Delhi District Court
Rajkumari vs Radhey Shyam Batra on 27 March, 2025
No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARJINDER KAUR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-2 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
ARC No: 80300/2016
Smt. Raj Kumari
W/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam Dass,
R/o E-16/915, Gali no. 3,
Ganesh Gali, Tank Road,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005. .....Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Radhey Shyam Batra
S/o Late Sh. Harbans Lal Batra
R/o A-149, Ganesh Nagar,
Near Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS.
a. Smt. Raj Batra
W/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam Batra
R/o A-149, Ganesh Nagar,
Near Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
b. Sh. Ashawani Batra
S/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam Batra
R/o A-149, Ganesh Nagar,
Near Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
c. Jatin Batra
S/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam Batra
R/o A-149, Ganesh Nagar,
Near Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
(Arjinder Kaur)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
27.03.2025 Page no.1 of 19
No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra
d. Smt. Gunjan
W/o Sh. Gautam Gulati
R/o A-149, Ganesh Nagar,
Near Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi-110018
....Respondents
***********
Date of Filing of petition : 25.05.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 27.03.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 27.03.2025
Decision of petition : Allowed
***********
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 14 (1)
(e) read with section 25 (B) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of shop no. 6, E-16/915, Ganesh Gali no. 3,Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted shop').
THE PETITION
2. It is averred in the petition that petitioner is the owner of the property bearing no. shop no. 6, E-16/915, Ganesh Gali no. 3,Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005. That the same is being used by the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 800/- per month, exclusive of electricity charges. That the respondent is running a clothing shop from the said premises under the name and style of M/s. Shri Nath Clothing Inc. since 1988. That the Petitioner is a widow and does not have any source of income and is dependent upon the rentals this premises is fetching. That (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.2 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra petitioner cannot survive on the minuscule rentals and now needs the shop in question to start her own business from the said shop and on various occasions have requested the respondent to vacate the same, but the respondent has neither tendered the rentals nor has vacated the property in question and as such the present petition is being filed. That the respondent is a habitual defaulter in the payment of rent and had/have not been paying the rent to the petitioner month by month when became due inspite of repeated demands and requests made by the petitioner and the Respondent last paid the rent to the petitioner for the period ending June, 2014 and thereafter, the respondent has defaulted in the payment of rent to the petitioner and the petitioner reserves his legal rights to take necessary legal action in respect of the same after the requisite legal formalities for which the petitioner also reserves his legal rights to sue the respondent on the said ground. The respondent has already initiated appropriate demand notice. Thus, the eviction of respondent from tenanted premises has been prayed for.
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. The petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlady qua the shop in question. There is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties nor the petitioner is the owner thereof. That the shop in question is part of Shiv Temple. The land underneath the shop is Khasra No.1422/662/364/2 is part of Village Sadora Khurd owned by one Santosh. The Union of India vide its Notification No. F-15 (III)/59/LSG dated 13.11.1959 acquired land of Village Sadora Khurd and Chokri Mubarkabad for planed development of Delhi. The award No.1235 was passed (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.3 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra on 30.10.1961 and the land owner were compensated by paying award. In the year 1976, the occupants of the area were evicted by DDA and were allotted alternative plot towards Village Nangla Sakrawati, Najafgarh, Delhi. The area was fenced with wire and was given to Ministry of Defence for installation of Wireless Experimental Centre. When the Ministry of Defence did not use the land till 1979, the Sikh Residents with other Hindu Residents broke the fencing wire. The Sikh residents have constructed a Gurudwara and the Hindu residents have constructed one Barat Ghar and one Shiv Temple. Alongwith Shiv Temple, six shops were also constructed. Sh. Charan Singh out of his influence got installed electricity connection for the supply of electricity in Barat Ghar and Shiv Temple as he was head of Dhobi Samaj. The fact of acquisition of land by Union of India came to the knowledge of the respondent through status report filed by Admin. Officer, Land & Estate Department of MCD in suit No.423/97 titled as Tersem Singh Vs. Mangal Singh and further from the written statement filed by DDA in suit No.43/2000 titled as Mangal Singh Vs. Satender Pal Singh and from the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 22.8.2007 passed in WP (C) 12404/2006 titled Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha Vs. DDA & ors. That on 01.10.1984, the respondent approached care taker Sultan Singh for taking the shop. Sultan Singh directed Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma, the priest of the temple to receive Rs.5000/- as cost of the shop prevalent at that time and put in the donation box. The respondent paid Rs.5000/- to Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma towards the cost of the shop which was kept in the donation box at the instance of (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.4 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra Sultan Singh Care taker but no receipt was issued. In the same manner, the other occupants of the shop have also taken the shop and are running their business as an owner without title. The respondent was further putting Rs.50/- in the donation box for the maintenance of the temple and now days, the respondent is putting Rs.200/-in the donation box The electricity is consumed from the one common electric meter installed in the temple. That the petitioner has illegally constructed eighteen shops in the Barat Ghar and raised the construction of two storey building and let out the shops to the tenants on monthly rent of Rs.3000/- to Rs.5000/-. The greed of the petitioner did not stop here and she has filed the eviction petition against the respondent in respect of the shop in question without any right, title or interest in respect of the shops which are the part of the Shiv Temple. That no electric fitting were provided by the petitioner. That all the shop keepers are consuming the electricity from the electric meter installed in the Shiv Temple and share consumption equally. The premises in question is not the room, but is forming part of Shiv Temple. That the shop in question is not under tenancy of the petitioner or anybody else and the respondent is occupying the shop in question as a owner without title since the year 1984. That it is denied that the respondent is a tenant of the petitioner in respect of shop No.6. That it is specifically denied that the petitioner is the owner of the property bearing No.E-16/915, Shop No.6, Ganesh Gali No.3, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. No documents of ownership are filed by the petitioner. The Ministry of Defence is the owner of the land question. That it is denied that the respondent is paying (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.5 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra Rs.800/- per month towards the rent. The respondent has never paid the rend either to the petitioner or to her deceased husband Sh. Ghanshyam Dass or to her deceased father in-law Charan Singh Chokhar. That the petition is admitted to the extent of running the business by the respondent under the name and style of M/s Ganpati Garments but it is specifically denied that the shop is under tenancy of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.10.1988 on the monthly rent of Rs.400/-. It is specifically denied that the respondent has ever paid any rent to the petitioner or the same has been enhanced to Rs.800/-w.e.f. 01.06.2013 or from any other date. It is submitted that petitioner is getting rent more than Rs.60,000/- from 18 shops constructed in Barat Ghar, out of which shop No.P-7 is lying vacant and the petitioner can very well start her business from the said shop. Rest of the contentions of the petition have been denied in toto. It has been prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
REPLICATION
4. Replication/ rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to the written statement of the respondents, wherein the averments made in the petition have been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondents in the written statement has been vehemently denied as false.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER
5. PW-1 Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma tendered evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A and B. 5.1 PW-2 Pandit Sh. Hukum Chand Sharma tendered evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW2/A bearing his signature (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.6 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra at point A and B. 5.2 The petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 Ms. Raj Kumari and tendered evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW3/A bearing his signature at point A and B and relied upon the following documents:-
a) Copy of hand written note showing rent having been paid Ex. PW3/4 (OSR).
b) Site plan Ex. PW3/1. c) Photograph Ex. PW3/3 (objected to mode of proof). d) Copy of house tax receipt (mark A). 5.3 PW4 Sh. Kamal Kumar, Superintendent also officiating
as the manager awaiting the annual general transfer, office of Principal Commissioner, CGST, Delhi North, CR Building, I.P Estate New Delhi brought the summoned document i.e. certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act act as issued by Mr Parpokar Vatswal, Superintendent Range-II, CGST, Karol Bagh, Division in support of print outs of the elections record as submitted by Sh.
Jatin Batra for applying for GST number. The documents running into 7 pages are Ex. PW4/1 (Colly).
5.4 Vide order dated 23.10.2021 and 31.08.2024, PE was closed.
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT
6. RW1 Sh. Jatin Batra tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/1 and relied upon following documents:-
a) Original site plan Ex. RW1/1. b) Copy of khasra khatoni mentioned in Ex. RW1/A as Ex.
RW1/2 but de exhibited and marked as mark A ( a certified copy of (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.7 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra the same is placed on record today ) ( objected to by the counsel for petitioner).
c) Copy of order dated 27.03.2020 passed by the Estate officer mentioned in Ex. RW1/A as Ex. RW1/3 but de exhibited and marked as Mark B.
d) Copy of the WS filed in case of Mangal Singh Vs. Satender Pal Singh in the court of Sh. Vinod Kumar, Civil Judge, mentioned in Ex. RW1/A as Ex. RW1/4 but de exhibited and marked as Mark C.
e) Copy of order passed by Hon'ble High Court dated 22.08.2007 mentioned in Ex. RW1/A as Ex. RW1/5 but de exhibited and marked as Mark D. 6.1 RW2 Sh. Santosh Dutt, Patwari, Office of SDM, Civil Lines Burari, Delhi had brought the summoned record i.e the register of khasra girdwari from 1995-2000 was seen by this court and it was recorded that "Perusal of same shows that there is another entry in the same register against same khasra number and same is on record in the interest of justice. Photocopy of the same is now Ex. RW-2/2 (OSR) and the relevant entry therein is encircled with red pen at point A".
6.2 Vide order dated 16.10.2023, respondent evidence was closed.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard the arguments at length and have also carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents and material on record and case law relied upon.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.8 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra
8. At the outset, it is expedient to reproduce Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under-
"Section-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 court or any controller in favour 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 recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord 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."
9. As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii)That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv)Landlord/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
10. Let us now discuss the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act one by one as applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
I. OWNERSHIP & LANDLORD /TENANT RELATIONSHIP
11. As per the petition, the petitioner is the owner of the (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.9 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra property bearing shop no. 6 and the same is being used by the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. It is further stated that respondent is running a clothing shop from the said premises under the name and style of M/s Shrinath clothing Inc. since 1988, and initially the property was let out at monthly rent of Rs. 800/-. The said rent has been increased from time to time, and the last paid rent is Rs. 800/-, which was increased on 01.06.2013. That from the said date till July 2014, the respondent has been independently tending rent to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.800/- but since July 2014, the respondent has stopped paying rent to the petitioner. 11.1 On the other hand, the respondent, through his written statement alleged that petitioner is not the owner for the suit shop as the land upon which the suit shop is situated was acquired by Union of India and was delivered to Ministry of Defence for installation of wireless experimental Centre and Ministry of defence is the owner of the land and the shop . It is further stated that there is no relationship of landlord and between the petitioner and respondent as the respondent never paid rent either to the petitioner or husband or her father-in-law. It is further stated that the father-in-law and husband of the petitioner never claimed themselves to be the owner of the land. That the suit shop is part of Shiv Temple constructed on the acquired land. It is also submitted that the land underneath the shop is part of village Sadora Khurd owned by one Santosh and the Union of India vide its notification dated 13.11.1959 acquired the land for planned development of Delhi. In the year 1976, the occupants of the area were evicted by DDA and were allotted alternative plot towards (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.10 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra village Nangla, Sakrawati Najafgarh. The area was fenced with wire and was given to Ministry of Defence for installation of Wireless Experimental Centre. When Ministry of Defence did not use the land till 1979, the Sikh residence with other Hindu residence broke the fencing wire. The Sikh residence constructed a Gurudwara and the Hindu residence constructed one Bharat ghar and Shiv Temple and along with the Shiv Temple shops were also constructed. It is further deposed that Sh. Charan Singh out of his influence, got installed electricity connection for the supply of electricity in the Bharat ghar and the shiv temple, as he was head of the Dhobi Samaj. It is further submitted that on 01.10.1984, the respondent approached the caretaker, Sultan Singh for taking the shop and Sultan Singh directed, Shri Kailash Chand Sharma, the priest of the temple to take Rs.5000/- as cost of the shop prevalent at that time and put in the donation box. It is further stated that since Kailash Chand Sharma or Sultan Singh did not have any title document in respect of the suit property, therefore, the respondent was asked to pay the cost of shop Rs.5000/-, which was paid to Sh. Kailash Sharma, which was kept in the donation box at the instance of Sultan Singh caretaker and no receipt was issued. It is further stated that the other occupants of the other shops also took the shops in the similar manner. It is further stated that respondent has been putting Rs.50/- in the donation box for the maintenance of the temple and nowadays, the respondent is putting Rs.200/- in the donation box. It is further stated that the electricity is consumed from one common electric meter installed in the temple. It is further stated that it is specifically denied that the shop is under the (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.11 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra tenancy of the petitioner or anybody else and that the respondent is occupying the shop in question as a owner without title since year 1984 by donating the cost of the shop amounting to Rs. 5000/- through Pandit Kailash Sharma in the donation box of the temple. 11.2 To prove the contentions made in the petition, petitioner evidence was led during which the petitioner Smt. Rajkumari herself appeared as PW3 and deposed through her affidavit Ex. PW3 /A that she is owner of the property. The original site plan of the entire property E-16/915 Ganesh Gali no.3, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi is Ex. PW3/1. She deposed that the entire property was owned by her father-in-law, Shri Charan Singh, and after his death, the property devolved upon his four sons including her late husband, Shri Ghanshyam Das. It is further that after the death of Shri Ghanshyam Das the property devolved upon her and now she is paying house tax for the said property. The original house tax receipt with respect to property bearing number E-16/915 Ganesh Gali no. 2 has been filed as Mark A. It is further deposed that the entire construction of the property was done by her father-in-law out of his funds, and he also got installed electricity meter in the property under his name. After his demise, the meter was transferred in the name of Shri Ghanshyam Das, that is the husband of the petitioner. It is further deposed that the property was let out to the respondent by the husband of the petitioner at a monthly rent of Rs. 400/- and since 01.01.1988, the respondent has been running a garment shop from the said premises under the name and style of M/s Shrinath clothing. Copy of handwritten diary note maintained by the (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.12 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra petitioners deceased husband showing the rent being paid to him by the respondent under the name of Batra is Ex. PW3/4 (OSR). It is further deposed that rent was increased from time to time and the last paid rent was Rs.800/- exclusive of electricity charges, which was last increased on 01.06.2013, and after the death of her husband, the respondent started paying rent to her. 11.3 Perusal of cross examination of petitioner as PW3 shows that the deposition of the petitioner to the effect that the respondent was inducted as tenants by her late husband Shri Ghanshyam Das in the year 1988 has not been challenged or controverted. Though suggestion was put to the petitioner that respondent had taken the premises from Shri Sultan Singh in 1984 by paying Rs. 5000/- as cost of the shop, which was denied, but there is no suggestion to effect that the above deposition of petitioner is wrong. The counsel for respondent confronted the petitioner with the register Ex. PW3 /4 after seeing which the witness failed to identify the signatures of respondent Radheshyam. However, there is no suggestion on part of the respondent to the effect that Ex. PW3/4 was not signed by the respondent or that the contention of the petitioner that the rent paid under the name of Batra pertains to the respondent is wrong. 11.4 Further, to controvert the contention of the respondent that he had taken the premises from Sultan Singh by paying Rs. 5000/- as cost of the suit shop to the priest of the temple, Mr. Kailash Chan, the petitioner produced Pandit Kailash Chand Sharma as its first witness PW1, who deposed through his affidavit, PW1/A, wherein he categorically stated that respondent (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.13 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra has falsely stated in his pleading that he gave on rent the suit property to Shri Radhe Shyam Batra and further reiterated that he never let out any premises of E-16/915, Ganesh Gali number 3, Tank Road, Karol Bagh to anyone and nor does he have any right to do so. He also deposed that he worked as Pujari of the Shiv Mandir from the year 1988 to 1993. Perusal of his cross- examination show that his deposition to the effect that he never let the suit premises to the respondent could not be controverted. Also, during his cross-examination, he denied having any knowledge about any Sultan Singh and further denied that on 01.10.1984, the respondent paid Rs. 5000/- to Sultan Singh, who directed to put the money in donation box in his presence, and further stated that he never saw any payment of Rs.5000/- by the respondent. He also denied the suggestion that none of the tenants in the said shops paid rent to the Charan Singh, Ghanshyam Das or Raj Kumari . He also deposed that he has knowledge about the fact that rent was being paid to Shri Charan Singh and then to Ghanshyam Das, and then to Smt. Rajkumari, because he was living there, and rent was tendered in his presence, though he did not remember the date, month and year when the rent was tendered in his presence. When he was asked about any document or receipt regarding the payment of rent, he deposed that he had seen the tenant paying the rent and signing the register. PW1 Petitioner had also deposed about one such register the copy of which has been Ex. PW3/4. It is pertinent to note that PW1, Pandit Kailash Chand Sharma deposed about rent register in his cross-examination dated 06.04.2019, the petitioner deposed about the same on 03.09.2019.
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.14 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra 11.5 In rebuttal to the RE, the petitioner further summoned and got examined Shri Kamal Kumar, Superintendent from the office of Principal Commissioner Central GST, Delhi, who brought the printouts of electronic records as submitted by Shri Jatin Batra for applying GST number. The documents have been placed on record as Ex. PW4/1 (7 pages) and are supported by certificate under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act. Perusal of Ex. PW 4/1 shows that in the said documents, Mr Jatin Batra had submitted one rent agreement executed between him as tenant and Shri Ghanshyam Das son of Shri Charan Singh as landlord of the suit property. Interestingly, Shri Ghanshyam Das had died on 24.08.2011, whereas the rent agreement is purported to be executed on 23.06. 2018. During the cross-examination of PW4, there has been no denial on part of the counsel for respondent that the said documents were not submitted by Shri Jatin Batra. 11.6 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 prespent 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."
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.15 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra 11.7 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".
11.8 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 some- thing more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the peti- tioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
11.9 Thus, it can be concluded that the petitioner has successfully established their ownership over the suit property and Landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent with respect to subject shop.
III. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT
12. As per the petitioner, she is in bonafide requirement of the property to start her own business as she cannot survive on (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.16 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra the miniscule rentals being received from the property. 12.1 Perusal of written statement shows that the respondent has not denied the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and has just submitted, apart from the ownership and landlord and tenant relationship, that petitioner is getting rent of more than Rs.60,000/- from 18 shops constructed in the Bharat ghar out of which shop no. P7 lying vacant and can be used by the petitioner to start her business from the shop. The cross- examination of PW1 show that there is not even a single suggestion put on behalf of the respondent to the effect that the need projected by the petitioner is not bonafide. Also, there has not been any questioning of PW1 regarding availability of any alternate accommodation.
12.2 Perusal of evidence affidavit of RW1 Sh. Jatin Batra show that there is no mention of any shop P7 lying vacant and available to the petitioner.
12.3 It is also pertinent to note that respondent has not denied the need stated by the petitioner and has just emphasized on the issue that petitioner has sufficient and suitable alternative accommodation to fulfill his need. Here it is important to quote the following observation made in "Shri Satish Chand Vs. Girdhar Gopal Gupta decided on 10.01.2023:-
"......21. In the present petition there is no plea challenging the finding of the Trial Court with respect to the bona fide need of the landlord and his son addressed during the arguments. It is not disputed that Sh. Amit Gupta, son of the landlord is carrying on business and therefore the contention of the landlord that he needs the tenanted premises for his son's business stands sufficiently established on record.
22. As per Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord/landlady, is required to prove his/her bona fide need for the tenanted premises as well as that he/she has no other (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.17 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra reasonably suitable accommodation, to satisfy their requirement. However, recently the Supreme Court in Abid- Ul-Islam (Supra) has held that in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the Court is concerned only with the requirement of a bonafide need and that the plea of alternative accommodation is 'incidental one' at best. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment read as under:
"29. Section 14(1)(e) deals with only the requirement of a bona fide purpose. The contention regarding alternative accommodation can at best be only an incidental one. Such a requirement has not been found to be incorrect by the High Court, though it is not even open to it to do so, in view of the limited jurisdiction which it was supposed to exercise. Therefore, the very basis upon which the revision was allowed is obviously wrong being contrary to the very provision contained in Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B(8)."
The word 'incidental' as defined in the Oxford dictionary, sixth edition, refers to 'occurring as something casual or of secondary importance'. This would mean that availability of alternate accommodation should not become the decisive or pivotal factor in eviction proceedings. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, once a landlord/landlady has sufficiently established his/her plea of bona fide need, the mere availability of alternate accommodation at the disposal of the landlord/landlady is but a secondary factor and not a primary one and therefore the same cannot become the sole basis for permitting the tenant to retain the tenanted accommodation to the peril of the landlord/landlady, particularly once the other factors entitling him/her to recovery the premises have been established. The landlord/landlady having duly disclosed the alternate available accommodation and having reasonably explained that the same are not adequately suitable for his/her requirement, the fact that tenant contends that the said alternate accommodation is suitable cannot detain the Court from passing the eviction order. The Court will reject the explanation offered by the landlord/landlady with respect to the unsuitability of the alternate accommodation only if it is perverse, however the Court need not substitute the preference for tenanted premises shown by landlord/landlady with the dictates of the tenant. The preference shown by landlord/landlady for the possession of the tenanted premises vis-à-vis another alternative accommodation available to him/her cannot be rejected on the say-so of the tenant so as to set at naught the salutary purpose of Section 25B of the DRC Act. [The Technological Institute of Textiles and Sciences v. M/s Shree Nath Ji Developers, RC. REV. 174/2020]...."
12.4 The respondent has not disclosed any other alternative accommodation owned/possessed by the petitioner.
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 27.03.2025 Page no.18 of 19 No. 80300/2016 Raj Kumari Vs. Radhey Shyam Batra 12.5 Thus, this court comes to conclusion that petitioner has successfully established that her need is bonafide and no vacant alternate accommodation is available to him.
CONCLUSION
13. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, the petitioner is able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e. shop no. 6, E-16/915, Ganesh Gali no. 3,Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan annexed with the 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.
14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally
signed by
ARJINDER
ARJINDER KAUR
KAUR Date:
2025.03.27
Announced in the open Court 16:14:34
+0530
on 27.03.2025
(Arjinder Kaur)
Additional Rent Controller-02,
Central District, THC, Delhi
(Arjinder Kaur)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
27.03.2025 Page no.19 of 19