That the petitioner and his wife require one bedroom to accommodate themselves whereas his son Sharad Mehra and his wife require another bed room for themselves. Further, two of the grandchildren of petitioner are college going and are unable to adjust themselves in one room. Further, that besides this, there is RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 3 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:17:01 +0530one daughter of petitioner namely Rajshree Chopra who is a resident of New Zealand and is having two daughters. That whenever she visits the petitioner, due to scarcity of space, the petitioner has to make alternative arrangement at hotels and guest house for her stay. That the petitioner has other guests visiting him but are unable to get accommodation and spend time with him. The petitioner, thus, requires the tenanted premises to convert it into a residential house.
7. That the family members of the petitioner are dependent upon the petitioner for their residential needs. That the petitioner has no other alternative suitable accommodation for his aforesaid bonafide requirement. Hence, the present petition.
8. The summons of the present petition were issued to the respondent. Consequently, the respondent appeared before the court and filed his application for leave to defend the present petition which was allowed vide order dated 01.08.2018. Thereafter, the respondent was directed to file his written statement.
Written Statement :-
9. It is stated that although the respondent had been paying rent to the petitioner, however, the tenanted premises is a public/DDA Land meant for the purpose of DDA flats/garden in the part layout plan of the Shahadra District, Delhi. Thus, the petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises and even his sale deed does not reflect as to how the original vendor became the owners of the tenanted premises.
Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 4 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:17:05 +0530
10. Further, that the property where the petitioner is presently residing is a three-storeyed building at Madhuban, Delhi. That there are 4 bedrooms on the ground floor of the said property besides drawing-dining room, kitchen and bathroom. That the said accommodation is more than sufficient for petitioner and his family members.
11. That the son of the petitioner namely Sharad Mehra is independently doing the business of electrical equipments and has his own separate properties and is not dependent upon on the petitioner for the alleged residential needs.
12. Further, that the petitioner is the owner and in possession of additional area of about 250 square yards in the property No.657D and 657E, Kabul Nagar, Delhi, which is adjoining to the tenanted premises, and is lying vacant. That the entire property No.657-D, Kabul Nagar, Delhi is admeasuring 406 sq. yds out of which the tenanted premises is of only about 243 sq. yds and the remaining area of 163 sq. yds is in the exclusive possession of petitioner and is lying vacant for the last many years. That the petitioner further owns a vacant plot/area of about 82 sq. yds in the adjoining property No.657-E, Kabul Nagar, Delhi, which has been gifted to him by his brother and the same is in his possession.
13. That the tenanted premises is being used as a factory since the year 1951 and it consists of only tin sheds, halls etc., therefore, the same cannot be straightaway converted and used for residential purpose. That petitioner has alleged in the petition that he intends to convert the premises into a residential unit which can also be done in the remaining portion of property No. Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 5 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:17:08 +0530 657-D, Kabul Nagar, Delhi, admeasuring about 163 sq. yds. and another property bearing No. 657-E, Kabul Nagar, Delhi, admeasuring about 82 sq. yds. That from the documents filed on record, it is clear that properties No. 657-D and No. 657-E, Kabul Nagar, Delhi are separate properties.
14. Further, that prior to shifting to the property at A-74, Madhuban, Delhi, petitioner was residing at 1751, Bhagirath Palce, Delhi, with his family members, which is a three storeyed building consisting of about 4/5 rooms and is in possession of the petitioner.
15. That as per the case of the petitioner, for getting the tenanted premises constructed into a residential unit, he would have to get the building construction plan sanctioned and make huge investment which would easily amount to Rs. 30 Lakh to Rs. 40 Lakh. That the petitioner has not filed sufficient material to show that the said amount is available with him for the aforesaid purpose. Further, no building plan has been sanctioned by the petitioner till date.
16. That the petitioner is the owner of entire property no. A- 74, Madhuban, Delhi, which consist of three floors and just to create a false picture he has executed sham gift deeds in favour of his brothers with respect to the first and second floor of the said property. Thus, it is prayed that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Rejoinder :-
17. Rejoinder was filed on behalf of petitioner stating therein that the first floor of property no. A-74, Madhuban, Delhi, RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 6 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:17:13 +0530 belongs to Smt. Veena Mehra and Sh. Harsh Mehra vide registered gift deed dated 24.11.2004. Whereas the second floor of the said property belongs to Manoj Mehra and Kavita Mehra vide registered gift deed dated 24.11.2004.
18. Further, that property no. 657-D and 657-E, Kabul Nagar, Delhi, was a single property, i.e., 657 which was sold in parts and private members were given to identify the properties. Further, that the site plan cannot be issued as MCD has to sanction site plan of the entire property and not portion of it. That the petitioner cannot construct his own property in parts. Moreover, the industrial activity is not permitted in the area and the petitioner wants to lead his life comfortably and respectfully without any kind of hindrance and pollution. That as per the site plan, the vacant portion consists of three halls which are no more than industrial sheds and there is no provision of any kitchen, bathroom, drawing room, store room, etc. Further, the averments of the written statement have been denied and the averments of the petition have been reiterated.
19. It is pertinent to mention here that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent got expired on 30.07.2018 and vide order dated 14.02.2019, the son of the respondent namely, Sh. Bharamdeep Singh Bharmi was impleaded as legal heir of the respondent.
20. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked to lead his evidence, however, despite several opportunities having been granted to him, he failed to lead his evidence. Therefore, vide order dated 27.02.2023, petitioner's evidence was closed by court's order. Thereafter, the respondent was asked to lead his evidence.
RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 7 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date:PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:17:17 +0530 However, no evidence was desired to be led by the respondent and subsequently, respondent's evidence was also closed and the matter was listed for final arguments. Thereafter, vide judgment dated 31.03.2023, the present petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
21. However, later vide order dated 22.07.2023, the application of the petitioner for review of judgment dated 31.03.2023 was allowed and one last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to complete/lead his evidence.
22. Further, the respondent had filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court assailing the order dated 22.07.2023, however, the same was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
Petitioner's Evidence :-
23. Accordingly, the petitioner was asked to lead his evidence wherein he got examined only one witness, i.e., himself as PW-
1. He tendered in his examination-in-chief his affidavit Ex.
PW1/A reiterating therein the contents of his petition. He further relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Documents Exhibit/Mark 1. Reply of RTI Ex. PW 1/1 2. House tax receipt Ex. PW 1/2 3. Site plan Ex. PW 1/3 4. Copy of sale deed dated 27.12.2004 Ex. PW 1/4 (OSR) RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 8 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date: 2026.04.04 18:17:22 +0530 5. Copy of gift deed dated 29.02.08 Ex. PW 1/5 (OSR)
6. Copy of rent receipt for the period Ex. PW 1/6 01.07.2006 to 31.12.2006 (OSR)
7. Copy of rent receipt for the period Ex. PW 1/7 01.07.2007 to 31.12.2007 (OSR)
8. Copy of rent receipt for the period Ex. PW 1/8 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2008 (OSR)
9. Copy of rent receipt for the period Ex. PW 1/9 01.01.2009 to 31.12.2009 (OSR)
10. Copy of rent receipt for the period Ex. PW 1/10 01.01.2010 to 30.06.2010 (OSR)
11. Copy of bank passbook of petitioner Ex. PW 1/11 (OSR)
12. Photographs of newspaper Ex. PW 1/12
13. Copy of complaint dated 10.02.2014 to Ex. PW 1/13 the Commissioner of Industries (OSR)
14. Copy of letter dated 21.03.2014 of Mark H Pollution Control Commitee
15. Copy of letter dated 13.09.2013 of Ex. PW 1/15 EDMC
16. Site plan of A-74, Madhuban Mark A
17. Copy of gift deed dated 21.2004 in Ex. PW 1/17 respect of property no. A-74, First (OSR) Floor, Madhuban, Delhi
18. Copy of gift deed dated 24.11.2004 in Ex. PW 1/18 respect of property No. A-74, Madhuban, Second Floor, Delhi RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 9 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:17:26 +0530
19. Copy of property tax receipt of property Ex. PW 1/19 No. A-74, Madhuban, Delhi (OSR)
20. Copy of identity card of Varun Mehra, Ex. PW 1/20 Poonam Mehra and Maneet Mehra (OSR)
21. Copy of property tax receipt and Ex. PW 1/21 property tax assessment form (OSR)
22. Copy of perpetual lease under Ex. PW 1/22 relocation scheme Bawana II, Industrial (OSR) Complex
23. Office copy of legal notice dated Ex. PW 1/23 01.05.2014
24. Reply of legal notice dated 12.05.2014 Mark B
24. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he does not know the area of Madhuban where he is residing falls in category D. That he cannot say the area of Kabool nagar falls in category F. He admitted that Madhuban is a posh colony and bungalows are built in this colony where he is residing. He denied that no commercial activity is carried out in the Shahdara area. That he does not know how many shops are there in plot no. 657, Kabool Nagar or how many people are residing there. He admitted that in the area of Madhuban there is RWA and security is also there at the entrance of the colony. That neither he nor anyone from his family has ever resided in the area of Kabool Nagar, Shahdara till date. That his brothers reside in the area of Madhuban and none of his relatives are residing in Kabool Nagar. That he is not aware if in the area of Kabool Nagar, sanctioned plan are not passed and people are residing there after making unauthorized construction. He denied that the plot no. 657, Kabool Nagar, has been marked RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 10 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:17:30 +0530 as park in the layout plan. That the entire plot area of plot no. 657, Kabool Nagar is around 1,900 sq yds. He denied that the respondent was already a tenant with respect to 243 sq. yds of the plot no. 657 D, Kabool Nagar, when he purchased the property. That he does not remember, in which year he had purchased the property. He admitted that the respondent was a tenant with respect to 243 sq yds out of 657 D, Kabool Nagar when he purchased the property in the year 2005. That he has not executed any fresh rent agreement with the respondent.
25. Further, that the red colour portion shown in the site plan Ex. PW-1/3 is the tenanted property and the remaining portion except the red colour portion of the site plan Ex. PW-1/3 is in his possession and the same is not occupied by any other tenant and the said portion is in his occupation since the time he has purchased the property in the year 2005. He admitted that three halls have been constructed in the remaining portion of the property in his occupation as per (site plan) Ex. PW-1/3. He admitted that the tenanted property of 243 sq. yds. is a part of plot no. 657 D, Kabool Nagar, which he has purchased in the year 2005. He further stated that he does not know whether plot no. 657 E, Kabool Nagar is of 320 sq. yds. He admitted that out of plot no. 657 E, his brother Sh. Murli Manohar has gifted portion of 81.67 sq. yds. vide gift deed dated 29.02.2008. He denied that the aforesaid plot of 81.67 sq. yds was a vacant plot. On being confronted with Ex. PW-1/5 from points A to Al and B to B1 wherein it is mentioned that property no. 657 E is a vacant plot, he could not explain as to why the above said plot is shown vacant in the gift deed Ex. PW-1/5. He denied that the plot no.
RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 11 of 45Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:17:33 +0530 657 D and 657 E are separate plots and fall in different khasra numbers. He further stated that he has got mutation documents to show that plot no. 657 D and 657 E are joint plots. That he has not filed the documents of mutation on record. He denied that he has made an incorrect statement that there are mutation documents wherein the aforesaid plots have been shown as joint plots. He admitted that plot no. 657 D was purchased in 2005 and portion of 657 E was gifted to him three years later in the year 2008. He denied that he has concealed the fact in the petition that he owns plot no. 657 E admeasuring 81.67 sq yds. When he was asked to show in his petition that in which paragraph he has mentioned about the plot no. 657 E admeasuring 81.67 sq. yds is owned by him, he was not able to show any such averment in the petition.
26. Further, he admitted that he and his wife, till date, have not made any efforts to reside in the remaining portion of three halls as shown in Ex. PW-1/3. He volunteered that the halls are in a dilapidated condition. That he has never made any efforts to renovate or repair the vacant portion as shown in Ex. PW-1/3 so as to make it habitable for residing there, because the MCD does not grant such permission. He has never applied for any permission from MCD to repair or renovate the above said portion. He denied that since he has no intention to reside in the area of Kabul Nagar, therefore, he has not made any effort to get the remaining vacant portion of Ex. PW-1/3 in his possession, either repaired or renovated. He did not remember whether he has mentioned in the petition that the remaining portion as shown in site plan Ex. PW-1/3 consisting of three halls is vacant and in RC ARC 234/2016 Digitally Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 12 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:17:37 +0530 his occupation. He stated that till date, he has not applied in the MCD for sanctioned plan for the property no. 657 D or/and 657 E, Kabool Nagar, Delhi. He volunteered that it was so because sanctioned plan is not granted in respect of portion of the property. That he has not applied for sanctioned plan for construction of plot 657 E because the same is in possession of the respondent. He denied that the plot no. 657 E is not under the occupation of respondent rather the respondent is occupying only portion of plot no. 657 D. That he has no knowledge how much time is required to obtain sanctioned plan and construct the property. He denied that in the petition he has only made averment to get the tenanted property converted into residential unit and he has not made any averment for getting the same reconstructed after obtaining the sanctioned plan from MCD. He further denied that it is only after the leave to defend application was filed by the respondent that he has improved his petition and sought for reconstruction of the property realizing that he will not succeed in the petition with the existing averments.
27. Further, he admitted that the tenanted premises was used as a factory since 1951. He denied that the entire area around plot no. 657 is used as a commercial plot and there are no residence there and that his intentions are to get the property vacated and make commercial complex there and for that reason he has not made any effort to reside in the remaining portion of Ex. PW-1/3. He denied that the MCD does not issue any sanctioned plan since this area is enmarked for park in the layout plan of the area. That he is not aware if any sanctioned plan has been passed regarding any neighboring property by the MCD. He volunteereed that four RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 13 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:17:40 +0530 and five buildings have been constructed. That he is not aware if the said four-five buildings have been constructed unauthorizedly. He has not filed any hotel bill to show that during the visit of his daughter, he had to book hotel for her. That he has not filed passport of his daughter to show the frequency of visits his daughter to India. That his son owns a shop of electrical goods and he is an income tax payee. He denied that his son is financially independent and is not dependent upon him for any residential or financial needs. That he has not brought or filed the income tax returns of his son to show that he does not own any other property in Delhi. He has no knowledge if the Bawana Industrial Area plot has already been sold by the respondent for the treatment of his wife during his lifetime. He denied that he has sufficient alternative accommodation in the property no. A- 74, Madhuban, Delhi, plot no. 657E, Kabool Nagar and remaining portion of 657-D, Kabool Nagar and he has no requirement of the tenanted premises for any purpose. He further denied that he has leveled false allegations that despite sealing of the property the respondent had broken back wall of the property and was illegally using the property and that the property had been de-sealed by the MCD and the respondent is free to use the property for commercial purposes which are permitted in that area by the MCD. He further denied that the sale deed Ex. PW- 1/4 is a sham document because the ownership particulars of Mr. Om Prakash and others as mentioned in the sale deeds have not been disclosed in the sale deed and that the entire area of plot no. 657 is a government/DDA land and they have made false representation about their ownership. He denied that he is not the lawful owner of the tenanted property and that he has no Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 14 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:17:44 +0530 requirement of the tenanted property in any manner for his requirement or requirement of any family member dependent upon him. He further denied that the present petition is false and has been filed to throw the respondent out of the suit property by making false allegations of his bonafide requirement and that he has filed false affidavit in evidence and his petition is false.
28. No other witness was examined by the petitioner and vide separate statement of the petitioner, petitioner's evidence was closed on 10.08.2023.
29. Pertinently, during the pendency of the petition, petitioner also got expired and vide order dated 24.07.2025, application under Order XXII Rule 3 CPC of the legal heirs of petitioner was allowed and Sh. Sharad Mehra (son), Ms. Rajshri Chopra (daughter) and Smt. Pramila Mehra (wife) were impleaded as the legal heirs of petitioner.
Respondent's Evidence :-
30. Thereafter, respondent/LRs was asked to lead his evidence wherein he got examined three witnesses.
31. Sh. Brahamdeep Barmi (Son/LR of respondent) as RW-1 who tendered his affidavit Ex. RW-1/A in his examination-in-
chief wherein he reiterated the averments made in the written statement. He further relied upon the following documents:-
S. No. Documents Exhibits
1. Layout plan of the entire area Ex. RW-1/1
RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 15 of 45
Digitally signed
by PRAGATI
Date:
PRAGATI 2026.04.04
18:17:48
+0530
2. Copy of the application submitted by the Ex. RW-1/2 counsel for respondent
3. Reply dated 20.03.2015 Ex. RW-1/3
4. Copy of order dated 03.07.2020 Ex. RW-1/4 (OSR)
32. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he has visited the house of the petitioner at Madhuban more than ten years back where he had a meeting with Sh. Radhey Babu ji. That his father had sent him to his house for some work as his brother was getting married and petitioner's daughter was having a boutique so he had gone to pay some money. That petitioner's daughter had stitched clothes for the wedding of his brother. He expressed his ignorance as to where the boutique was and stated that his mother must have known. That he does not remember how much money he had paid. He does not know the address of boutique. That his mother had asked him to pick up the clothes and give the money. That he does not remember the name of the petitioner's daughter nor does he remember if he has ever personally met her but when he was a child he used to go to their house. He denied that petitioner's daughter is a citizen of New Zealand and is living outside India for the last 20 years and that she was never in the business of boutique or fashion designing. He further denied that she had not stitched wedding clothes for the wedding ceremony of his brother. He admitted that he has stated in para 9 of his affidavit Ex. RW1/A and petition that "he is not allowing the respondent to inspect the said property so that correct site plan RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 16 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:17:52 +0530 can be prepared by the respondent". That he had gone in the house earlier therefore, he knows that there are four rooms in the house. That he does not remember exactly but he had visited the house between the age of 10 years to 13 years. That he had lastly visited the house in the year 1998. He does not know when the house of the petitioner was constructed. He denied that the house was built in the year 2006.
33. Further, that he is in the business of trading of machine tools and packing materials since the year 2013. The name of the firm is Excel Industries. It is a registered company under GST and he pays GST. That it is a proprietorship firm having address at 62/2191, Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. That M/s Barmi Engineering is doing no work since the factory was sealed in 2001 and the sales tax also came to an end. That he cannot say whether the sales tax came to an end on 17.05.2012. That his property was sealed on account of pollution drive.
34. Further, that the petitioner was living at Bhagirath palace before they shifted to Madhuban as mentioned in para 'O' of his leave to defend. He has never visited the house at Bhagirath Palace. He volunteered that his father visited and informed him. That his father had not told him the date when he had visited the petitioner's house at Bhagirath Palace. His father told him that the petitioner's house at Bhagirath Palace is a building and work of electrical equipment is undergoing at present. That his father informed him after this case was instituted and they had discussion. That his father informed him within a month or two after the case was started. That his father had appeared in the court. Earlier, he used to come. That the petitioner's son is having Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 17 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:17:55 +0530 a shop of 6X6 where he does commercial activity. He denied that at petitioner's house at Bhagirath Palace there are four or five rooms.
35. Further, he admitted that he had got an alternate plot at Bawana in lieu of the suit property which was sealed. He stated that he does not remember the exact year of the allotment of the plot. That he did not start any work at the said plot at Bawana because his mother suffered from paralysis and his father had to sell the said plot for her treatment. That as his father had sold out the property he cannot say whether there was any condition that this plot cannot be sold. He denied that as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 02.12.2001, there was a condition that the respondent will stop the industrial activity in property bearing no. 657, Kabool Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi in non- confirming residential area for manufacturing activities or running any industry as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.05.2004. That after sealing of the property, he has never entered in the tenanted property. That he entered only after the property was de-sealed and the property was de-sealed for all times to come. He denied that Ex. RW-1/4 dated 03.07.2020 containing the direction "and whereas, he (M/s Barmi Engineering Workds, 657, Qubool Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32) submitted representation on 01.06.2020 for de-seal the unit for removal of plant and machineries. He volunteered that it has been de-sealed permanently. That he is using it as a godown for packing material. He denied that he is not using the property. That there is no case of electricity theft neither has he received any notice of electricity theft.
RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 18 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date:PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:17:59 +0530
36. Further, that there are shops near the property 657, Kabool Nagar. Upon confronting with the photograph Mark-A, he stated that he does not know whether it is the suit property or not. That he knows Mr. Mittal who is having a show room adjoining the tenanted property. That he cannot tell whether there is a stilt parking and flats in the neighboring property. He denied that in the neighboring areas any sanction of construction is allowed. That they have offered some money to him for vacating the suit property but he refused. He denied that he has stated falsely that the petitioner is residing in a three storyed building at A-74, Madhuban, Delhi and there are 4 bedrooms on each floor of the property at Madhuban, Delhi besides drawing-dining room, kitchen and bathroom. He further denied that petitioner is having only three bedrooms on the ground floor of A-74, Madhuban, where he is residing. That he does not have any idea that the first floor is used by deceased brother's wife and his son's family and second floor is also used by another deceased brother's daughter- in-law and daughters. That he does not remember how many brothers petitioners were. He volunteered that petitioner has two- three brothers. That he cannot tell whether petitioner were five brothers and property bearing no. A-74, Madhuban is jointly held by the family of other brothers.
37. Further, that he knows Mr. Sharad Mehra and he has met him two-three times in the court. That he has met him once outside the court. He does not know about the properties in his name. That he has mentioned in his affidavit at para 10 that Mr. Sharad Mehra is in possession of many separate properties because in his opinion a person paying income tax must be RC ARC 234/2016 Digitally Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 19 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:18:02 +0530 having properties. He has not received any notice for eviction from the petitioner. That if he had received any notice, he must have replied the same. That he has not got sanctioned any building plan of any property from MCD. That his father might have done that. That he has gone to Vrindavan. That he has not seen the property of the petitioner at Vrindavan. That he has mentioned the fact in his written statement that the petitioner is having a big house at Vrindavan on the basis of the information given by his father to him. That he has not mentioned that his knowledge regarding the facts of the case is based upon the information given to him by his father. He denied that petitioner has big house at Vrindavan, U.P. and is permanently residing there. That he has annexed DDA map which was taken from the DDA office by his father who visited the DDA office when the case was instituted. That the map must have been taken from the DDA office wherever the DDA office is located. He admitted that the map was taken from the DDA office by his father and that the same is a photocopy. That the property is shown in the DDA map adjoining to Sai Mandir shown at Point X. He cannot tell the directions in the said map and he cannot pin point the exact location of the properties in the said map. On being asked that there is no mention of DDA land at any property in the photocopy of the map Ex.RW-1/1, he stated that DDA Land is written at Point-Y of the map. He denied that the word is DDA Plan and not DDA Land. On being asked whether anything written on the map at Point-X that is a DDA land, he pointed out to Point-Y where it is mentioned according to the witness "DDA Land". He denied that the map contains the word PLAN and not LAND. He admitted that Ex. RW-1/1 is DDA Plan of the Kabool Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 20 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:18:06 +0530 Nagar. He denied that the property 657-D and 657-E are one properties and are not separate and that the property 657- A,B,C,D & E have been given by the petitioner and his brothers and sisters themselves. He denied that he does not need the property after the same was sealed and that petitioner requires the tenanted property for bona fide requirement to accommodate his large family and that area where the tenanted premises is situated is not a slum cluster. He further denied that there cannot be any commercial activity in the area where the tenanted premises is situated.
38. The respondent/LRs further got examined RW-2 Mr. Manish Rajpal (Assistant Town Planner, Town Planning Department, MCD, Civil Center, Minto Road, Delhi), who brought the summoned record i.e. certified copy of layout plan of Naveen Shahdara, Delhi (Ex.RW-2/A) and stated that the summoned record does not show plot no. 657, Kabul Nagar. He volunteered that Layout plans do not show or mention any plot numbers. He further stated that he is not aware about the department which would be maintaining record showing plot no. 657, Kabul Nagar. That he cannot show the entire area of Kabul Nagar from the summoned record.
39. Respondent/LRs further examined RW-3 Sh. Anil Mittal (Executive Engineer, DUSIB), who brought the summoned record i.e. report dated 22.10.2025 of Patwari of the land section of DUSIB Department [Ex.RW3/A (OSR)]. He further brought the summoned record i.e. layout plan of the Kabul Nagar, Shahdara, plot no.657 (Mark RW3/X) depicted in blue colour at point A. He stated that the green colour defines the boundaries of RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 21 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:18:09 +0530 the slum tenement area. That the original layout plan of Shahdara is with the town planner and the site plan produced by him is a photocopy of Kabul Nagar layout plan and the same is true and correct and the same is placed on record by him. He further stated that he cannot say if the plot no.657, Kabul Nagar was enmarked for DDA park.
40. No other witness was examined by the respondent/LRs and vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the respondent, respondent's evidence was closed on 20.12.2025.
41. Final arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and Ld. Counsel for the respondent heard. Case file perused carefully.
Analysis and Findings :-
42. Present is a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act filed by the petitioner on the ground of his bonafide need. In order to succeed in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the following ingredients are required to be proved by the petitioner/landlord:-
(i) The petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises and there is a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent.
(ii) The tenanted premises is bonafidely required by the petitioner/landlord.
(iii) There is no other alternate reasonable accommodation available with the petitioner.RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 22 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date:
PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:18:13 +0530
43. The essential idea is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith. It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely illusory or whittled down (Ref. Ram Das Vs. Ishwar Chander & Ors. AIR 1988 SC 1422). Further, it has been held in the case of Mukesh Kumar Vs. Rishi Prakash, 2010 (174) DLT 64 that mere failure to plead even the necessary ingredients in an eviction petition is not fatal to its maintainability. Further, in the case of Madan Gopal V. Mamraj, AIR 1976 SC 461, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that it is well settled that pleadings are loosely drafted in the Courts and the Courts should not scrutinise the pleadings with such meticulous care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds. In this backdrop, it is now to be seen that whether in the petition in hand, the petitioner has been able to establish the aforesaid ingredients or not.
(i) Whether the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises and there is a relationship of landlord-tenant between the petitioner and the respondent?
44. In respect of the ownership of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises, the petitioner/PW-1 has led into evidence the copy of registered sale deed dated 27.12.2004 (Ex.PW1/4). Perusal of the same reveals that the erstwhile owner namely M/s P. Narain Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. had sold a portion of property bearing no. 657, Kabool Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, admeasuring 326 sq. yds., i.e., portion marked 657D, to the petitioner on Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 23 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:18:17 +0530 27.12.2004. It is further specified in the said sale deed that portion of the aforesaid property is under the tenancy of M/s Barmi Engineering Works, i.e., the respondent herein. It is further mentioned therein that the said company had purchased the said property from vendors namely Sh. Om Prakash etc. vide a registered sale deed dated 10.05.1960. Thus, the petitioner has placed on record his title document which is a duly registered document.
45. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that in the said sale deed Ex. PW1/4 the fact as to how Om Prakash etc. had become the owners, is not mentioned, therefore, the same is a sham document. He has further relied upon the decision in the case Devi Dass Vs. Mohan Lal 1982 AIR (SC) 1213, and has contended that the sale deed Ex. PW1/4 cannot be considered as a valid title document qua ownership of the petitioner. He has further contended that the land/tenanted premises is the land of DDA who is the owner thereof.
46. Now, it is a settled position of law that a registered sale deed carries with it a formidable presumption of validity and genuineness. Registration is not a mere procedural formality but a solemn act that imparts high degree of sanctity to the document. Consequently, a court must not lightly or casually declare a registered instrument as a sham. (Ref. Hemlatha (D) by LRs vs. Tukaram (D) by LRs & Ors., 2026 Live Law (SC)
79). Thus, this court is of the view that merely because it is not mentioned in the sale deed Ex. PW1/4 as to how the vendors namely Om Prakash etc. became the owners of the plot no. 657D would not itself lead to the conclusion that the sale deed Ex.
Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 24 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:18:21 +0530 PW1/4 is a sham document since the same is a duly registered document. In the decision relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the respondent, the plea taken by the tenant was that the sale deed in respect of the tenanted premises was executed in favour of the landlord by the erstwhile owners, with the ulterior motive of evicting the tenant. Therefore, it was observed and directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the court (below) had to record a finding on this aspect. However, in the present petition, no such objection has been raised by the respondent in his written statement that the sale deed Ex.PW1/4 had been executed to oust him from the tenanted premises. Moreover, the sale deed Ex. PW1/4 had been executed in favour of petitioner way back in the year 2004 whereas the present petition has been filed in the year 2014. Thus, it cannot be said that the said sale deed was executed in favour of petitioner just to evict the respondent from the tenanted premises. Nothing to this effect has even appeared in the cross-examination of the petitioner/PW-1. Therefore, this court is of the view that the sale deed Ex. PW1/4 cannot be said to be a sham document and the decision in the case of Devi Dass Vs. Mohan Lal (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present petition.
47. Furthermore, it has been held in the case of T.C. Rekhi Vs. Smt. Usha Gujra, 1971 RCJ 322 that the use of the word "owner" in this clause seems to have been inspired by the definition of the work "landlord" as contained in section 2 (e) of the Act which is wide enough to include a person receiving or entitled to receive the rent of any premises on account of or on behalf of or for the benefit of any other person. Construed in the RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 25 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:18:25 +0530 context in which the word "owner" is used in clause (e).
Similarly, in the case of Sheela & Ors. Vs. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC 375, it has been held that in a landlord- tenant dispute, the owner is one who has better rights than that of the tenant and it is not incumbent upon him to prove beyond shadow of doubt that he is the owner of the property as he is contesting a suit challenging his title.
48. In the present petition, the petitioner has led into evidence the copy of a registered sale deed executed in his favour in respect of property bearing no. 657D which also finds mention of the fact that the respondent is in possession of a portion of the same. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said sale deed (Ex. PW1/4) of the petitioner has been set aside by any court of law or any other competent authority. Thus, there is no reason for this court to disbelieve the fact that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing no. 657D including the tenanted premises.
49. Further, the petitioner has also led into evidence the rent receipts Ex. PW1/6 to Ex. PW1/10 issued by the petitioner in favour of the respondent qua the tenanted premises so as to prove that he is the landlord whereas the respondent is his tenant. The said rent receipts have not been disputed by the respondent. Rather, he has admitted in his written statement that his own status qua the tenanted premises is that of a tenant and that he has been paying rent to the petitioner. Thus, this court is of the view that once the respondent has admitted that he is a tenant whereas the petitioner is his landlord, then as per Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the respondent is now estopped from Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 26 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:18:29 +0530 challenging the title of the petitioner. Accordingly, the contention of respondent that the sale deed Ex. PW1/4 is a sham document is not tenable. Similarly, the contention of the respondent that the tenanted premises is a public land/DDA land is also not tenable and is of no help to the respondent. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi [(Delhi) 2008 (2) RCR (Rent) 567] wherein it has been held that :-
"The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, however imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly."
50. Thus, this court is of the view that the respondent is estopped from challenging the ownership of the petitioner. As such, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, evidently, the petitioner has duly proved that he is the owner as well as the landlord qua the tenanted premises whereas the respondent is his tenant therein.
(ii) Whether the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by the petitioner/landlord?
RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 27 of 45Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:18:33 +0530
51. In this regard, it is trite that the term 'bonafide' used in Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires'' is much higher than in mere desire. It has been held in the case of Siddalingamma & Anr. Vs. Mamtha Shenoy (2001) 8 SCC 561, that the question to be asked by a judge of facts, by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest? If the answer be in the positive the need is bona fide. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. An approach either too liberal or too conservative or pedantic must be guarded against. If the landlord wishes to live with comfort in a house of his own, the law does not command or compel him to squeeze himself and dwell into lesser premises so as to protect the tenant's continued occupation in tenancy premises.
52. In the present petition, it is the case of the petitioner that presently he alongwith his family is residing in the ground floor of property bearing no. A-74, Block A, Madhuban, Delhi, which has only three bedrooms. That his family members includes his wife, his son, his daughter-in-law and three grandchildren. Apart from this, he has a married daughter who resides abroad and visits him occasionally alongwith her two children. Therefore, the aforesaid accommodation in the aforesaid property bearing no. A-74 is not sufficient for him and his aforementioned family members. Thus, the petitioner requires the tenanted premises to convert it into a residential house so that he and his wife can shift RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 28 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:18:38 there and live conveniently and gracefully. Petitioner has led into evidence the site plan (Mark A) of the property no. A-74 (endorsement dated 10.03.2021 upon the site plan is made as Mark B, however, hereinafter the same is referred to as 'Mark A'). As per the said site plan Mark A, there are three bedrooms, three bathrooms, one kitchen, one pooja room and one store- room at the ground floor of property no. A-74. In the cross- examination of petitioner/PW-1, nothing contradictory has appeared in respect of number of family members of the petitioner as well as in respect of the fact that there are only three bedrooms at the ground floor of property no. A-74. No suggestion has even been put forth by Ld. Counsel for the respondent to the petitioner/PW-1 in respect of number of family members of the petitioner and in respect of number of rooms available with the petitioner on the ground floor of property no. A-74.
53. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has heavily stressed upon the contention that the property no. A-74 is situated in a posh area, therefore, the petitioner would never intend to shift to such an area/tenanted premises which is being used as a factory since the year 1951 and is located in/near a slum area and which cannot be used for residential purposes. He has further contended that no construction for residential purposes is permissible in the said area since the same has been enmarked for a park. In this regard, Ld. Counsel for respondent has referred to the admission of petitioner/PW-1 in his cross-examination where the petitioner has admitted that there is a RWA and security in the area of Madhuban in order to show that the property no. A-74 is situated Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 29 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:18:42 +0530 in a posh area. He has further contended that the petitioner/PW-1 has categorically stated in his testimony that none of his relatives are residing in Kabool Nagar (where the tenanted premises is situated), therefore, there is no probability that the petitioner would shift from a posh colony to an inferior area.
54. Pertinently, the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are contradictory to each other in the sense that on one hand it has been alleged that in the layout plan of the DDA, the area where the tenanted premises is located, has been en- marked for a 'Park' and it cannot be used for residential purposes. On the other hand it has been alleged that the tenanted premises is being used as a factory since the year 1951 and after its de-sealing it is being used by the respondent as is permitted by the government/competent authorities. This court is of the view that the respondent cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. If the said area has been en-marked for a park then how the respondent had been using it as a factory and after its de-sealing, how the respondent had been using it for other permissible purposes, has not been explained by the respondent. Further, the respondent has not led into evidence the said record/letter/order wherein such permissible activities have been enlisted and permitted to be carried out by the competent authorities. Further, as far as the averment that the tenanted premises is situated in a slum/inferior area is concerned, then this court is of the view that even if the area where the petitioner is presently residing is a posh area, even then it is neither for the respondent nor for the court to decide as to where the landlord should or should not continue to reside. It is solely for the landlord to decide as to RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 30 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:18:46 +0530 where he wants to spend his life. It has been held in the case of Praveen & Anr Vs. Mulak Raj & Ors (R.C. Rev. 417/2016 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 06.12.2023) as under
:-
"32. It is a settled law that the Court must presume the bona fide requirement of the landlord. The Supreme Court in "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. "(1998) 8 SCC 119] observed that:-
"14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the land-lord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not pro-ceed 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 require-ment of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting posses- sion of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the land-lord could have adjusted himself."
33. The landlord is only required to show that the require- ment of the tenanted premises is a bona fide requirement and not merely a whimsical or a fanciful desire by him. The Supreme Court in the landmark case of "Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal." [(2001) 5 SCC 705] observed that:-
"15... The statutory mandate is that there must be first a re-quirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bona fide which is intended to avoid a mere whim or desire. The "bona fide requirement" must be in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evi-dence the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire."
Digitally signed by RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 31 of 45 PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:18:50 +0530
55. Further, it has been categorically held in the case of Mohd.
Usman Vs. Siraj Ahmed, 2009(2) Rent LR 332 that :-
(i) It is for the landlord to decide where he wants to live.
(ii) Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and the place where he has to live.
(iii) It is not open for the Court or the tenant to dictate in what manner he should live, where he should live nor Court can impose its own standards on the landlord.
iv) If a landlord wants to live in his own house in old Delhi which technically falls under slum, neither the tenant nor the Court can dictate terms to him that he was a well off person, an officer in the bank or a teacher and old Delhi was not fit for his residence.
(v) Even the requirement of the landlord to have his premises vacated or his frequent visits to Delhi and for temporary stay in his own premises has to be viewed as a bonafide requirement.
(vi) It is not necessary that a landlord should keep on writing futile letters to the tenant asking him to vacate.
(vii) The observation of the Court that the landlord had sold his flat in Bombay but has not given the name of seller and has not disclosed the consideration, had nothing to do with the bonafide requirement of the landlord',
56. Thus, placing reliance upon the aforecited decision, this court is of the view that the fact that where the petitioner is presently residing is a posh area whereas the tenanted premises is located in a slum area, is not a criteria for deciding as to whether the requirement of the petitioner is bonafide or not and even if the petitioner wants to shift to a slum area where his property is situated, then it is for the petitioner to decide and no interference in the said decision especially by the tenant/respondent is warranted. In the present petition, the petitioner/PW-1 has categorically deposed that he and his wife require one room and his son and wife require another room. He has further deposed Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 32 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:18:54 +0530 that his three grandchildren out of whom two are college going, are unable to adjust themselves in one room thus, they also require separate rooms. Apart from this he requires a Guest room and a Pooja room. The respondent cannot decide for the petitioner that whether the petitioner would require the aforesaid proposed accommodation for himself and his family members or not. The respondent has not filed any counter-site plan in respect of ground floor of property no. A-74 to prove that the aforestated projected need of the petitioner can be fulfilled from the property where he is residing at present.
57. Further, no record/document has been led into evidence by the respondent to prove that no construction for residential purpose can be sanctioned in the said area. Even RW-2 and RW-
3, who brought the layout plan Ex. RW2/A of Naveen Shahdara and layout plan of Kabul Nagar, Shahdara, Mark RW3/X, respectively, did not depose to the effect that no construction for residential purpose is permissible in the said area. In the layout plans Ex. RW1/1, Ex. RW1/A, Mark RW3/X, it is nowhere mentioned that the area where the tenanted premises is located is exclusively an industrial area. Rather, as per Mark RW3/X- the tenement no. 266, Kabul Nagar, Shahdara, has been declared as a staff quarter by the order of Additional Commissioner, which shows that residential premises do exist in the area of Kabul Nagar. Similarly, in the patwari report Ex. RW3/1 it is nowhere stated that residential buildings are not permitted to be constructed in the area where the tenanted premises is located. It merely talks about the area which has not been acquired and is outside the Departmental Scheme Slum Tenement boundary. No RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 33 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:18:58 +0530 witness from the MCD or any other government department has been examined by the respondent to prove that construction for residential purpose is not permissible in the said area. Further, no photographs of the adjoining property have been led into evidence by the respondent to prove that the entire adjoining/nearby area is an industrial area and petitioner cannot reside there. Similarly, no details of the adjoining industries being so run have been furnished by the respondent nor any witness has been examined by him in this regard. Rather PW-1 was asked the question during his cross-examination that people are residing in the said area after making unauthorized construction which means that residential construction is in fact in existence in the said area. Moreover, if the petitioner does not use the tenanted premises for his projected need, then the respondent has the remedy under Section 19 of the DRC Act available to him and he can re-enter the tenanted premises thereunder. Thus, from the above, this court is of the view that there is no merit in the contentions raised by the respondent since there is no material on record which shows that the needs of the petitioner are either malafide or fanciful. As such, the allegations of the respondent that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide is bald and vague. Accordingly, this court is of the view that the petitioner has duly proved his bonafide requirement qua the tenanted premises.
(iii) Whether an alternate suitable accommodation is available with the petitioner?
58. The respondent has alleged that the property no. A-74, wherein the petitioner is residing is a three-storeyed building RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 34 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:19:01 +0530 which is sufficient for the projected need of the petitioner. However, pertinently, the petitioner has led into evidence copy of the two registered gift deeds, i.e., Ex. PW1/17 and Ex. PW1/18. Perusal of these gift deeds reveal that the 1 st floor of property no. A-74 has already been gifted by petitioner to Smt. Veena Mehra & Sh. Harsh Mehra vide gift deed dated 24.11.2004 (Ex. PW1/17) whereas the 2nd floor of the said property has already been gifted by the petitioner to Sh. Manoj Mehra and Smt. Kavita Mehra vide gift deed dated 24.11.2004 (Ex. PW1/18). The present petition was filed in the year 2014 whereas the said gift deeds are of the year 2004, thus, evidently, the same were executed by the petitioner way prior to the filing of the present petition, therefore, the same cannot be said to be sham documents to have been executed merely to defeat the rights of the respondent and to evict him from the tenanted premises. The respondent has not led into evidence any document/record to prove that the 1st floor and 2nd floor of the property no. A-74 is still owned by the petitioner and mere verbal averments have been made by him in this regard which are not tenable.
59. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that as per the petition, the property no. 657-D is admeasuring 406 sq. yds. and as per the gift deed Ex. PW1/5, property no. 657E, admeasuring 81.67 sq. yds. was gifted to the petitioner by one Sh. Murli Manohar Mehra. That the respondent is in possession of only 243 sq. yds. of property no. 657D, therefore, the remaining portion of property no. 657D and the entire portion of property no. 657E total equalling to approx. 250 sq. yds. is also available with the petitioner which can be used by him for RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 35 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:19:05 +0530 his projected need. Further, that since the petitioner has concealed from the court the fact that he is also the owner of property no. 657E which is a separate property situated in different Khasra number than property no. 657D, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
60. This court is of the view that this contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondent does not hold any merit because the petitioner has duly explained in his affidavit of evidence Ex.
PW1/A that 657D and 657E was a single property, i.e., 657 which was sold in parts and private numbers were given to identify the properties. That the joint area of property no. 657 D and 657E would be equal to 406 sq. yds. This averment of petitioner is also corroborated from the sale deed Ex. PW1/4 and gift deed Ex. PW1/5. Since in the sale deed Ex. PW1/4, the area of property no. 657D is mentioned as 326 sq. yds. and in the gift deed Ex. PW1/5 the area of property no. 657E is mentioned as 81.67 sq. yds. Thus, the total area (657D+657E) is approx. 407 sq. yds. The petitioner has also led into evidence the site plan Ex. PW1/3 in respect of the entire area of 406 sq. yds. which shows that it includes the area of plot no. 657D and 657E. On the other hand, respondent has not filed any counter site-plan to prove that the area shown by the petitioner or that the construction shown by the petitioner in the site plan Ex. PW1/3 is incorrect and is not according to the site. The respondent has also not examined any witness from the MCD/or any other department to prove that the property no. 657D and 657E are separate plots of land and no such private numbers were given to identify the properties and that these are the municipal numbers RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 36 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:19:08 +0530 given by the MCD. Similarly, the respondent has also not examined any witness from the revenue department to prove that the property no. 657D and 657E are located in different Khasra numbers. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that there is no concealment on the part of the petitioner in respect of the property bearing no. 657E and thus, the remaining area available with the petitioner is only approx. 164 sq. yds. and not 245 sq. yds/ 250 sq. yds.
61. Now, as per the site plan Ex. PW1/3, in the remaining portion of the property no. 657D there are three halls in existence. Petitioner/PW-1 has admitted during his testimony that the said portion is lying vacant, however, he has volunteered that the said three halls are in a dilapidated condition. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has contended that in order to show his bonafide, the petitioner could have at least got repaired and started residing in the aforestated portion which is lying vacant and is in a dilapidated condition. That the said portion is also a huge area and would be sufficient for the petitioner for his projected need.
That since the same is just adjacent to the tenanted premises, therefore, its location is same as that of the tenanted premises. In this regard, the petitioner/PW-1 has categorically deposed in his cross-examination that although there are three halls in the remaining portion but the same are in a dilapidated condition and that he has never applied for any permission from the MCD to repair or renovate the said portion because sanctioned plan is not granted in respect of a portion of the property. Pertinently, the said three halls are shown by the petitioner in the site plan Ex.
RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 37 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date:PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:19:12 +0530 PW1/3 itself, thus, there is no concealment by the petitioner in this regard. Further, the respondent has not disputed the fact that these three halls are in a dilapidated condition. Even no suggestion to this effect has been put forth to the petitioner/PW-1 nor any building expert report has been led into evidence by the respondent to prove that the same are not in a dilapidated condition. In such circumstances, there is no reason for this court to disbelieve the fact that the said three halls are in a dilapidated condition. Further, this court is of the view that the respondent being a tenant cannot direct the landlord/petitioner to first renovate the portion/part of the property and start residing there and thereafter when the remaining part/tenanted premises is vacated then again reconstruct the entire property as per his requirement. Evidently, presently there are no rooms, bathrooms, store-rooms, kitchen in the said remaining adjoining area. Asking the petitioner to first construct the same in the remaining portion and then again construct it when he gets the possession of the tenanted premises would not only put the petitioner to unnecessary hassle/inconvenience but would also burden him financially. It has been held in the case of Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co." [(2000) I SCC 679] by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under :-
"10... It is true that the plaintiff landlord in his evidence stated that there were a number of other shops and houses belonging to him but he made a categorical statement that his said houses and shops were not vacant and that the suit'premises is suitable for his business purpose. It is a settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. (See Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan [(1996) 5 SCC 353].) In the case in hand the plaintiff landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 38 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:19:16 +0530 premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
62. Similarly, it has been held in the case of "Balwant Singh v. Sudarshan Kumar" [(2021) 15 SCC 75] as under :-
"12. On the above aspect, it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate. Insofar as the earlier eviction proceeding, the vacant shops concerned under possession of the landlords were duly disclosed, but the case of the landlord is that the premises/space under their possession is insufficient for the proposed furniture business."
63. Thus, placing reliance upon the aforecited decisions and in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that in the case in hand as well, it is not for the respondent to dictate to the petitioner whether the remaining portion of approx. 164 sq. yds. would be suitable for his residential need or not. The petitioner has categorically explained the non-suitability of the remaining portion that the same is only a part of the property and he requires the entire area of 406 sq. yds. for his residential requirement. The respondent being a tenant has no say to decide that the area of only 164 sq. yds. is sufficient for the petitioner for his alleged requirement.
64. Another contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has not mentioned in his petition that he will reconstruct the existing structure in the tenanted premises alongwith the adjoining structure, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground. In this regard, this court is of the view that the petitioner has specifically stated in his petition that he wants to use the tenanted premises by converting it into a residential unit. This necessarily implies reconstruction of the RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 39 of 45 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2026.04.04 18:19:19 +0530 entire existing structure in view of the fact that it is a matter of record and an admitted fact that earlier the tenanted premises was being used as a factory and that the adjoining structure is in a dilapidated condition. Thus, this court is of the view that there was no requirement of specifically mentioning the word 'reconstruction' by the petitioner in his petition and the absence of the said word in the petition will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner. In this regard, this court places reliance upon the decision in the case of Madan Gopal Vs. Mamraj (supra).
65. Coming to the property no. 1749-1757, Bhagirath Palace, Chandani Chowk, Delhi. In this regard, the petitioner/PW-1 has deposed in his affidavit Ex. PW1/A that the same is located in a commercial area and thus, it is not suitable for the petitioner/PW-
1. Whereas, RW-1 has not made any averment in respect of the said property in his affidavit of evidence Ex. RW1/A and he has rather deposed in his cross-examination that at present, work of electrical equipment is being conducted in the said building. Thus, as per RW-1 himself the said property is not lying vacant and commercial activity is going on there. Thus, the same cannot be said to be an additional accommodation available for the petitioner. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the petitioner has duly proved that he does not have any other alternate suitable accommodation available with him.
66. Another averment of the respondent is that the son of the petitioner is doing his own business and is independent in all respects as he has his own properties. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision in the case of Munna @ RC ARC 234/2016 Digitally Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 40 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:19:23 +0530 Manoj Vs. Ram Narain (2011 Legal Eagle (DEL) 1424) and has contended that the petitioner has not produced before the court the income tax record of his son to prove that his son is dependent upon him. That this amounts to concealment of material facts, therefore, the present petition is liable to be dismissed. Pertinently, in the aforecited case the projected need of the petitioner was for running a showroom/shop of fancy light. Thus, the said requirement was for the purpose of running a business whereas the present eviction petition has been filed for the residential need of the petitioner, therefore, even if the petitioner or his son had/have a good monthly/yearly income the same is not relevant for the purpose of the present petition. Therefore, this court is of the view that the aforecited judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present petition.
67. Further, no details of the properties allegedly owned by the son of the petitioner have been furnished by the respondent nor any sale deed or any other document of ownership of any residential property in the name of son of petitioner has been led into evidence by the respondent in order to prove that the son of the petitioner is not dependent upon the petitioner for his residential needs. Thus, again mere bald averments have been made in this regard by the respondent without any supporting documentary evidence, therefore, the same are outrightly rejected.
68. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has further contended that since the petitioner and his wife both have expired during the pendency of the petition and since tenanted premises was RC ARC 234/2016 Digitally Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 41 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:19:26 +0530 required by the petitioner so that he alongwith his wife only could shift there, therefore, the projected need of the petitioner has now ceased to exist. Thus, the petition has itself become infructuous. Reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Seshambal (D) through LRs vs. Chelur Corporation Chelur Buildings & Ors. (2010 AIR (SC) 1521). In the said case, eviction petition was filed against the tenant by the husband and wife who were the owners of the premises in dispute. The said petition was dismissed by the Ld. Rent Controller concerned by concluding that the owners had failed to establish their bonafide requirement of premises as they had shifted their residence from Cochin and were living with their daughter and son-in-law who were running a nursing home in that city. When the matter reached the Hon'ble Apex Court, then one of the petitioners/husband had already expired. Further, during the pendency of the appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court, the another petitioner/wife had also expired. The Hon'ble Apex Court thus noted that the requirement pleaded in the eviction petition by the original petitioners was their own personal requirement and not the requirement of the members of their family whether dependant or otherwise. Indeed if the deceased landlords had any dependant member of the family we may have even in the absence of a pleading assumed that the requirement pleaded extended also to the dependant member of their family. That unfortunately, for the appellants is neither the case set up nor the position on facts. The deceased couple did not have any dependant member of the family for whose benefit they could have sought eviction on the ground that she required the premises for personal occupation.
Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 42 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:19:30 +0530
69. However, in the present case the situation is not the same as in the case of Sheshambal (D) through LRs (supra). In the case in hand, the son of the petitioner is still alive in respect whereof it has already been stated/pleaded in the petition itself that he is dependent upon the petitioner for his residential needs. Further, as already stated hereinabove, there is no evidence on record to show that the son of the petitioner owns any residential property in his own name or that he had been residing separately from the petitioner so as to say that he does not require the tenanted premises. The fact that the petitioner has three grandchildren and a daughter (residing abroad) is also not in dispute. The fact that the two grandchildren of petitioner are college going and require separate rooms is also not in dispute. There is no evidence/counter-site plan to prove that the ground floor of property no. A-74, Madhuban, Delhi, has such number of rooms which would easily accommodate all the aforesaid family members of the petitioner including the daughter who is living abroad. There are no photographs or any other record to prove that the said daughter of the petitioner is not residing abroad (New Zealand) and is rather residing in the property no. A-74 itself. Similarly, there is no evidence on record to prove that the daughter of the petitioner has strained relations with the petitioner and his son and that they are not at visiting terms with each other so as to say that no separate room/guest room is required for her. Thus, this court is of the view that the aforecited decision is of no help to the respondent since the same is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 43 of 45signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:19:35 +0530
70. It has been held in the case of Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastava (2001) 2 SCC 604 (relied upon by Ld. Counsel for petitioner) as under :-
"We have no doubt that the crucial date for deciding as to the bona fides of the requirement of the landlord is the date of his application for eviction. The antecedent days may perhaps have utility for him to reach the said crucial date of consideration. If every subsequent development during the post petition period is to be taken into account for judging the bona fides of the requirement pleaded by the landlord there would perhaps be no end so long as the unfortunate situation in our litigative slow process system subsists. During 23 years after the landlord moved for eviction on the ground that his son needed the building, neither the landlord nor his son is expected to remain idle without doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or starting any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement to occupy the building. It is a stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. If a young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the gloss. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door before an applicant just on the eve of his reaching the finale, after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation, merely on the ground that certain developments occurred pendente lite, because the opposite party succeeded in prolonging the matter for such unduly long period."
71. In the case in hand, the petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 2014 and unfortunately he expired in the year 2024. Further, his wife also expired in the year 2025. However, placing reliance upon the aforecited decision, this court is of the view that even if the petitioner and his wife expired during the pendency of the present petition, the same would not automatically lead to extinguishment/ceasement of the projected Digitally RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 44 of 45 signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04 18:19:38 +0530 need of the petitioner as the same is to be considered in respect of date of filing of the present petition.
72. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the view that the petitioner has been able to prove his bonafide requirement qua the tenanted premises and the fact that he has no other residential accommodation available with him for his projected need. Accordingly, the petition in hand is hereby allowed and the respondent is hereby directed to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. a portion (243 Sq. Yds) of property bearing No. 657D, Kabul Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, as shown with red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner in terms of section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. However, as per Section 14 (7) DRC Act, the petitioner shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiry of a period of six months from the date of this order. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by PRAGATIPronounced in Open Court PRAGATI Date:
2026.04.04
on 04.04.2026 18:19:44 +0530
(PRAGATI)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-RC
KKD/SHD/DELHI/04.04.2026
RC ARC 234/2016 Narain Singh Mehra vs. Gurmukh Singh Barmi Page 45 of 45