Delhi District Court
M/S Crc Developers And Associates vs Jawahar Lal Kalra on 24 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC ARC NO. 62/25
CNR No. DLCT03-000678-2025
IN THE MATTER OF: -
M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES
A partnership firm
Through Shri Rajinder Singh Chadha,
Karta of the Partner "Rajinder Singh Chadha HUF"
C/o 304-A, First Floor, Shakti Khand -I
Indirapuram, Ghaziabad,
Uttar Pradesh - 201014 ...PETITIONER
VERSUS
(i) Jawahar Lal Kalra
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
(i) Smt. Vanita Kalra
W/o Shri Jawahar Lal Kalra
(ii) Smt. Seema Chawla
D/o Shri Jawahar Lal Kalra
(iii) Smt. Sonia Narang
D/o Shri Jawahar Lal Kalra
(iv) Smt. Mona Dawar
D/o Shri Jawahar Lal Kalra
(ii) Ranjana Banga
W/o Shri Lalit Kumar Banga
(iii) Amrit Kumari Jain
W/o Late Shri Brij Mohan Jain
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 1 of 57
Digitally signed
DIVYA by DIVYA
GUPTA
GUPTA 2026.03.24
Date:
17:00:43 +0530
(iv) Ashok Bhan
S/o Late Smt. Uma Bhan
C/o "M/s Roop Sangam Saree Centre"
Shop at Ground Floor,
Property bearing no. 10197, Ward no. XVI,
Block-S, Gali no. -16, Beadonpura,
Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh,New Delhi-110005.
...RESPONDENTS
Date of filing : 30.01.2025
Date of reservation : 20.03.2026
Date of order : 24.03.2026
ORDER
1. The application under consideration is the one filed by the respondents/tenants u/s 25(B) of Delhi Rent Control Act (in short "DRC Act") seeking leave to contest against the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1)(e) with section 25(B) of DRC Act for seeking eviction of tenants/respondents, in respect of the Shop situated on Ground Floor with Mezzanine Floor constructed therein in Property bearing No. 10197, Ward No. XVI, Block-S, Gali No. 16, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, as RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 2 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:45 +0530 shown in red color in site plan annexed with petition (hereinafter referred as "tenanted premises").
PETITION: -
2. Succinctly put, the facts of petition as alleged by petitioner are such, a. That the Petitioner firm is the exclusive and absolute owner as well as the landlord of the tenanted premises. The Petitioner firm became the absolute owner of the entire property bearing no. 10197, Ward No. XVI, Block-S, Gali No. 16, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 ( hereinafter referred to as 'said property') which includes tenanted premises, by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 06.07.2018 executed by the erstwhile owner, BIC Logistics Ltd., in its favor. b. That the Petitioner is a Partnership Firm which came into existence on the strength of a Partnership Deed dated 26.04.2018. The Petitioner Firm originally had only three Partners, namely (1) Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF); (2) Broadway Beverages Private Limited and; (3) Primavera Agro Produce Private Limited. However, the said Partnership was reconstituted by introduction of an additional Partner, namely, Shri Ishmohan Singh. RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 3 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:39 +0530 Accordingly, a fresh registered Partnership Deed was executed on 06.12.2023.
c. That the tenanted premises was originally let out by the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1 and 2 as well as to the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent No. 3 and 4 (i.e. the husband of the Respondent No. 3, namely, Late Shri Brij Mohan Jain and the mother of the Respondent No. 4, namely, Late Smt. Uma Bhan), much prior to the year 2018 at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-, exclusive of electricity and other charges.
d. That after the execution of the aforesaid Sale Deed dated 06.07.2018 in favor of the Petitioner Firm, the Respondent No. 1 and 2 as well as the Respondent No. 3 and 4 (after the death of their predecessor-in-interest) duly attorned tenancy in favor of Petitioner firm as the owner and landlord of the tenanted premises, and thus, started paying rent towards the tenanted premises to the Petitioner Firm. It is submitted that the respondents are depositing the rent of the tenanted premises directly into the Bank Account maintained by the Petitioner Firm, which fact can also be RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 4 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:43 +0530 confirmed from a duly signed Letter dated 17.10.2020 issued by the Respondents to the Petitioner Firm.
e. That the said entire property comprises of three built-up floors, the Ground Floor, the First Floor and the Second Floor. Most of the portions of the said property are in occupation of several tenants, who are occupying the said respective portions since decades. It is submitted that the portion which is in occupation of the Respondents herein is the tenanted premises which falls on the front side of the Ground Floor, from where they are carrying on their business under the name and style of " M/s Roop Sangam Saree Centre".
f. That the Petitioner, being a Partnership Firm, through one of its Partners, Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF), wants to provide commercial space to its Karta, namely, Shri. Rajinder Singh Chadha and his family members dependent upon him. It is submitted that the said Partner of the Petitioner Firm is in dire need of the tenanted premises bonafidely, from where the said Partner genuinely wants to start a Hospitality venture, for which the entire said property, including the tenanted premises which forms part of RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 5 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:40 +0530 the larger Property bearing No. 10197, Ward No. XVI, Block-S, Gali No. 16, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, admeasuring 856 square yards, is required.
g. That the Petitioner Firm conceptualized the idea of setting up a Hospitality Project, which has been envisioned by its Partner, Rajinder Chadha (HUF), through its Karta, Shri Rajinder Singh Chadha who is an entrepreneur and has vast experience in running of multiple businesses across the country, however, he does not have any available commercial space in Delhi. The said Karta shall be fully supported by the other Partners, and the proposed business shall be handled by the said Karta and his family members, dependent upon him. The Petitioner proposes to set up a Food and Business Enterprise on the Ground Floor, which would comprise essentially of a "Food Court", which would further comprise of the multi-brand outlets of repute. Further that the prospects of business are much higher and better on the Ground Floor of a property and hence, the said "Food Court" has been conceptualized at the instance of the Petitioner, for the Ground Floor only.
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 6 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:40 +0530 h. Further, the Petitioner proposes to set up a variety of Fine Dining Restaurants on the First Floor, for which the necessary groundwork and paperwork has already been completed, including by way of a comprehensive Project Report which is being filed herewith. Though, certain vacant portions on the First Floor of the property in question are available, but the same would not be useful for the present purposes as the Petitioner may have to carry out requisite changes/alterations by merging the area of the tenanted portion on the First Floor with the portions already in possession of the Petitioner.
i. Further petitioner's partner has decided to use second floor of said property as a Guest House, though, after taking all the necessary licenses from the concerned authorities. That the Directors of the other two Companies/partners, namely, Broadway Beverages Private Limited and Primavera Agro Produce Private Limited, have sufficient experience in the Hospitality industry.
j. That there exists a bonafide need for the Petitioner Firm which seeks to have the entire said property vacated from its different tenants, including the Respondents herein, as the Petitioner Firm RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 7 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:40 +0530 wants to utilize the property in question/said property for its own gain by conducting the aforesaid business for the benefit of its partners.
k. That except the tenanted premises, there is no other alternative suitable commercial accommodation available either with the Petitioner Firm or with its aforesaid Partner, Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF), which could be suitably or appropriately utilized for its bonafide need of setting up the aforesaid Project.
l. That the Petitioner Firm is in possession of certain portions of the said property which are indicated in "Green" color in the Site plan, However, it is submitted that said portions cannot be put to use in piecemeal for the purpose stated above.
3. For this need of the Petitioner Firm, eviction of respondents is prayed for.
APPLICATION SEEKING LEAVE TO DEFEND:
4. Summons were served upon the respondents who filed joint leave to defend application with documents along with separate detailed affidavits mainly on the ground that the need projected by petitioner is not Bonafide and that the petitioner is having alternate suitable RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 8 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:42 +0530 accommodations. The submissions of respondents, in brief, are as follows:
a. That the respondent and his family have been in occupation of the subject property since the year 1956. That the subject property was earlier rented out to Late Smt. Lajwati Devi Banga, who was the mother-in-law of the respondent no.2 herein, by the landlord/original owners.
b. That the petitioner has sought relief which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court and present petition under section 14(1)
(e) of DRC Act is not maintainable as allegedly the subject property/tenanted premises is required by the Karta of one of the partners, Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF) as well as by his family members dependent upon him. That Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act only caters to a situation where the property is required bonafidely by the owner/landlord for his use or for the use of his family members dependent on him or for whose benefit the premises are held. A partnership firm is an entity separate from its partners.
Section 14(1) (e) r/w Section 25B does not include any person who does not fall within the ambit, meaning and definition of a landlord RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 9 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:47 +0530 or an owner. Section 15 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 envisages that a property of the firm shall be held and used exclusively for the purposes of the business of the partnership firm. That the partnership agreement annexed along-with the petition does not provide for any such clause. c. That petitioner firm is an unregistered partnership firm. Further that major stakeholder of the petitioner firm claiming to be a partner in the said firm is an HUF, i.e. Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF), could not have legally become a partner in the said firm and that the partnership deed dated 06.12.2023 is illegal to the said extent.
d. That the ownership of the petitioner partnership firm is defective and under question.
e. That the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect as it does not show the proper measurement and description of the property in question. The present petition is hit by Order VII Rule 3 of CPC. f. That the petitioner has alternate suitable accommodation which is lying vacant and is not being used by the landlord himself. That site plan filed by petitioner itself shows that even as on date nearly RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 10 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:44 +0530 60-70% of the said property is in possession of the petitioner and lying vacant. That the petitioner has concealed that none of these portions, which are under lock and key of the petitioner, has ever been used by them even after allegedly purchasing the said property in the year 2018.
g. That the petitioner has filed the present matter with malafide intention and merely to harass and humiliate the respondents. h. That the petitioner has not preferred a similar petition against a tenant situated in a shop namely Bindra Store, situated in the same premises.
i. That present petition is not maintainable as Section 14(1)(g) of DRC Act caters to a situation where the landlord requires the premises bonafide for the purpose of rebuilding or making thereto any substantial addition or alteration. j. That Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha (Karta of HUF Partner) comes from an affluent family and happens to be a multi billionaire having varied business including entertainment, sugar beverages, education etc. That said Rajinder Singh Chadha is one of the major stakeholders and director of 'The Wave Group (Wave Cinemas)' RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 11 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:41 +0530 with nearly 36% share. As per the information collected from the newspapers, he is also the owner of "Wave One" which is 41 storey structure of more than 2 million sq ft. of buildup area. Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha has also inherited a legacy of liquor business which is under his control which includes distilleries and breweries.
k. That there is a family dispute which is pending between himself and his brother as well as sister-in-law in CS (COMM.) No. 1015/2016.
l. That the petitioner has concealed that he is the owner of several other properties in and around Delhi. The petitioner, in respect to such properties is either an owner in personal capacity or through various proprietorship/ company/ firms etc. which are as follows:
a. M-4. South Extn. Part-II. New Delhi-110049, b. Unit No. 29K- 185/1. Sarai Julaina, New Delhi-110025, c. B-11, Block-B, Chirag Enclave, New Delhi-110019 and d. 9, Beverly Drive, Royal Park Farms, Jaunpur, Sultanpur. Mandi Road, Chhatarpur, New Delhi-110047.
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 12 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:46 +0530
5. Upon these grounds, the respondents prayed that there exist triable issues that would disentitle the petitioner from obtaining an eviction order in respect of tenanted premises.
REPLY:
6. Reply to leave to defend application has been filed by the petitioner along with supporting affidavit wherein he has denied that the present petition is based on false and frivolous grounds and does not contain the ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. The petitioner denies all the allegations and assertions made in leave to defend application and affidavit.
7. Further submitted that property bearing no. M-4. South Extn. Part-II.
New Delhi-110049 was originally purchased by a Company namely, 'Honey Well Estate Pvt. Ltd.' and that Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha is not the owner of this property. That said Company has several shareholders and one of which is Company namely, 'GSR Granites Pvt. Ltd.', in which Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha has a minority shareholding. Further submitted that this property comprises of ground, first and second floor and that same was let out to tenants. That ground floor was let out to a Company 'Ritika Pvt. Ltd.' on the basis of registered lease RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 13 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:43 +0530 deed executed in 2013 followed by renewal till 2029. Further first and second floor of said property are in occupation of tenants and the legal heirs of one of deceased brothers of Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha (late Sh. Gurdeep Singh Chadha) are carrying on business in that portion.
8. That third floor of property Unit No. 29 K- 185. Sarai Julena, New Delhi-110025 was originally acquired by three separate registered sale deeds of three brothers including Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha and hence, Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha has 1/3rd share in the third-floor portion of above said property. Petitioner has placed on record copy of sale deeds executed in favour of Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha and his two brothers Sh. Gurdeep Singh Chadha and Sh. Hardeep Singh Chadha in respect of various portions of third floor portion of above said property. Same is not a suitable property as it merely comprises of 1300 square feet area on third floor. After the death of two other brothers in 2012, now third-
floor portion has been let out to a company named, 'Wave One Pvt. Ltd.' vide rent agreement dated 15.02.2022.
9. That B-11, Block-B, Chirag Enclave, New Delhi-110019 is a residential property and it belongs to one Mr. Kochar.
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 14 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:42 +0530
10.That property no. 9, Beverly Drive, Royal Park Farms, Jaunpur, Sultanpur. Mandi Road, Chhatarpur, New Delhi-110047 is a residence of Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha who is residing with his family. THE REJOINDER:
11.Rejoinder filed by the respondents to the reply of leave to defend application. It is submitted that vide order dated 12.04.2022 passed by Income Tax Apellate Tribunal shows that sale deed in favour of BIC Logistics Ltd is null and void.
ARGUMENTS:
12.I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records of the case very carefully.
THE LAW:
13. The present petition for eviction is under clause (e) of proviso to sub-
section (1) of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958 which after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Satyawati Sharma Versus Union of India", on 16.04.2008 reads as under: -
"14. (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 15 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:45 +0530 no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: -
***
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
14.In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish the following ingredients:
-
(i) That he is the owner of the tenanted shop and there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent.
(ii) That tenanted shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
(iii) That the petitioner does not have any other alternate, reasonable and suitable accommodation.
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 16 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:40 +0530
15.The facts and circumstances of the present case are being analyzed hereunder keeping in view the principle of law as discussed above. I. Ownership of the petitioner firm over the tenanted premises as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents.
16.The case of petitioner is that Petitioner firm is the exclusive and absolute owner as well as the landlord of the tenanted premises. The Petitioner firm became the absolute owner of the entire property bearing no. 10197, Ward No. XVI, Block-S, Gali No. 16, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 (hereinafter referred to as 'said property') which includes tenanted premises, by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 06.07.2018 executed by the erstwhile owner, BIC Logistics Ltd., in its favor.
17.That the tenanted premises was originally let out by the predecessor-in-
interest of the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1 and 2 as well as to the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent No. 3 and 4 (i.e. the husband of the Respondent No. 3, namely, Late Shri Brij Mohan Jain and the mother of the Respondent No. 4, namely, Late Smt. Uma Bhan), much RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 17 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:43 +0530 prior to the year 2018 at a monthly rent of Rs. 300/-, exclusive of electricity and other charges.
18.Petitioner has relied upon a site plan, copy of partnership deed dated 26.04.2018, copy of revised partnership deed dated 06.12.2023 and copy of sale deed dated 06.07.2018.
19.It is pertinent to note that in the entire leave to defend, the respondents have nowhere denied being inducted as tenant in the tenanted premises rather themselves stated that subject property was rented out to Late Smt. Lajwati Devi Banga, who was the mother-in-law of the respondent no.2 herein. Further in the leave to defend application, respondents have not disputed the ownership of Petitioner Firm over the subject property nor challenged the sale deed dated 06.07.2018 relied upon by petitioner. However, at the time of filing of rejoinder, respondents have taken a new contention that sale deed in favour of erstwhile owner BIC Logistics Ltd is itself null and void. The respondents have relied upon order dated 12.04.2022 passed by Income Tax Tribunal. However, perusal of order dated 12.04.2022 shows that it nowhere passed any findings upon the validity of sale deed in favour of BIC Logistics Ltd and it does not declare the sale deed as null and void. Further when respondents have RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 18 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:47 +0530 admitted being tenant in the property in question and admitted paying rent to petitioner herein, they cannot challenge the title of petitioner. After acceptance of landlord tenant relationship this argument doesn't survive.
20.Moreover, the law regarding concept of 'ownership' under the DRC Act is different from the title suit under CPC. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162 a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows: -
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 19 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:44 +0530
21.In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court has specifically held that: -
"It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. 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, howsoever 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 D.R.C. 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 estoppel against such 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. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this respect".
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 20 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:41 +0530
22.Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & ors 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: -
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
14.It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
23.Hence, ownership of Petitioner Firm over subject property is not in dispute.
24.Respondents have taken objection that site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of petitioner that respondent has filed almost similar counter site plan.
25. It is pertinent to note that the Ld. Counsel for respondents did not press upon this ground during the course of arguments. Further admittedly, site plan filed on behalf of respondents is almost similar to site plan relied upon by petitioner firm. Respondents have failed to show the alleged discrepancy in site plan. Further it is a settled law that issue of minor discrepancies in site plan has no significance if it is proved that petitioner RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 21 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:39 +0530 is the landlord of the subject property. Reliance is placed upon a case titled as Rajender Kumar Pahuja vs Anup Narain Gaur RC REV 391/2024, CM APPL. 75295/2024, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
"15. In any event, it must be borne in mind that the respondent was required to identify the subject premises as also give a Site Plan, but it was not incumbent upon him to give the exact Site Plan under such circumstances. Once it was established that the respondent was the landlord of the subject premises, of which he was admittedly not in possession, the issue of minor consistencies in the Site Plan, if any, fades into significance. More so, as held in Shakuntala Devi v. Mohan Das, even the non-filing of site plan may not be fatal to the case of a landlord, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case."
26.Therefore, the said issue qua the Site Plan filed by petitioner is discarded.
27.Another objection taken by respondents in their leave to defend application is that present petition give rise to a case under section 14(1)
(g) of DRC Act and not Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. However, during course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for respondents submitted that he is not pressing upon this ground. Still going one step further, petitioner has categorically stated that petitioner only intends to carry out requisite RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 22 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:46 +0530 changes/alterations in the property in question, hence, question re- building or reconstructing the subject property does not arise. Further it is a settled law that it is not necessary for landlord that he should get the premises vacated under Section 14(1)(g) and not under Section 14(1)(e), if he wants to shift to the premises, after making it a habitable. Reliance is placed upon case titled Rajbir Pal and Another vs Kanwar Partap Singh, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that, "15. At the outset, for ease of comprehension, this Court shall cull out the relevant provisions of the DRC Act that will be referred to during the course of the analysis. Relevant portion of Section 14(1) of the DRC Act which is necessary for adjudication of the present dispute, reads as under:
―14. Protection of tenant against eviction. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: -
****
(e)That the premises let for residential purpose are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 23 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:44 +0530 and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation;
****
(g) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for the purpose of building or re-building or making thereto any substantial additions or alterations and that such building or re-
building or addition or alteration cannot be carried out without the premises being vacated;
......
34. In Sharifuddin v. Babuddin and Ors. (supra), this Court had observed that both Section 14(1)(e) and Section 14(1)(g) operate in different spheres, and that the landlord is always at the liberty to first bring the premises either to a habitable or suitable condition by either reconstruction or repair and then shift to it. It is not necessary for the landlord to first get the premises vacated under Section 14(1)(g) and not Section 14(1)(e). The paragraph stipulating this observation is as follows:
"7. The testimony of AW-1 shows that the premises had been under tenancy for about more than 80 years. AW- 1 was born and brought up at there. It is obvious that since the premises had been in occupation of the tenant and the rent being meagre, the premises had not been taken care of for the purpose of repair and maintenance. No fault can be found with the petitioner if the premises even after being vacated cannot be occupied directly and has to be given extensive repair or reconstruction. There is no conflict between provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(g) of DRC Act. A decree can be passed under Section 14(1)
(e) even in respect of a dilapidated premises where the RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 24 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:43 +0530 landlord intends to live in the premises after repairing it. Section 14(1)(g) operates in a different area. In case of 14(1)(g) the premises is required by the landlord for the purpose of re-building or making any substantial additions or alterations not because the premises was in dilapidated condition but because the landlord wants to re-construct or wants to make additions or alterations in the premises for whatsoever purposes.
Under Section 14(1)(e) the landlord can require the premises for his own use or for the use of his family members from the tenant who is in occupation of the premises. A tenant who is paying low rent may continue to live in a dilapidated premises because of meagre rent being paid by him but after evicting the tenant from the premises, it was not necessary for the landlord to shift into the premises in the same condition. He is always at liberty to first bring the premises to habitable and suitable condition by either reconstruction or repair and then shift to it. It is not necessary for him that he should get the premises vacated under Section 14(1)(g) and not under Section 14(1)(e), if he wants to shift to the premises, after making it a habitable." (emphasis supplied)
35. Similar observations had been made by this Court in Ram Wati Devi v. Mohan Babu Sharma (supra) noting that there is no impediment on the landlords to refashion the tenanted premises accordingly to their suitability to meet their need and that in such cases, the eviction petition must be moved under Section 14(1)
(g). The portion of the said Judgment with this observation is as under:
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 25 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:39 +0530 "16. This Court is of the view that the argument of the tenants that the petition should have been under Section 14(1)(g) is untenable. The domains of Sections 14(1)
(g) and 14(1)(e) are different. In the present case, the landlords' requirement for the tenanted premises was for them to start their own shop. It was also averred that since the size of the three shops were small, they wanted to convert them into two. This would not mean that the landlords' petition should have been filed under Section 14(1)(g). Making alterations to the shops was merely ancillary and the landlords' primary need for the tenanted premises was for them to start their own shop. The landlords needed the space and there is no impediment upon them to refashion it according to their suitability to meet the need. This Court is not persuaded with the other grounds taken by the tenants in this revision petition."
(emphasis supplied)"
28.Another objection taken by respondents is that present petition under section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act is not maintainable as allegedly the subject property/tenanted premises is required by the Karta of one of the partners, Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF) as well as by his family members dependent upon him. It is argued that Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act only caters to a situation where the property is required bonafidely by the owner/landlord for his use or for the use of his family members dependent on him or for whose benefit the premises are held. A partnership firm is an entity separate from its partners. Section 14(1) (e) RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 26 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:39 +0530 r/w Section 25B does not include any person who does not fall within the ambit, meaning and definition of a landlord or an owner. Further relied upon Section 15 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 which envisages that a property of the firm shall be held and used exclusively for the purposes of the business of the partnership firm. It is further argued on behalf of respondents that property of petitioner firm has to be exclusively used for its business only as per section 15 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Respondents have placed reliance upon Addanki Narayanappa vs Bhaskara Krishtappa 1959 1 ALT 377 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has observed as under:
"6. It may be said that the rule adopted by English Courts is that real estate intended by the partners to constitute a part of the partnership property or treated by them as belonging to the partnership is regarded in equity as converted into personality for all purposes, and also for the settlement of the claims of the partners inter se. The law in India is not different. Sections 14 and 15 of the Indian Partnership Act of 1932 speak about what would constitute the property of a firm and declare that such property shall be held and utilised for the purpose of the partnership thereby indicating that so long as the partnership continues no part of the assets of a partnership could be regarded as belonging to any individual partner. Further, no part of the partnership assets could be utilised for a purpose other than that of the partnership. A partner, therefore, seeking to get his share could not get his share in specie in the movable and immovable RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 27 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:46 +0530 properties but only after the assets have been converted into money, debts and liabilities discharged and it is only in the residue that he could get his proportionate share. The Statute enjoins this process being gone through before a partner gets a share in the assets of the partnership and it is governed by Sections 46, 48 and 49 of the Partnership Act. It would, therefore, follow that a partner cannot predicate of a definite share in immovable property which he could transfer or give up."
29.It is further argued on behalf of respondents that Law laid down in Addanki Narayanappa vs Bhaskara Krishnappa (Supra) has been reiterated and confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sachin Jaiswal vs M/s Hotel Alka Raje and Ors. 2025 Live Law (SC)
342.
30.Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that partnership firm is not a separate entity from its partners. That it is the partners of the petitioner firm who are the actual owners of the property. Further argued that other partners of petitioner firm have raised no objection to the present petition and that present petition has been filed by Petitioner Firm. The Ld. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon case titled N. Khadervali Saheb (Dead) by Lrs. and Another vs. N. Guddu Saheb RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 28 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:44 +0530 (Dead) and others (2003) 3 SCC 299 where in the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made following observations:
'A partnership firm is not an independent legal entity; the partners are the real owners of the assets of the partnership firm. Actually, the firm name is only a compendious name given to the partnership for sake of convenience. The assets of the partnership belong to and are owned by the partners of the firm. So long as partnership continues each partner is interested in all the assets of the partnership firm as each partner is owner of the assets to the extent of his share in the partnership. On dissolution of the partnership firm, accounts are settled amongst the partners and the assets of the partnership are distributed amongst the partners as per their respective shares in the partnership firm."
31.It is observed that it is not disputed that tenanted premises is in the ownership of Petitioner Firm. The argument of respondents that once property belongs to partnership firm, it cuts at the root of the claim for the bonafide requirement of an individual partner, is devoid of any merit as perusal of para no. 18 (a) (iv) of petition herein clearly shows that petitioner has categorically stated that Petitioner Firm wants to provide the tenanted premises to one of its partners/ HUF and its Karta, Sh.
Rajinder Singh Chadha and his family members and that Petitioner Firm conceptualized the idea of setting up a Hospitality Project, which has RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 29 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:45 +0530 been envisioned by its Partner, Rajinder Chadha (HUF), through its Karta, Shri Rajinder Singh Chadha and same shall be supported by other partners. Further as argued on behalf of petitioner, no other partners of petitioner firm have objected to present petition. Hence, respondents/tenants cannot dictate the Petitioner Firm/landlord as to how it can use its own property as tenants have no say in that.
32.It is further observed that legal implication of the said provision under section 15 Indian Partnership Act, 1932 has got nothing to do with the scope of jurisdiction vested in this court. Further petitioner has placed on record copy of partnership deed dated 26.04.2018 wherein it is clearly mentioned 'That Partnership Firm shall carry on the business of Realtors, Builders, Developers and Contractors or any other business as mutually decided by Partners.' Once, respondents have admitted their position as tenants in the property in question, they have no right to dictate the Petitioner Firm/landlord as to how to use its property.
33.Further in case titled V. Subramaniam vs Rajesh Raghuvandra Rao reported as 2009 (5) SCC 608, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under, RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 30 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:41 +0530 "11. It may be mentioned that a partnership firm, unlike a company registered under the Companies Act, is not a distinct legal entity, and is only a compendium of its partners. Even the registration of firm does not mean that it becomes distinct legal entity like a company. Hence, the partners of a firm are co-owners of the property of the firm, unlike shareholders in a company who are not co-owners of the property of the company."
34.It is further observed that in case relied upon by respondents, i.e. Sachin Jaiswal vs M/s Hotel Alka Raje and Ors. (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, while relying upon Addanki Narayanappa vs Bhaskara Krishnappa (Supra) has made following observations:
"13. The law on this point is settled which is that separate property of an individual partner, can be converted into partnership prop-
erty. In this context, reliance can also be placed upon a judgment of this Court in Addanki Narayanappa v. Bhaskara Krishnappa, 1966 SCC OnLine SC 6 in which this Court has held that irre- spective of the character of the property, when it is brought in by the partner when the partnership is formed, it becomes a property of the partnership firm, by virtue of Section 14 of Partnership Act. This Court held as follows:
"7. It seems to us that looking to the scheme of the Indian Act no other view can reasonably be taken. The whole concept of part- nership is to embark upon a joint venture and for that purpose to bring in as capital money or even property including immovable property. Once that is done whatever is brought in would cease to be the trading asset of the person who brought it in. It would be the trading asset of the partnership in which all the partners would have interest in proportion to their share in the joint venture of the RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 31 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:46 +0530 business of partnership. The person who brought it in would, therefore, not be able to claim or exercise any exclusive right over any property which he has brought in, much less over any other partnership property. He would not be able to exercise his right even to the extent of his share in the business of the partnership. As already stated, his right during the subsistence of the partner- ship is to get his share of profits from time to time as may be agreed upon among the partners and after the dissolution of the partnership or with his retirement from partnership of the value of his share in the net partnership assets as on the date of dissolution or retirement after a deduction of liabilities and prior charges."
(emphasis supplied)
35.Hence, same is factually not applicable upon present facts and circumstances.
36.It is trite that any co-owner can maintain eviction proceedings against a tenant. The tenant cannot question inter se arrangements between co- owners or partners. A partner, being in the position of a co-owner (in substance), is fully competent to maintain the present petition. The requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is that the premises must be required bona fide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him. The term "landlord" includes a firm acting through its partners. The personal requirement of a partner is a legitimate extension of the firm's RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 32 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:41 +0530 requirement, especially when the partner is actively involved in the firm's affairs and the premises is required for business use related to the partner. Further, In the present case there is no opposition from any other partner of the firm and the filing of the present petition itself implies consent and authorization of the other partners of the firm regarding the usage of the tenanted premise. The focus should be on genuineness of requirement and not technical objections raised by the tenant respondents. A tenant cannot dictate which partner should file the petition. Nor can the tenant insist that the requirement must be of all partners collectively. Hence, the Respondent's objection is misconceived and legally untenable. In view of above discussion and settled law, it cannot be held that present petition is not maintainable.
37.Respondents have further argued that Petitioner Firm is not a registered partnership firm and that it cannot file present petition. However, said argument is also not tenable as petitioner has placed on record copy of registration certificate of fresh partnership deed dated 06.12.2023 along with reply to leave to defend application.
38.Respondents have further raised an objection that Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha concealed about the family dispute pending between him and his RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 33 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:38 +0530 brother and sister-in-law before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, it is observed that firstly the said contention is a vague, bald and unsubstantiated averment. Secondly, it does not give rise to any triable issue in the present facts and circumstances. All the averments of respondents in this respect are vague and baseless.
39.Here, I also find it pertinent to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court passed in the case of Mohd. Naseer Vs. Mohd. Zaheer and Anr. RC Rev. No. 267/2016 dated 03.11.2016 is to be noted in which the following was held: -
"19. ...Mere raising of baseless contentions against the landlord cannot be a ground for being granted leave to defend to the petitioners. It cannot be said that the petitioners have given facts or particulars which require to be established by way of evidence. The petitioners have merely made allegations for the sake of making allegation. There is no merit in the said plea of the petitioner.
20. The trial court has rightly concluded that the petitioners have failed to place on record any ma- terial to raise a suspicion that the respondents are having a vacant space on the ground floor of the suit property which can be used by them to open his workshop for industrial tools."
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 34 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:45 +0530
40.Another objection taken by respondents is that major stakeholder of the petitioner firm claiming to be a partner in the said firm is an HUF, i.e. Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF), could not have legally become a partner in the said firm and that the partnership deed dated 06.12.2023 is illegal to the said extent.
41.Per contra it is argued on behalf of petitioner that respondents have been been regularly paying rent to petitioner by depositing the same in bank account of petitioner firm. That tenants cannot question the legality of partnership firm/petitioner firm. It is further argued on behalf of petitioner that HUF is treated as a 'person' under section 2(31) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus, it can be inducted as a partner in a Partnership Firm under the provision of section 4 of the Indian Partnership Act.
42.The Petitioner in support of its case has also placed on record the copy of rent receipt dated 17.04.2008 issued in favor of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as in favor of the aforesaid predecessor-in-interest of the Respondents No. 3 and 4, which has not been denied by the respondents. Further petitioner has placed reliance upon letter dated 17.10.2020 issued by respondents to petitioner herein. Hence, respondents themselves have admitted their status as of tenants in the tenanted premises and have been RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 35 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:47 +0530 paying rent qua the tenanted premises in favour of Petitioner Firm. It is observed that the legal preposition is very well settled that once a tenant is always a tenant. That section 116 of Indian Evidence Act lays down as under: -
"116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession.--No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such license was given."
43.Hence, it is trite that once a tenant is always a tenant. Therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondents is not in question in any manner.
44.Thus, there is no triable issue with respect to ownership of petitioner and landlord-tenant relationship between petitioner and respondents. II. Bonafide requirement of the petitioner:
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 36 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:47 +0530
45.The petitioner has stated in the petition that the tenanted premises is required for bonafide need of one of its partners Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF) to provide commercial space to its Karta, namely, Shri. Rajinder Singh Chadha and his family members dependent upon him as he wants to start a Hospitality venture, for which the entire said property, including the tenanted premises, is required.
46.On the other hand, it is argued on behalf of respondent that intention of petitioner is not bonafide and has no intention to commence any such alleged venture/project as petitioner has not utilized the portion admittedly lying vacant in possession of petitioner for last 7 years. It is further argued that for the last 7 years despite the petitioner having more than 65% of the property which nearly constitutes more than 30 rooms/ shops in his possession, the petitioner has not used the said property till date. Respondents have relied upon copy of the photographs of the said portions.
47.Per contra it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that petitioner firm requires entire said property for the alleged bonafide need. It is submitted that the Petitioner Firm is already in the process of filing other eviction petitions also against different tenants occupying respective portions of RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 37 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:47 +0530 the property in question/said property. That the need of the petitioner firm is not only confined to the tenanted premises which is in occupation of the respondents herein, but also the other tenants in occupation of the different portions of the property in question.
48.Firstly, it is pertinent to note that petitioner has categorically stated in petition itself that it requires the entire said property including the tenanted premises which forms part of the larger Property bearing No. 10197, Ward No. XVI, Block-S, Gali No. 16, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, admeasuring 856 square yards, to start hospitality venture as detailed out in petition. In the site plan itself, petitioner has clearly shown the portion of said property already in possession of petitioner as shown in 'Green Color'. Hence, petitioner cannot be held guilty of alleged concealment of any fact. Further petitioner has clearly stated that it requires Ground Floor of said property for establishing Food Court; First Floor for Fine Dining Restaurants and Second Floor for Guest House.
49.Another contention of respondents is that First and Second floor of said property are residential in nature and hence, need alleged by petitioner is not bonafide. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of petitioner that property RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 38 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:43 +0530 in question is situated on the main Ajmal Khan Road and is a hub of commercial activities, if at all petitioner has to pay conversion charges to MCD, it is between petitioner and MCD.
50.It is observed that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the petitioner regarding legal formalities it has to fulfill for the purpose starting Hospitality venture as alleged.
51.Further said apprehension of respondents is already taken care of in the DRC Act itself by our legislative forefathers while enacting the laws who have already considered possibility of misuse in the hands of unscrupulous landlords and thereby inserted Section 19 of DRC Act which reads as follows: -
"Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises are held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or the premises having been so occupied are, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession, relet to any person than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Controller such tenant can be put back to the premises or can be paid such compensation as the Controller thinks fit."
52.Hence, if the requirement of landlord is not bonafide and if a landlord abuses the process of the court, obtains an order of eviction, subsequently RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 39 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:46 +0530 lets out the property or sells the same, the tenant can always apply for restitution under section 19 of the DRC Act.
53.It is further argued on behalf of respondents that Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha (Karta of HUF/ Partner of petitioner firm) comes from an affluent family and happens to be a multi billionaire having varied business including entertainment, sugar beverages, education etc. That said Rajinder Singh Chadha is one of the major stakeholders and director of 'The Wave Group (Wave Cinemas)' with nearly 36% share. As per the information collected from the newspapers, he is also the owner of "Wave One" which is 41 storey structure of more than 2 million sq ft. of buildup area. Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha has also inherited a legacy of liquor business which is under his control which includes distilleries and breweries. Per contra it is argued on behalf of petitioner that Sh. Rajinder Singh Chaddha is residing with his family in Delhi and he cannot be compelled to start a Hospitality Venture from a remote place situated outside the territorial boundaries of Delhi.
54.It is observed that it is a settled law that financial affluence of landlord is not a factor to be considered while deciding bonafide need of petitioner/landlord. Reliance is placed upon case titled, Nisar Ahmad Vs. RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 40 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:44 +0530 Agyapal Singh, MANU/DE/4291/2023, where the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that: -
"....... The court is of the view that the status of financial well-being of a landlord or his family members-wife and children, who are dependent upon him, is not the test of bonafide requirement. All that was to be seen was whether there was a suitable alternate accommodation available with the landlord, for him to use or for providing the same to his daughters. No such suitable alternate accommodation has been shown. The impugned judgement has misdirected itself in an inquiry about landlord's, his wife's and of the business of the husband of the dependent daughters' or their economic well-being or in concluding that simply because the daughters of the petitioner were married, "happy with their matrimonial life" and alternate accommodation was available with their respective husbands, therefore, there was no need for them to start their business or to ask their father to provide them an accommodation for business...."
55.It is further argued on behalf of respondent that present is a case of additional accommodation. However, it is observed that petitioner firm has clearly stated in petition itself that it wants to start Hospitality venture from property in question along with other portions already in RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 41 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:48 +0530 possession of petitioner as shown in 'green color' in site plan. Further it is settled law that every additional accommodation cannot be termed as 'alternate accommodation'. Reliance is placed upon case titled "Sandeep Kumar vs Nihal Chand 2025 SCC OnLine Del 6418" wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has made following observations:
"27. In the present case, the tenant is actually urging the ground of 'additional' accommodation available with the landlord, which is different from 'alternative' accommodation available with the landlord. Merely because the landlord has/ possessed/ owned 'additional' accommodations other than the subject premises from which he is seeking eviction cannot be treated as the landlord having an alternative accommodation. It is to be borne in mind that the parameters for gauging the two are totally different and cannot always be taken to be overlapping with each other. By mixing them together, the tenant cannot make a case for denying the relief sought by the landlord under an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, particularly, since there is no bar under the DRC Act for the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant from the subject premises simply because he is the owner/ landlord of any other premises.
.
.
31. In any event, to hold that the tenant must be granted leave to defend as a thumb rule in all cases where the landlord has 'addi- tional accommodation', wrongly treated as an 'alternative accom- modation', would restrict the summary procedure envisaged un- der Section 25B of the DRC Act only to a landlord having only the premises wherefrom he is seeking eviction. This would be absurd RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 42 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:45 +0530 as it would create an artificial distinction, contrary to the legisla- tive intent underlying the introduction of the summary procedure. There is nothing of that sort provided either in Section 14(1)(e) or in Section 25B of the DRC Act. In the absence of any such limi- tation, no distinction can be read into the statute between the re- quirement of landlords who have no accommodation at all and one who, though have some accommodation albeit insufficient. As held by this Court in Naresh Kumar Jain v. S Shanmuga Sun- daram36, any such interpretation would amount to arbitrary dis- crimination.
32. Lastly, reliance on Santosh Devi (supra) by learned counsel for the tenant is misplaced since it was passed under different set of facts and does not lay any principle of law required to be followed in all cases of RC.REV. No. 283 Of 2017 additional accommoda- tion. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal Gupta v. Ravinder Kumar37 has held as under:
"2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon two decisions of this Court in Santosh Devi Soni v. Chand Kiran [(2001) 1 SCC at p. 255 : JT (2000) 3 SC 397] and Liaq Ahmed v. Habeeb-Ur-Rehman [(2000) 5 SCC 708 : JT (2000) 5 SC 611] . Neither of these two de- cisions set down any principle of law so as to call for inter- ference by us. In these two cases on the facts arising in the case certain orders have been passed by this Court."
33. Moreover, this Court in line of precedents has held that grant/ allowing of an application for leave to defend is dependent upon the facts and circumstances involved in each case. Even if the landlord has additional accommodations, if it appears to the Court that accommodation available with the landlord is insufficient/ unsuitable/ out of place/ unbefitting/ not commensurate to the de- mand(s) of the landlord for his requirement pleaded, then leave to defend can be denied."
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 43 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:41 +0530
56.Further the law is very well settled that the requirement of the landlord is to be presumed as genuine and, in this regard, reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Abid-Ur-Islam Vs Indersen Dua dated 07.04.2022, wherein it was observed as follows:
-
".........when a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. 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 requirement of the landlord is bonafide......".
57.Further at this juncture, the law regarding the bonafide need has been made clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported as AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100", whereby it was held that:
".... The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord 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 proceed on the RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 44 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:44 +0530 presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord 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 possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself...."
58.Now in view of this legal position and present facts and circumstances, it is observed that in the entire application for leave to defend the respondents have failed to specifically plead even a single word to deny the bonafide requirement of the petitioner as stated in the eviction petition and on the other hand petitioner has stated its bonafide need in a very detailed manner, therefore, the presumption of genuineness of requirement has to be drawn in favor of petitioner firm only.
59.Thus, respondents have failed to raise any triable issue qua the bonafide requirement of the petitioner.
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 45 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:40 +0530 III. The petitioner does not have any other alternate, reasonable and suitable accommodation.
60.It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that except the tenanted premises, there is no other alternate suitable commercial accommodation available either with the Petitioner Firm or with its aforesaid Partner, Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF), which could be suitably or appropriately utilized for its bonafide need of setting up the aforesaid Project/Venture.
61.Respondents have taken an objection in leave to defend that the petitioner has a number of commercial properties at its disposal which petitioner has concealed. It is pertinent to note that during the course of arguments, the Ld. Counsel for respondents did not press upon any of these properties as alternate suitable properties. Still if I go into merits, first property so alleged by respondents is property bearing no. M-4. South Extn. Part-II. New Delhi-110049. Per contra it is submitted on behalf of petitioner in reply that same was originally purchased by a Company namely, 'Honey Well Estate Pvt. Ltd.' and that Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha is not the owner of this property. That said Company has several shareholders and one of which is Company namely, 'GSR RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 46 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:42 +0530 Granites Pvt. Ltd.', in which Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha has a minority shareholding. Further submitted that this property comprises of ground, first and second floor and that same was let out to tenants. That ground floor was let out to a Company 'Ritika Pvt. Ltd.' on the basis of registered lease deed executed in 2013 followed by renewal till 2029. Further first and second floor of said property are in occupation of tenants and the legal heirs of one of deceased brothers of Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha (late Sh. Gurdeep Singh Chadha) are carrying on business in that portion.
62.To prove this, petitioner has placed on record copy of lease deed dated 10.05.2013 and subsequent lease deed dated 25.07.2019 executed by 'Honey Well Estate Pvt. Ltd.' in favour of 'Ritika Pvt. Ltd.' qua ground floor of above said property bearing no. M-4, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi and copy of lease deed dated 21.10.2019 executed by 'Honey Well Estate Pvt. Ltd.' in favour of 'Chophouse Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.' qua the second floor property bearing no. M-4, South Extension, Part-2, New Delhi.
63.It is observed that respondents have miserably failed to place on record any document to prove their bald averments and to show that petitioner RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 47 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:46 +0530 firm's partner Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF) has any right over above said property. Hence, same cannot be branded as alternate suitable property for alleged bonafide need of petitioner firm by any stretch of mind.
64.Another alleged property is Unit No. 29 K- 185. Sarai Julena, New Delhi-110025. In reply, it is submitted by petitioner that third floor of this property was originally acquired by three separate registered sale deeds of three brothers including Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha and hence, Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha has 1/3rd share in the third-floor portion of above said property. Petitioner has placed on record copy of sale deeds executed in favour of Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha and his two brothers Sh. Gurdeep Singh Chadha and Sh. Hardeep Singh Chadha in respect of various portions of third floor portion of above said property. However, the case of petitioner is that same is not a suitable property as it merely comprises of 1300 square feet area on third floor. Further that after the death of two other brothers in 2012, now third-floor portion has been let out to a company named, 'Wave One Pvt. Ltd.' vide rent agreement dated 15.02.2022. The copy of above-said rent agreement dated 15.02.2022 has been placed on record along with reply to leave to defend. On the RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 48 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:39 +0530 other hand, respondents have failed to place on record any document to prove otherwise. Hence, clearly respondents have failed to show that this property was not available with petitioner for its bonafide need.
65.B-11, Block-B, Chirag Enclave, New Delhi-110019. Per contra it is submitted by petitioner that it is a residential property and it belongs to one Mr. Kochar. Petitioner has relied upon electricity bill and photograph filed along with reply to leave to defend. On the other hand, entire averments of respondents are unsubstantiated and respondents have failed to show that said property is under the ownership and in possession of Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha (HUF). Hence, same can also not be termed as alternate suitable property at disposal of petitioner firm for intended purpose.
66. Another property alleged by respondents is 9, Beverly Drive, Royal Park Farms, Jaunpur, Sultanpur. Mandi Road, Chhatarpur, New Delhi-110047. Per contra it is submitted on behalf of petitioner that same is residence of Sh. Rajinder Singh Chadha who is residing with his family. It is observed that averments of respondents are bald and vague.
67.Further the argument of respondents that admittedly 60-70% of the said entire property is in possession of the petitioner and lying vacant is not RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 49 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:40 +0530 tenable as in the petition itself the case of the petitioner firm is clearly set out stating that petitioner firm requires entire property in question along with portions already available with petitioner for starting the alleged Hospitality Venture. Further the argument that petitioner has not preferred a similar petition against a tenant situated in a shop namely Bindra Store, situated in the same premises is devoid of any merit as it is trite law that tenant cannot dictate the landlord in that aspect.
68.At this juncture, it is also pertinent to mention that in case titled as "Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh & Anr. v. Sudarshan Kumar & Anr." in case bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 231-232 of 2021 decided on 27.01.2021 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"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. It has further been observed that the genuine need of the appellant to secure vacant possession of the premises for the proposed business is found to be established. The adequacy or otherwise of the space available with the landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant to dictate"
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 50 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:39 +0530
69.It is trite that tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to what is adequate and landlord is the best judge of his requirements. It is a settled law that mere availability of other alternate accommodation is itself not the decisive factor for denial of eviction proceedings by the landlord, more so, since there are various factors like the size, location, access, purpose, viability, safety concerns, football, and/or like, amongst others which have/ are to be taken into consideration while dealing with the aspect of availability of alternate suitable accommodation. Reliance is placed upon case titled as Shiv Sarup Gupta v Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222].
70.In the case of Ravichandran and Ors. Vs Natrajan Nadar and Ors. (2004) 1 MLJ 458, the following was held:
"Even assuming that other premises are available, then the choice is left to the landlord to decide as to which non-residential premises he should occupy, and the tenant cannot have any say in the matter. If the landlord is able to show the bonafide, then the tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord that he should occupy some other building and not the one mentioned in the petition."
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 51 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:45 +0530
71.The contention of respondents that petitioner has many other properties which it has not disclosed is vague and bald. Further, in the eviction petition, the landlord need not disclose the alternate properties available to him if he is of the view that the alternate properties are unsuitable for him. The eviction petition is not a declaration or disclosure of all the immovable assets of the landlord and then and the exercise of sifting through the ones' which are or could be deemed to be suitable as alternate accommodation. For any property to be considered alternately available, it has first to be available, i.e. in possession of the landlord and capable of being put to immediate use; thereafter only the issue of its suitability for the bona fide need arises. The landlord's discretion and prerogative in this regard cannot be questioned, except insofar as it is not whimsical, ex facie or shockingly unreasonable. Reliance is placed upon Babu Lal vs Atul Kumar & Anr. CRP NO. 147 of 2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
72.Even otherwise, it can be observed that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord that how he should meet or fulfill his requirement. In this regard reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble High RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 52 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:42 +0530 Court of Delhi titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. [153 (2008) DLT 652] it was observed that: -
"24. 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 possession 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 landlord could have adjusted himself.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background.
Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement".
73.In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [AIR 1999 SC 2507], at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 53 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:47 +0530 the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 which speaks of non- availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant fact Ors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come."
74.In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery [AIR 2000 SC 534], it was observed as under: -
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 54 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:41 +0530 "It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
75.In Praveen and Another vs Mulak Raj and Others (2023) SCC OnLine Del 7721, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to be best utilized by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his property and is the best person to decide which property is to be utilized in what way.
76.Hence, in view of the settled legal position, it is clear that it is not for the respondent/tenant to dictate to the petitioner/landlord that it should use some other accommodation for its business, even if it is indeed available with the petitioner. The tenanted premises belong to the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to see whether it is suitable for its requirement or not. It is the right of the petitioner to choose a property which is going to be more profitable and convenient for his business. If the tenanted premises RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 55 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:46 +0530 is suitable as per his needs, the petitioner has every right to possess the said premises and the respondent cannot contend that the petitioner should manage his affairs otherwise. While deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted. In view of the above discussion, the allegation of the respondents that the petitioner firm has alternative suitable accommodations does not give rise to any triable issue.
77.Accordingly, I am duly satisfied that the petitioner firm needs the tenanted premises in question for bonafide need of one of its partners and I am further satisfied that the petitioner firm does not have any other alternate property available with it to fulfill the said requirement.
78.After analysis of the present factual situation in backdrop of the law discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondents have failed to raise any triable issue in respect of bonafide need of petitioner and alternate accommodation available with the petitioner firm.
79.Thus, this court is of the considered opinion that the need set up by the landlord/petitioner firm is genuine and bonafide and there is no alternate RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 56 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:42 +0530 suitable accommodation available to it. CONCLUSION:
80.Hence, the present petition for eviction is allowed and an application for leave to defend stands disposed of accordingly as dismissed. The Petitioner Firm is held entitled to recover the possession of Shop situated on Ground Floor with Mezzanine Floor constructed therein in Property bearing No. 10197, Ward No. XVI, Block-S, Gali No. 16, Beadonpura, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, as shown in red color in the site plan annexed with petition. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
81.In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.
82.File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(This order contains 57 pages and
each page has been signed by me)
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Divya Gupta)
Today i.e. on 24.03.2026 ARC-02 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
RC ARC No.62/25 M/S CRC DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATES VS JAWAHAR LAL KALRA Pg 57 of 57 Digitally signed DIVYA by DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA 2026.03.24 Date:
17:00:42 +0530