Delhi District Court
Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs Pramod Kumar on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. ALKA SINGH,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
DLWT030001202020
ARC No.- 06/2020
Sh. Rakesh Kumar Sharma
S/o Late Vidya Dutt Sharma
R/ H. No 10, Jwala Heri,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063. .... Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Pramod Kumar
S/o Not Known
R/o WZ-10/24,25,26, Jwala Heri,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063. .... Respondent
Date of Filing : 13.01.2020
Date of Order : 18.04.2026
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking eviction of respondents in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. One hall situated at the ground floor forming part of property No. WZ-10 having private shop nos. 24,25,26, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063 which is more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as "Tenanted Premises"), Under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act"). Briefly stated the facts ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 1/ 17 of the case are as under:-
2. It is averred by the petitioner that the respondent/tenant was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises by the elder brother of the petitioner around 25 years ago, thereafter the rented premises came into the share of the petitioner by way of settlement/partition between the petitioner, his brother and other family members and since then the petitioner is collecting rent from the respondent.
The family of the petitioner is consisting of four members i.e. himself, his wife, one daughter namely Himanshi and one son Rohit Sharma. It is further averred that the petitioner has been working with Bhart Petroleum and his son is unemployed at present. Earlier the son of the petitioner Sh. Rohit Sharma was working as a building material supplier, but due to ill health of the petitioner, his son is not able to take care of the petitioner as he has to work late in the night with the builders and the contractors. It is submitted that the son of the petitioner had to leave the work due to the emotional attachments and due to financial problem and for the said reason, the petitioner wants to settle his son. It is averred that the son of the petitioner wants to start his own business of ladies garments at his own place and hence, the tenanted premises is required bonafidely to set up new business by the son of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the tenanted premises is situated just below the residence of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner will retire in 5-6 years and the son of the petitioner is also married so the petitioner is under immense pressure to settle his son by setting up his new business. The petitioner and his son have no other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available with them anywhere in Delhi to carry out the said business.
3. It is asserted by the petitioner that though the petitioner is having other space at the first floor of the suit property but same is being used as godown and there is small shop beside the suit property which is occupied by the other ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 2/ 17 tenant. Therefore, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
4. Notice of this eviction petition was sent to the respondent in the prescribed format which was duly served on the respondent. In response to which, the respondent filed his leave to defend application accompanied by affidavit.
5. In his leave to defend, the respondent has contended that present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent with malafide intention and the petitioner has concealed material facts. It is also contended by the respondent that the present suit is misconceived as the provisions of DRC Act do not apply to the area where the tenanted premises is situated. The petitioner has concealed the fact that the tenanted premises falls within the Lal- dora abadi area of village Jwala Heri, which is a notified rural area of Delhi and the provisions of Rent Control Act does not apply.
6. It is further contended that there was/is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. It is submitted by the respondent that he had aken a shop on rent in main Jwalaheri Market being shop no. 4D/7, Chaudhary Kishan Chand Shopping Complex, Ground Floor, Jwalaheri and started work in partnership with one Sh. Inderdjit Bhalla in the year 1988. Having good relations with the brothers of the petitioner, they asked the respondent to take the premises in their building as they were in need of some monetary help and asked the respondent for paying an amount of Rs. 6 Lakhs and subsequently they will get the shop transferred in the name of the respondent. Having vet the assurances of them, the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 5 Lakh to the brothers of the petitioner and it was mutually settled that rest of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall be paid after purchase of three shops in WZ-10, Sharma ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 3/ 17 Shopping Complex, Jwalaheri, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063, which are in possession of the respondent even today. Thereafter, the balance amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid. However, it transpires that despite having executed the partition deed in the year 2004 (which was never intimated to the respondent), the intention of the petitioner became dishonest to not to transfer the shops as orally agreed between the parties in good faith, but owing to this reason only no rent receipt is presented before the Court after 2004, as no charges were paid to the petitioner after 2004 as was agreed between them. That story of theft of rent receipts of more than 16 long years is merely an afterthought.
7. It is further claimed that no rent agreement regarding proof of tenancy has been filed with the petition and even no other proof of tenancy has also been filed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship. That the rent receipts filed by the petitioner are forged documents. It is also claimed that the partition deed on record is not binding on the applicant and it includes even the properties sold prior to execution of alleged partition deed. It is submitted that in the year 2003, a shop on the ground floor measuring 48 sq. yds. was sold and consideration amount shown for the purpose of registration was Rs. 1.80 Lakhs. It is further claimed the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect and the respondent has filed an actual and correct site plan of the suit property which also includes the three shops on the ground floor of the property which are in possession of the respondent.
8. It is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner has also concealed that besides doing the business of building material supplying, he is also indulged in another business of the sales, supply & distribution of mobile telephones, mobile accessories and luggage in the name and style of M/s Kuno7 from the alleged big shop/hall admeasuring 13X33 ft. situated at 1st floor of the suit property just above the tenanted premises. It is further alleged that the business of the son of ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 4/ 17 petitioner is also listed at various leading business & B2B portals like India Mart, Just Dial etc. and a dedicated business and marketing page is also constructed on various social media platforms like Facebook, wherein his son has given and claimed as the sole proprietor of said businesses. It is submitted that as per the petitioner there are 03 separate shops which are in occupation of the respondnet, for which a single eviction petition has been preferred by the petitioner which is not maintainable since the petitioner has not mentioned or disclosed as to which shop or how many shops, he requires earnestly for expansion of business of his son or to start a new business. It is also submitted that tenanted shops i.e. shops no. 24,25 & 26 are in fact three separate shops and are being used for different purposes. Therefore, it is prayed that the leave may be granted to the respondents as there are various triable issues.
9. Reply to the leave to defend was also filed by the petitioner, thereby refuting the pleas taken by respondent in the leave to defend and it was submitted that the instant application as filed by the respondent is wholly false and frivolous.
10. Rejoinder to the leave to defend application was also filed by the respondent denying all the allegations levelled by the petitioner.
11. The arguments of the parties have been heard and considered. The material on record, the case laws relied upon by the parties have also been perused and considered meticulously.
THE LAW:
12. It is well settled that burden placed on a tenant is light and limited in that if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 5/ 17 from obtaining an order for the recovery of the possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e) are good enough to grant leave to defend.
13. It is further well settled that at a stage when the tenant seeks leave to defend, it is enough if he prima-facie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. Unless the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as would non-suit the landlord leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Section 25 B(5). A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere asking or in a routine manner which will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act, leave to defend cannot be refused where an eviction petition is filed on a mere design or desire of landlord to recover possession of the premises from a tenant. Refusing to grant leave in such a case leads to eviction of a tenant summarily resulting in great hardship to him and his family members, if any, although he could establish if only leave is granted that a landlord would be disentitled for an order of eviction.
14. It is also well settled at the stage of granting leave to defend, parties rely on affidavits in support of the rival contentions. Assertions and counter assertions made in affidavits may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at an affirmative conclusion one way or the other unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to show that the facts disclosed in the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend where either frivolous, untenable or most unreasonable. It is also well settled that when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a landlord has to establish his need and not his mere desire.
15. It is expedient to reproduce the Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under:
ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 6/ 17"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."
16. The requirements for establishing a case U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act are :-
-that the petitioner should be the landlord/owner of the property;
-that he/ she should require the property for bonafide need; and thirdly that he/she should not have any other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.
(i). LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP:-
17. In the present case the relationship of landlord and tenant has been disputed by the respondent and though it has not been denied rather the same was affirmed during arguments that the respondent has come into the premises ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 7/ 17 as tenant and the said fact is mentioned in the leave to defend application of the respondent that he was approached by the brothers of the petitioner for taking their premises on payment of sum of Rs. 6 Lakhs, out of which the respondent paid cash of Rs. 5 Lakh in the year 1992 and for the remaining Rs. 1 Lakh, he started paying Rs. 400/- p.m. to the brother of the petitioner and continued to pay the same till the year 2004. Thus, by way of "approbating and reprobating"
the respondent in a way has accepted his tenancy and in so far as his contention regarding the purchase of the premises from the brother of the petitioner is concerned, from all his pleadings contained in his leave to defend, it is very much evident and apparent that the respondent has not filed even a piece of paper to show that he had paid any such sum to the brothers of the petitioner or that he has acquired any permanent right or ownership right over the tenanted premises. Thus, these mere bald averments of having purchased the premises without any title documents are wholly useless and unproductive.
18. The respondent has further challenged the partition deed executed between the family members of the petitioner, however, it has been very clearly held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in A.K. Nayar Vs. Mahesh Prasad that ".. a tenant cannot challenge the family settlement nor can ask the Court to ignore the document on the ground of its not having been registered."
19. Thus, neither the tenant has been able to show that he has acquired any kind of ownership over the premises nor his allegations of the partition deed being forged and fabricated has any value in the eyes of law, being a worthless point to be raised. Further, the partition deed is a registered document and viz-a- viz any written document a mere oral averments of any party is wholly insignificant. Further, the law in this regard is very clear that the tenant cannot dispute the title of the landlord or his successor-in-interest i.e. he/she is estopped from challenging the ownership or denying the title of the landlord. The ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 8/ 17 principle is very clear that once a tenant is always a tenant and therefore, it is not open for her/him to challenge the title or the ownership of landlord or his successor-in-interest.
20. To quote the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Leela Wati 155 (2008) DLT 383;
".... it is settled law that for the purpose of Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than a tenant."
21. The other such contention of the respondent that all the rent receipts relied upon by the petitioner are forged and fabricated are just bald averments because it is rather very easy for anybody to discredit a document just by making a statement that the same is forged and fabricated without substantiating anything in this regard. Particularly, in the case at hand, when the respondent himself has submitted on affidavit in his leave to defend that he has been paying charges to the brothers of the petitioners since 2004 and therefrom had confirmed his status as a tenant and now taking such pleas that the rent receipts are forged, does not make out any case for him, Moreover, whether or not he has paid any rent after 2004 would not alter his status as such even if in his mind he assumed himself to be the owner. Thus, this authority is not going to discard these entire set of rent receipts of different years wherein the same has been issued to the respondent and allegedly signed by him.
22. It has also been contested by the respondent that from the partition it is not clear which shop fell in to the share of which brother of petitioner and also ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 9/ 17 that if the partition was effected in the year 2004 then how come the petitioner was landlord/owner even before that as per the rent receipts filed by him. However, it is a settled principle of law that any co-owner can file an eviction petition against the tenant and thus, even if it is not clear in the mind of the respondent which shop belongs to which brother, he is not to be bothered. Thus, there is no requirement of impleading all the co-owners. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dhanna Lal Vs. Kalawati Bai & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC.
23. Hence, so far the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent is concerned, the same is held to be established in view of the above discussions and pronouncements and respondent has failed to substantiate anything contrary.
(ii) BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT:
24. The other requirement is that the premises should be required for the bonafide need of the landlord/petitioner and it is the case of the petitioner that the same is required for his sons, so that they can start their business. However, it is contested in this regard that the petitioner does not have any bonafide requirement rather, his son has been employed and has been earning handsomely for which an application was also filed U/o 8 Rule 1A CPC for bringing on record subsequent event, wherein GST Number and Importer Exporter Code of the son of the petitioner.
25. Firstly, in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778; it has already been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that " whenever landlord seeks eviction of the tenant for bonafide need, the Controller shall presume the need as genuine and bonafide. Additionally, the burden to refute such ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 10/ 17 presumption squarely lies on the tenant and mere assertion on the part of tenant is insufficient."
26. Secondly, by bringing on record the abovesaid subsequent facts which the respondent has pleaded in his leave to defend application also, what the respondent is trying to prove is that the petitioner and his son are already engaged in some business but the petitioner has concealed the fact that his son is gainfully employed and thus has played fraud upon the court and therefore, this requirement is not bonafide.
27. It is well settled that a person is not supposed to remain unemployed till the disposal of the eviction petition. Furthermore, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing malafide if the petitioner wants to help his son to start his own business in the tenanted premises. Rather, the said requirement seems to be bonafide as he wants to earn his livelihood and the tenant cannot stop the landlord from starting any business for livelihood.
28. It is well settled law that landlord cannot be directed to squeez himself into a space, which may not be sufficient to meet the requirement for himself and his son who is dependent upon him for commercial premises, only to prevent any hardship to the tenant. It is also not opened to the Court or the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how he adjust himself only to preclude the tenant from being evicted. When father and son are engaged in business, one shop may not be sufficient to accommodate the customers and his son. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Prem prakash Malik Vs. Ram Gopal Rajwanshi decided by Hon'ble High Court in RC (REV.) 344/2011 on 29.08.2012.
29. Even if the petitioner and his son have been working and the son is ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 11/ 17 running some business would it mean there is a complete embargo upon him now not to start any new business or take up any new enterprise as the same is fundamental right of a citizen which is Constitutionally guaranteed. There also cannot be a ground for rejecting any eviction petition only on the basis that someone has the GST Number or is running any business in partnership, as is evident from the documents submitted by the respondent alongwith his application filed U/o 8 Rule 1-A CPC. In this regard, it has also been clarified by the petitioner that it can never be expected from the landlord to keep sitting idle and wait for result of the eviction petition and instead his son started one business in partnership, however, the venture was unsuccessful because of which the GST was cancelled in the year 2020.
30. Further, it has already been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Smt. Phool Kumari & Ors. Vs. Shyam Bir Tyagi RC ARC No. 318/2013 dated 01.10.2014 that no triable issue is raised on the ground if the tenant denies that the landlord is not unemployed. Similarly, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raghunath G. Panhala Vs. M/s Chhagan Lal Sunder Ji & Co.... that "A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation, to contemplate that he must get possession of the premises for establishing business."
31. In view of the above, no triable issue has been raised qua the bonafide requirement of the petitioner.
(iii). REASONABLY SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION:-
32. It has been claimed by the respondent that the property in question is a huge Shopping Complex comprising several number of shops, however, by pleading so, it has not been specified by the respondent if any of such shops are ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 12/ 17 lying vacant rather, as per the classifications and description of all the floors of the Shopping Complex as mentioned by the respondent himself in his leave to defend application very evidently demonstrates, that all such shops/ floor are occupied in one way or the other and hence, these cannot be equated with a reasonably suitably alternate accommodation. And if by pleading these facts the respondent wants to assert that the other occupiers must be ask to vacate and not him then he is mistaken in his belief.
33. In this respect, reference can also be had to Sunil Kumar Goyal Vs. Harbans Singh 2017 SCC Online DEL 9289; wherein it was held that "If the Courts have been held to be not entitled to interfere with the choice of the landlord as to which of the two tenants, he wants to evict and if it has been held that the tenant cannot be heard to say that the landlord instead of evicting him should evict the other tenant......"
34. The respondent has also claimed that petitioner has also one big hall available at first floor of the building also and the same can be utilized by him for expansion of his business.
35. In reference to all the abovesaid contentions of the respondent it has to be pronounced here again that it has all now been well settled that the tenant cannot dictate to the landlord how much space is adequate for the landlord or how best to use the tenanted premises or even to adjust in some other premises. Qua this, reliance is being placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Praveen and Anr. Vs. Mulakh Raj & Ors. RC Rev. 417/2016 wherein it was held that "the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has repeatedly held 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 ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 13/ 17 which property is to be utilized in what way. The respondent cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to utilize his property. The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. (Residential or commercial use)".
36. Similarly, in Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Prem Machinery & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679; it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that " the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter."
37. To answer the other contention of the respondent regarding the petitioner having first floor available in the suit premises and not having used it, the law has already been settled down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in " Uday Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503 ", wherein it was held that " it is not for the Courts to say that the landlord should shift to the first floor or any higher floor as it is well known that shops and businesses are usually conducted on the ground floor, because the customers can reach there easily." Thus, it is well known fact that the ground floor premises is more suitable for commercial purposes than the first floor premises as it has more footfall of the customers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendera Kumar Tandon 72 (1998) DLT 629", opined that the landlord is not dis-entitled from seeking recovery of the possession of a ground floor merely on the plea that he also is in possession of first floor and second floor so long as the Court is satisfied with respect to the bonafide requirement of the landlord for the tenanted premises. Hence, just because the petitioner has some rooms available on the first floor of the premises, it cannot be held that the requirement of tenanted premises situated at the ground floor is not bonafide.
ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 14/ 1738. It is pertinent to mention herein that it is not open to the Court or tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as how and in what manner he should adjust himself, without calling upon tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else landlord could have adjusted. (Ref. Kishan Lal Vs. R.N. Bakshi 169 (2010) DLT 769).
39. The other such contentions of the respondent that the petitioner has not clarified which one of the three shops occupied by the respondent, he needs for his son, however, the same is an absurd submission as it is very apparent from the face of the petition that the petition has been filed for all the three shops occupied by the respondent herein i.e. shops no. 24,25, & 26 and it has been specifically mentioned that all these three shops is a one big hall in which partition has been created by the respondent and this entire premises has fallen in the share of the petitioner after the partition. Therefore, the entire of it is required by the petitioner.
40. Thus, no triable issue has also been raised by the respondent qua any alternative accommodation being available to petitioner.
41. In this context the averment of the respondent that separate petition should have been filed qua these shops are not backed by any sound legal principle because as per the petitioner, firstly, this is a big hall in which partition has been created. Further, all these three shops have been given as a joint premises to the respondent and from the rent receipts also, it is clear that all three are being used by the respondent only, hence, there is no such requirement of filing any separate petition.
42. Further, in the said application the respondent has also given reference to ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 15/ 17 the reply received by him in answer to his application filed under RTI Act, wherein he sought the information regarding the applicability of the DRC Act over the tenanted premises from the Land and Building Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi wherein it was replied that there is no such Notification and they do not keep any such record. Thus, on the basis of the same it is averred that DRC Act is not applicable on this premises situated in Jwalaheri, however, in the notification of 1962 issued by Ministry of Home Affairs G.S.R-486 dated 12.04.1962, the provision of DRC Act was extended to all the localities mentioned in the schedule to the notification of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi No. F.9/5/59-R&S dated 28.12.1959 published in Delhi Gazette, Part-IV dated 07.01.1960. Thus, from the above it is clear that respondent is wrong in his understanding that DRC Act is not applicable in premises situated in Jwalaheri and just because a department does not have any such information, it would not mean that such a notification never existed.
43. It has also been contended by the respondent that the petitioner has not filed the correct site plan, however, it is not the case of the respondent that the tenanted premises is not identifiable from such site plan of the petitioner.
CONCLUSION:
44. In view of the above discussion, this authority finds no triable issue in the leave to defend application of the respondents which could dis-entitle the petitioner/landlord to obtain an eviction order in his favour. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is thus, dismissed.
45. Hence, as a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/s. 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act in favour of petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. One hall situated at the ground floor forming part of ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 16/ 17 property No. WZ-10 having private shop nos. 24,25,26, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, Delhi-110063 which is more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition which is marked as Mark P-1 (Put by this Authority for the purpose of identification).
46. However, this order shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
47. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 18th April, 2026 This order consists of 17 signed pages. Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2026.04.18 16:59:56 +0530 (ALKA SINGH) Additional Rent Controller West District, THC, Delhi.ARC No. 06/2020 Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Pramod Kumar Page No. 17/ 17