Delhi District Court
Bhagwan Dass vs Anand Swarup on 17 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
& RENT CONTROL TRIBUNAL (CENTRAL )
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RCT No. 45/2023
CNR No. DLCT01-012365-2023
Bhagwan Dass
S/o Late Sh. Ravi Dutt
R/o H.No.8, 2nd Floor,
Model Basti, near Filmistan Cinema,
Delhi-110005
Being legal heir of Sh. Ravi Dutt
...........Appellant
Versus
1. Anand Swarup
S/o Late Sh. Prem Swarup
R/o H.no.29, Model Basti,
near Filmistan Cinema
Delhi-110005
2. Ms. Kiran Mer
W/o Sh. Ashwani Mer
D/o Late Sh. Ravi Dutt
R/o Village Babak, Post Office Gorewah
Distt. Hoshiarpur, Punjab
(Proforma Respondent)
............Respondents
Date of filing of appeal : 02.09.2023
Date of arguments : 06.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 17.10.2025
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal has been preferred challenging the order dated 02.08.2023 vide which the Ld. ARC has allowed the Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 1 of 15 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.17 16:41:13 +0530 petition u/s 14(1)(a) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short 'DRC Act').
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that Sh. Anand Swaroop (hereinafter referred as 'petitioner/respondent') filed the eviction petition against Sh. Ravi Dutt (since deceased) through his LRs (hereinafter referred as 'respondent/appellant') seeking eviction of the respondent/appellant on the ground of non payment of rent with respect to the property situated on 2 nd floor of property no.8, Model Basti situated near Filmistan Cinema, specifically shown red in the site plan attached (hereinafter referred as 'tenanted premises'). It is alleged that the property bearing no.8 and 29, Model Basti situated near Filmistan Cinema of which the tenanted premises is a part, was earlier owned by Sh. Shyam Lal Soni. Sh. Shyam Lal Soni expired on 19.02.1957 and his wife Champa Devi also expired on 13.01.1967. They were survived by their only daughter Smt. Vindhya Devi Soni, mother of the petitioner/respondent. Smt. Vindhya Devi Soni expired on 09.02.2013. She executed the Will dated 15.12.2011 whereby the ground floor of properties no.29 and 8, Model Basti, New Delhi were bequeathed to Ms. Vinita, her daughter. The first and 2nd floor of property no. 29 were bequeathed in the name of her son Sh. Jitender Shyam and the first floor and 2 nd floor with roof rights of property no.8, Model Basti , New Delhi were bequeathed to the petitioner herein and they became the owner with respect to their respective portions. The tenanted portions falls within the property which came to the share of petitioner herein. Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.17 16:41:19 +0530 RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 2 of 15
3. It is alleged that the respondent/appellant is tenant in the tenanted premises at a monthly rent of Rs.200/- excluding other charges. He is in arrear of rent w.e.f 01.07.2013. A legal notice dated 03.02.2014 was sent to the respondent/appellant through registered AD and was duly served. The notice was replied on 10.2.2014 by the respondent. It is alleged that despite service of notice the respondent/appellant has failed to pay/ tender the entire outstanding arrears of rent and hence the petition.
4. Notice of the eviction petition was sent to the respondent/appellant. He filed the written statement taking preliminary objection that petitioner is neither the owner nor landlord of the property in question. Respondent has never paid any rent to the petitioner. As there exist no relationship of landlord-tenant, hence the petition is not maintainable.
5. It is alleged that the petitioner has concealed the material facts and has not approached the Court with clean hands. He has concealed that respondent herein has already filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 11.11.2005 executed by the erstwhile owner Vindhya Devi in favour of the respondent herein with respect to the garage on the ground floor and part of the 2nd floor of the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,60,000/- which was paid to Ms. Vindya Devi.
6. In reply on merits it is alleged that when the garage admeasuring 85 sq. ft. situated on the ground floor was let out to the respondent herein by Vindhya Devi in the year 1970 at the monthly rent of Rs.25/-. In the year 1975, an open terrace on the Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.17 RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 3 of 15 16:41:25 +0530 roof of the first floor measuring 350 sq. ft of the property in question with common toilet and staircase was further let out by Smt. Vindhya Devi at monthly rate of Rs.55/-. It was agreed between Smt. Vindhya Devi and respondent that respondent can raise construction by erecting tin shed at his own expenses on the roof and use it for residential purpose and accordingly he constructed two rooms and laterine and both room on the 2nd floor made of tin shed.
7. The respondent/appellant continued to pay the rent to Smt. Vidya Devi till November, 2005 when agreement to sell dated 11.11.2005 was executed by her. Entire sale consideration has already been paid to Smt. Vindhya Devi and since then neither Smt. Vindhya Devi nor the petitioner herein ever demanded rent.
8. It is alleged that due to some reason the sale deed could not be executed. It was rectified on 15.11.2008 and then on 10.10.2011. Smt. Vidya Devi died on 09.02.2013. After her death, the respondent/appellant has been requesting her sons and daughter including the petitioner herein to execute the sale deed but instead of executing the sale deed daughter of Vindhya Devi filed the eviction petition u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. After the filing of that eviction petition, he served the notice upon the LRs of Vindhya Devi calling upon them to execute the sale deed. Despite service as they did not execute the sale deed, therefore he filed the suit for specific performance. It is alleged that Will is forged and fabricated. In the year 2011 she was not keeping good health and could not sign properly. It is alleged that respondent has no right, title or interest in the property in dispute. He has Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.17
16:41:31
RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 4 of 15 +0530
also not placed any document on record to show that he is the landlord and the respondent herein is the tenant. It is prayed that the eviction petition be dismissed.
9. The petitioner/respondent filed the replication to the written statement. Denied the averment made in the written statement and reasserted the facts mentioned in the eviction petition. Thereafter, the case was fixed for evidence.
10. After recording the evidence and hearing the arguments, Ld. Trial Court has passed the order allowing the petition u/s 14(1)(a) of DRC Act which is under challenge in the present appeal.
11. Notice of the appeal was sent to the respondent/petitioner. TCR was requisitioned.
12. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the record.
13. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Ld. ARC has not considered all the facts and passed the order which is contrary to the facts and the law. Even the points raised by ld. Counsel for the appellant/respondent during arguments have not been considered and also the judgments he relied upon. Ld. Counsel submitted that firstly, there is no premises as it was an open terrace/roof and therefore, the DRC Act is not attracted. It is required that there must be premises before it falls within the four corners of DRC Act. As there was no premises, hence, Ld. ARC has no jurisdiction. The construction of tin shed on the roof was raised by the appellant herein and hence the premises which are under his possession does not fall in the ambit of the DRC Act. Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.17 16:41:36 RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 5 of 15 +0530
14. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the original owner Smt. Vindhya Devi did not claim or receive the rent of the tenanted premises after the agreement to sell was executed on 11.11.2005. The appellant has also not paid rent to the respondent herein or to any bode else after the death of Smt. Vindhya Devi, therefore there is not relationship of landlord tenant between the parties. The Ld. ARC has failed to consider these facts, that there is no relationship of landlord tenant between the parties and hence the DRC Act does not apply.
15. Ld. Counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as R. Kanthimathi v. Beatrice Xavier, AIR 2003 SC 4149, wherein it was held that:
"8. Thus within this legal premises, the submission by learned counsel for the respondent of revival of their old relationship of landlord and tenant when she repudiates this agreement by sending back to the tenant Rs. 20,000/- through a cheque, (which according to the appellant was not enchashed) cannot be accepted. So we have no hesitation to reject the same. Every conduct of the landlady right from the date of entering into agreement of sale, accepting money towards the sale consideration, delivering possession in lieu of such agreement all clearly indicates and has to be constructed in law that she repudiated her old relationship of landlord and tenant. Thus after the parties enter into new cloak of seller and purchaser and their relationship to be governed under the said terms of the agreement. Every right and obligation thereafter would flow from it. Even if parties under the agreement of sale do not perform their obligations remedy may be availed in law as permissible under the law. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that Courts below including High Court committed error in holding that tenant committed wailful default. When appellant is no more tenant how can non-payment be construed as wailful default."
16. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as H.K. Sharma v. Ram Lal, (2019) 4 SCC 153, wherein it was Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.17 16:41:43 RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 6 of 15 +0530 held that:
"34. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy rights as contemplated in clauses (e) or (f) of section 111 of the TP Act while entering into an agreement to sell the suit house, it would have made necessary provision to that effect by providing a specific clause in the agreement. It was, however, not done. On the other hand, we find that the conditions set out in the agreement do not make out a case of express surrender under clause (e) or implied surrender under clause (f) of section 111 of the TP Act.
35. It is for this reason, the law laid down by this Court in the case of R. Kanthimathi (supra) has no application to the facts of this case and is, therefore, distinguishable on facts. Indeed, it will be clear from mere perusal of para 4 of the said decision quoted hereinbelow:
"4. As aforesaid, the question for consideration is, whether the status of tenant as such changes on the execution of an agreement of sale with the landlord. It is relevant at this junction first to examine the terms of the agreement of sale. The relevant portions of the agreement of sale records the following:
"I the aforesaid Mrs. Beatrice Xavier hereby agree out my own free will, to sell, convey and transfer the property to you Mrs. R. Kanthimathi wife of Mr. S. Ramaswami, 435 Trichy Road, Coimbatore for a mutually agreed sale consideration of L 25,000/-.
I shall be proceeding to Coimbatore and shall execute the sale deed and present the same for admission and registration before the Registering Authority, accepting and acknowledge payment of the balance of consideration of L 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) at the time of registration and shall complete the transaction of sale and conveyance as the property demised has already been surrendered to your possession."
(Emphasis in Original)
36. The words highlighted in italics of the agreement were construed by Their Lordships for holding that these italicized words in the agreement clearly indicate that the parties had really intended to surrender their tenancy rights on execution of the agreement of sale and bring to an end their jural relationship of the landlord and tenant.
37. As observed supra, such is not the case here because we do not find any such clause or a clause akin thereto in the Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.17 RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 7 of 15 16:41:49 +0530 agreement dated 13.05.1993 and nor we find that the existing conditions in the agreement discern the intention of the parties to surrender the tenancy agreement either expressly or impliedly.
38. In the light of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the tenancy in question between the parties did not result in its determination as contemplated under section 111 of TP Act due to execution of the agreement dated 13.05.1993 between the parties for sale of the suit house and the same remained unaffected notwithstanding execution of the agreement dated 13.05.1993
39. A fortiori, the respondent (lessor) was rightly held entitled to file an application against the appellant (lessee) under Section 21 (1) (a) of the UP Act and seek the appellant's eviction from the suit house after determining the tenancy in question."
17. Ld. Counsel has further placed reliance on the judgment cited as Kamla Devi v. Laxmi Devi, (85) 2000 DLT 574, wherein it was held that:
"11. When, in any case, the question arises whether an open plot of land or a plot of land with structures thereon, was let out, the Court has to determine the same on the facts of that case. In deciding this question, it will be useful to bear in mind that if the plot with structure was let out in will fall within the meaning of the 'premises' but if open plot without any structure was let out then it does not fall within the meaning of the term 'premises'. It is immaterial whether the tenant raised structures before the creation of the tenancy or after he was let in as a tenant. In either case, the tenant alone will have the proprietary rights in the structure and not the landlord."
18. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the judgment cited as Jiwan Industries v. Kamlesh Rani Budhiraja, (208) 2014 DLT 589, wherein it was held that:
"10. It is also relevant to note that at best the terms of the lease deed are capable of two interpretations taken with the fact that in the rent note filed by the appellant/plaintiff the expression "covered" was struck off and in the rent note filed by the defendant the expression "covered" was not struck off. To resolve this ambiguity, trial court rightly relied upon the Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 8 of 15 KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.17
16:41:56
+0530
counterfoils of the rent receipts showing that the open space was let out. Besides the rent receipts mentioning letting out of open space, the fact that the respondent/defendant in the documents filed by her before the Municipal Authorities admitted that letting out was not with respect to the constructed building but only for land/open space, clearly rightly entitled the trial court to hold that only open space was let out and not a building with land.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent/defendant sought to sustain the judgment of the first Appellate Court by reference to para 12, but, the arguments raised in this regard are misconceived and have already been rejected by me in view of the bar to look into the terms of the rent note as per Section 49 of the Registration Act.
12. Another argument which was urged on behalf of the respondent/defendant was that there were two rent receipts which were filed in the trial court in which it was not mentioned that letting out was of open space/land, however, even this argument held by the respondent/defendant has no weight inasmuch as merely because two rent receipts are silent on what is let out, it cannot mean that the same should be interpreted as that they are issued to tenancy of a constructed property, more so because the various other rent receipts filed and proved on record as Ex. PW1/5 to PW1/22 showed that the rent receipts pertain to open space i.e not a constructed building. This argument of the respondent/defendant is also, therefore, rejected."
19. Ld. Counsel submitted that in view of the law as settled by the Apex Court and the High Court of Delhi which is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. ARC is not sustainable. It is prayed that the order dated 02.08.2023 be set-aside and appeal be allowed.
20. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Ld. ARC has rightly decided the matter. There is no merit in the appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel submitted that admittedly the father of the appellant was inducted as tenant in the premises and he was paying rent to the mother of the respondent herein. Hence there exist a relationship of landlord Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 9 of 15 BANSAL Date:
2025.10.17 16:42:02 +0530 tenant between the parties.
21. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as the question of execution of agreement to sell is concerned that is disputed. In fact the agreement to sell has not been proved on record and hence no reliance can be placed on the same. Ld. counsel submitted that as there is no agreement to sell executed hence the tenancy continued and the Ld. ARC has the jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
22. Ld. Counsel further submitted that appellant has not disputed the fact that the building property no. 8 Model Basti, Delhi is constructed property comprising ground floor, first floor and second floor. It is alleged that on the terrace he constructed the temporary structure. Ld. Counsel submitted that premises is defined under section 2 (i) of DRC Act, which reads as follows:
Section 2 (i): "Premises" means any building or part of building which is, or is intended to be, let separately for use as residence or for commercial use or for any other purposes, and includes,-
(i) The garden, grounds and outhouses, if any, appertaining to such building or part of building;
(ii) Any furniture supplied by the landlord for use of such building or part of building;
But does not include a room on a hotel or lodge house;"
23. Ld. Counsel submitted that DRC Act does not define the term "building". However, as per section 1.4.15 of the Unified Building Bye Laws for Delhi, 2016 the term "building" is defined as under:
"Building: Any structure for whatsoever purpose and whatsoever material constructed and every part thereof whether used as human habitation or not includes, foundation, plinths walls, floors, roofs, chimneys, and building services, fixed platforms, verandahs, balcony, or VIRENDER by Digitally signed VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.10.17 16:42:07 +0530 RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 10 of 15 protection part of building, anything affixed thereto or any wall enclosing or intended to enclose any land or space and signs and outdoor display structures, monuments, memorials or any contrivance of permanent nature/stability built under or over ground."
24. Ld. Counsel submitted that as per the definition of "building" the roof/terrace of second floor is always a part of building and thus falls within the definition of tenanted premises. Therefore this contention that there is no premises and hence DRC Act does not apply has no merits.
25. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the father of the appellant was already tenant of the ground floor, when the subsequent tenancy was created and hence, he became tenant of the premises only as defined under section 2 (i) of DRC Act.
26. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the appellant has not taken any such objection before the Ld. ARC, therefore, he cannot be allowed to raise any such objection first time in the appeal.
27. Ld. counsel in support of his arguments relied upon the judgment cited as Vinod Nagpal v. Bakshi S. Kuljas Rai, 37 (1989) DLT 278, wherein it was held that:
"20. It is thus clear that the property in order to be 'premises' within the contemplation of Delhi Rent Control Act has to be in the nature of the roofed structure, or containing such structures thereon. Any property which is described as a vacant plot simpliciter, in document witnessing the transaction, cannot, in the absence of any internal evidence furnished by the said document, to the contrary, be regarded as a building."
28. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld. ARC has already decided all the issues as per the settled law. It is prayed that there Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 11 of 15 KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.17 16:42:13 +0530 is no merit in the appeal, the same be dismissed.
29. The first defence taken by the appellant is that as an agreement to sell has been executed by the Landlady in favour of father of the appellant herein hence the relationship of landlord tenant has come to an end. Appellant has relied upon the unregistered agreement to sell allegedly executed by Smt. Vidhya Devi in favour of Sh. Ravi Dutt the father of the appellant and tenant in the suit premises. The original of the agreement to sell has not been produced. The witness who produced the photocopy of agreement to sell himself is neither witness to the same nor was present at the time of execution of the same. In fact, he deposed that he was not having any knowledge of the same. Even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that any such agreement to sell was executed still the law is well settled that merely by execution of agreement to sell the jural relationship of landlord and tenant does not come to an end. The landlord tenant relationship continues unless the agreement to sell specifically includes the clause stating that the parties intend to bring an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant. The landlord tenant relationship is terminated on execution of a sale deed not just the agreement to sell. The Apex Court in the case of H.K. Sharma v. Ram Lal (supra) considering the clauses of the agreement to sell held that we are of the considered opinion that the tenancy in question between the parties did not result in its determination as contemplated under section 111 of TP Act due to execution of the agreement dated 13.05.1993 between the parties for sale of the suit house and the same remained unaffected notwithstanding Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.17 RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 12 of 15 16:42:19 +0530 execution of the agreement dated 13.05.1993.
30. In the present case also the alleged agreement to sell though not proved does not show that the parties had any such intention to bring an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant and hence there would not be a determination of the lease under section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 by mere execution of such agreement. It clarified that there has to be specific intention in the agreement that the parties intended the tenant, in whose favour the agreement was executed, to surrender their tenancy rights on execution of the agreement of sale and bring to an end their jural relationship of landlord and tenant. Thus when there is no evidence of such intention of surrender of tenancy, notwithstanding the execution of the agreement of sale by the landlady in favour of the tenant, the jural relationship of landlord and tenant would continue till the sale deed is executed pursuant to the agreement of sale. In view of the above discussion in my opinion on this ground no benefit can be extended to the appellant herein.
31. The other defence taken by the appellant is that tenancy was with respect to the open land and hence the DRC Act is not applicable. It is argued that for application of the Act there must be premises which is not there and hence the DRC Act is not applicable. I do not agree with the Ld. Counsel for the appellant on this point as in the written statement itself it is mentioned by the appellant herein in para E under the heading THE TRUE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:-as follows:
"That thereafter in the year 1975 an open terrace on the roof of the first floor (second floor) ad-measuring about 350 sq. ft Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.10.17
RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 13 of 15 16:42:25
+0530
of the property in question with common toilet and staircase was let out by Smt. Vindhya Devi to the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 25/-."
32. From these facts itself it is clear that it was not the roof only but with the right to use the stair case as well as toilet which were for common use of the other residents were let out. Therefore, this contention that only roof was let out is wrong. It is also important to note that it was not an open plot which was let out. It was roof of a constructed house along with common user of toilet and staircase which was let out. Hence in my opinion the contention that it was an open plot which was let out is not tenable and also the judgments relied upon by the appellant herein. In view of the above discussion and as per the admission of the appellant Smt. Vindhya Devi was the landlady and father of the appellant was the tenant. Vindhya Devi had died. She has executed the will bequeathing the premises in dispute in favour of the respondent herein, therefore he is the landlord qua the premises in dispute and the appellant is the tenant.
33. So far as the rate of monthly rent is concerned the Ld. ARC has rightly decided the same to be Rs. 25/- per month and not Rs. 200/- per month. The appellant however cannot escape his liability to pay the legally recoverable rent merely on the ground that the landlord has demanded more.
34. Admittedly the appellant herein is not paying any rent since 2005. The service of notice is established. The father of the appellant has also sent the reply to the same. No rent was tendered or paid despite service of notice demanding rent. Therefore, in my opinion the ground of non-payment of rent is Digitally signed by VIRENDER RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 14 of 15 VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date:
2025.10.17 16:42:31 +0530 made out.
35. It is pertinent to mention here that no order under section 15 (1) DRC Act was passed in this case by the Ld. ARC and at the time of passing the final order also the order under section 15 (1) DRC Act was not passed. Therefore, it is ordered that the appellants shall deposit the arrears of rent from February 2011 at the rate of Rs. 25/- (twenty five) only along with 15% interest per annum till date with in one month from today before the Ld. ARC and will continue to deposit the future rent before the Ld. ARC at the rate of Rs. 25/- (twenty five) only on or before 10th day of each English calendar month.
36. Ld. ARC is directed to consider if the appellant herein is entitled to benefit under section 14 (2) of DRC Act considering the compliance of the order.
37. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
38. The copy of order along with record of the Ld. ARC be sent back.
39. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedVIRENDER by VIRENDER Announced in the open Court KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.10.17 BANSAL 16:42:37 +0530 on 17th day of October, 2025 (Virender Kumar Bansal) Principal District & Sessions Judge Central District, Tis Hazari Courts Delhi(D) RCT No. 45/2023 Bhagwan Das Vs Anand Swarup Page 15 of 15