Delhi District Court
Savita Kapoor vs Vinod Kumar Malhotra on 1 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
RC ARC No: 71/2023
CNR No. DLWT-03-00-2220-2023
SMT. SAVITA KAPOOR
WIFE OF SHRI SUSHIL KAPOOR,
R/0 UTLØ12, DLF ULTIMA, SECTOR 81,
NAKHROLA, GURGAON (HARYAΝΑ)-122004. ....PETITIONER
VERSUS
SHRI VINOD KUMAR MALHOTRA
R/O 15/8, RAJOURI GARDEN,
NEW DELHI - 110027.
ALSO AT:
SHOP BEARING PVT. NO.4,
BE-358C, FORMING PART OF THE
PROPERTY BEARING NO.358-A, GALI
NO.1, HARI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110064. .....RESPONDENT
Date of filing of the petition : 24.08.2023 Date of Order on the application : 0 1 . 0 8 . 2 0 2 5 ORDER ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner is seeking eviction of respondent / tenant in respect of "Shop Bearing Pvt. No. 4, BE-358C, Forming Part Of The Property Bearing No. 358-A, Gali No.1, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064, as 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"). RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15:56:54 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.1 of 35
2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that the property bearing Shop No. 4 & 5 / 358-A, Situated at Gali No.1, Part of Khasra No.1914, 1906 and 1904, in Village Tihar, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064, measuring 200 sq.yards was purchased by Shakuntala Rani wife of Shri Kasturi Lal from Shri Brij Gopal, Son of Shri Dewan Sarup Lal by virtue of the Registered Sale Deed registered as document No.402 in Addi: Baak No.1, Volume No.251 on pages 105 to 108, on dated 08.02.1963 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar II, Delhi.
3. It has been, averred that the said Smt. Shakuntala Rani was the mother in law of the petitioner and she transferred the said two shops Nos. 4 & 5 forming part of the said property in favour of the petitioner by virtue of a Registered Gift Deed dated 29.01.2002, which is registered as document No.2560 in Addl. Book NO.1, Volume No.10184 on pages 45 to 52 on 6.03.2002 and on the basis of the said Gift Deed, the petitioner became the sole and exclusive owner of the said property.
4. It has been averred, that during her life time, Shrimati Shakuntala Rani let out a shop measuring 15 x 8.5 ft. bearing Private No.4 (BE 358 C) forming part of the above-said property to the respondent- tenant for commercial use only on the monthly rent of Rs.75/- per month and the rent of the said premises was enhanced from time to time and now the present rent is Rs.650/-per month exclusive of the electricity charges. It has been averred, that the respondent/tenant RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15:57:02 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.2 of 35 used to run his business, however he has closed his business and the said shop is lying locked since long.
5. It has been averred, that after the execution of the Registered Gift Deed dated 29.1.2002, the mother-in-law of the petitioner died on 30.1.2002. It has been averred, that the rent was paid in cash against receipts from time to time and after the death of Smt. Shakuntla Rani, the respondent/tenant used to pay the rent to the petitioner and the respondent/tenant has paid the rent to the petitioner upto March, 2023 against the receipts and thereafter he has neither paid nor tendered the rent of the said premises to the petitioner inspite of her repeated demands. He is thus in arrears of rent since April, 2023 onwards.
6. It has been averred, that the petitioner is a house wife and her husband Shri Sushil Kapoor was working as Advisor with Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Manesar and had retired on 30th November, 2022. However, he was put to Retainer-ship by the company and he was issued the extension of Retainer-ship Contract for the period from 1st December 2022 to 30th November 2023 vide letter dated 6.12.2022 and the said period of Retainer-ship had already expired. Now, her husband wants to run some commercial business to earn livelihood and the shop in question, which is under the tenancy of the respondent/tenant, is required for the same purpose.
7. It has been averred, that the property is three storeyed building and first, second and third floor of the abovesaid property are Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:57:07 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.3 of 35 residential and in occupation of Shri Vinod Kapoor, brother of her husband, who is residing therein with his family. Further, there are 7 Shops on the Ground Floor, out of which shop No.1 to 3 are in occupation of Shri Vinod Kapoor who is the owner thereof since long. The shop no. 6 and 7 are in occupation of Sh. Ashok Kapoor, another brother of the husband of the petitioner and the shops no. 4 and 5 are belonging to the petitioner. The tenant Shri Vinod Kumar of shop No.4 had closed the shop and same is lying locked. Similarly the shop No.5 is in possession of Sh. Pawan Kumar who used to run his business but now he had also closed the said shop and kept it locked since January 2023. Besides the above-said shops Nos. 4 & 5, the petitioner also owns residential property bearing no. 9/42, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi, which is also occupied by various tenants who are using the same for residential purposes. Further, property at Gurgaon is a residential flat owned by the petitioner and her husband as joint owners and the same is being used by them for residential purpose.
8. It has been averred, that the petitioner has no property in Delhi or other commercial alternative suitable accommodation elsewhere in India except the said shops Nos. 4 and 5 and as such the shop No.4, the under the tenancy of respondent is required bonafidely by petitioner for running business by her husband to earn the livelihood.
9. Lastly, it is prayed, that the eviction order in respect of the tenanted premises may be passed in favour of the petitioner.
RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:57:12 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.4 of 35 PLEAS TAKEN IN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
10. In the leave to defend application, respondent has inter-alia stated, that the respondent received the summons of the application along with copy of petition U/s 14(1)(e) D.R.C. Act and the present application for leave to defend was filed within the statutory period. The respondent has vehemently denied each and every statement, averment and submissions made therein as the same are false, frivolous and misconceived and are totally baseless except for which is admitted or a matter of judicial record.
11. It has been further submitted, that the husband of the petitioner is working with Maruti Suzuki Manesar and thus the present petition is immature without any cause of action. It has been further stated, that the present eviction petition is not maintainable and the respondent has several grounds to contest the Eviction Petition which constitutes triable issues. It has been contended, that the petitioner has not pleaded the entire ingredients U/s 14 (i) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control.
12. It has been further submitted that the tenanted premises is a part of building built over Plot No. 358-A, admeasuring 200 Sq. Yds. in Block No. BE, Gali No. 1, situated at Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The tenanted premises was leased out by Mrs. Shakuntala Rani Mother in law of the Petitioner in the month of June, 1997, however in the year 2002, Mrs. Shakuntala Rani had executed a registered Gift Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA SHARMA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Date: 2025.08.01 15:57:18 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.5 of 35 Deed dated 29.01.2002 in favour of the petitioner, in respect of Shop No. 4 & 5 on the Ground Floor of the above property. It has been averred, that the tenanted Shop No. 4 is in possession of the respondent, whereas Shop No. 5 is in the possession of another tenant.
13. It has been contended, that from the bare perusal of the Rent Receipt dated 01.04.2023 filed by the Petitioner for the period 01.01.2023 to 31.03.2023 and the Rent Receipt dated 02.01.2023 filed by the respondent for the same period i.e. 01.01.2023 to 31.03.2023, The apparent intention behind this manipulation could be, to show that the respondent had been paying the Rent with delay, whereas the respondent had always been making the payment of rent in advance. The rent in respect of the tenancy premises stands paid up to the month of June, 2024.
14. It has been contended, that the petitioner has not disclosed about the other properties owned by her and by her husband and to the best of his knowledge, the petitioner also acquires a share in Flat No. 228, Block C-4, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, and also a share in property bearing No. B-276, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The Petitioner is also the owner of another property BE-268, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
15. It has been contended, that the tenanted premises is being used for carrying on the consultancy work relating to the construction of buildings. The petitioner has sought the eviction of the respondent ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RICHA SHARMA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:57:23 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.6 of 35 from the tenancy premises for bonafide requirement, though the tenancy premises are not required by the Petitioner at all. The husband of the Petitioner has no experience to do business. Even the nature of business has not been disclosed in the entire petition. The petitioner has made false allegations in the petition by stating that the respondent has locked the tenanted premises and that the same is not in occupation of the respondent and is lying deserted, however the said averments are false and incorrect and the respondent is nicely maintaining the tenanted premises.
16. It has been contended, that the sole motive of the Petitioner is to get the premises vacated and to re-let the same at a higher rate of rent, as was being done by her mother-in-law. Further, the mother-in- law of the Petitioner namely Mrs. Shakuntala Rani had taken huge sum of Security from all the previous tenants at the time of leasing out the tenancy premises and similarly, she had also taken huge sum of Security from the respondent which sum was equivalent to the market value of the tenancy premises.
17. It has been contended that the mother-in-law of the petitioner had also leased out shop No. 6 to Shri Vijay Bansal younger Brother of the respondent on 27.04.2000 at a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- and both i.e. respondent and his brother are jointly running the business of trading of Steel and Metal. Hence, prayer is made for allowing the application of the respondent seeking leave to defend.
REJOINDER FILED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE REPLY RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:57:31 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.7 of 35 OF THE PETITIONER TO THE LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
18. Rejoinder has been filed by the respondent to the reply of the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, in which the respondent has reiterated the facts mentioned in the application for leave to defend and denied the averments made by the petitioner in the petition.
19. I have heard at length the rival contentions advanced by Learned counsels for the parties and have further gone through the record carefully. My findings are as under :-
ANAYLYSIS AND FINDINGS
20. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and the same 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 RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA 15:57:37 Date: 2025.08.01 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.8 of 35 reasonably suitable accommodation."
21. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a). The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b). The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
22. These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
23. The following are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act as culled out from the discussion above :
(i) There should be 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 should not have other reasonable RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:57:42 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.9 of 35 suitable accommodation.
24. It is a settled proposition of law, that burden placed on a tenant is limited and light, provided the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining the order for recovery of possession of premises on the ground specified in clause (e) being good enough to grant leave to defend.
25. 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 not 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 on mere asking all in a routine manner as the same would defeat the very purpose and objective of special provisions entailed under Chapter III A of the Act.
26. It is further settled, that at the stage of granting leave to defend, parties rely on affidavits in support of rival contentions. Assertions and counter-assertions made in affidavit may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at a affirmative conclusion in 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 were either frivolous, untenable or most unreasonable.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:57:48 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.10 of 35
27. It is further settled, that when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a land lord has to establish his need which is genuine and real and not merely his desire.
28. In short and substance, wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend, but a triable issue is raised, a duty is placed on the Rent Controller by Statute itself to grant leave. When a tenant is denied leave to defend, although he had fair chance to prove his defence, he will suffer great hardship. Therefore, a balance view is to be taken having regards to the settled propositions of law and competing claims of the rival parties.
29. The satisfaction of bonafide need and no reasonably suitable accommodation has been time and again emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in several cases and more recently in the case Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 wherein the Supreme Court observed thus:-
"The Legislature in enacting the provision has taken ample care to avoid any arbitrary or whimsical action of a landlord to evict his tenant. The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The 'bonafide requirement' must be in presenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:57:54 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.11 of 35 Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar statutory provision is made in sub-section (e) of Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind that statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15:58:00 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.12 of 35 vitiate the entire judgment."
30. Chambers 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean "in good faith and genuine i.e. without fraud or deceit". Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase "required bonafide" is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. It is no concern of the Courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.
OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
31. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation as governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished from the one in title suit. In the case of M. R. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RICHA SHARMA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:58:06 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.13 of 35 Sawhney Vs. Dories Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was held that once a tenant is always a tenant, unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law which is not so in the present petition.
32. 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."
33. 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."
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 isRICHA Digitally signed by something more than a tenant."
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01
15:58:11 +0530
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.14 of 35
34. Now, in light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts of the case in hand.
35. It is the case of the petitioner, that the property bearing 358-A, Situated at Gali No.1, Part of Khasra No.1914, 1906 and 1904, in Village Tihar, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064, measuring 200 sq.yards was purchased by Shakuntala Rani w/o. Shri Kasturi Lal from Shri Brij Gopal s/o. Sh. Dewan Sarup Lal by virtue of the Registered Sale Deed registered. Further, Smt. Shakuntala Rani / mother in law of the petitioner transferred the shop no. 4 and 5 forming the part of the aforesaid property in favour of the petitioner by virtue of a Registered Gift Deed dated 29.01.2002 registered as document No.2560 in Addl. Book NO.1, Volume No.10184 on pages 45 to 52 on 6.03.2002 and on the basis of the said Gift Deed, the petitioner became the sole and exclusive owner of the said property. In support of her contention, the petitioner has also filed on record the copy of the gift deed executed by her mother-in-law in her favour.
36. Further, the petitioner averred, that during her life time, Shrimati Shakuntala Rani let out a shop measuring 15 x 8.5 ft. bearing Private No.4 (BE 358 C) forming part of the above-said property to the respondent-tenant for commercial use only on the monthly rent of Rs. 75/- per month and the rent of the said premises was enhanced from time to time and now the present rent is Rs.650/-per month exclusive of the electricity charges.
RICHA Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMA
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:58:17 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.15 of 35
37. The respondent has nowhere disputed the ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship between him and Smt. Shakuntla Devi. In fact, in para no.5, 11, and 12 of the leave to defend application, the respondent has unequivocally admitted that the rent agreement was duly executed on 27.04.2000 in respect of tenanted premises and the rent in respect of the same was collected by the mother-in- law of the petitioner. He further submitted, that after the death of Smt. Shakuntla Devi, he had always being making the payment of rent regularly and more so in advance and further that the rent in respect of the tenanted premises stands paid up till June, 2024.
38. The petitioner has established her ownership over the suit property through a valid and registered gift deed executed in her favor by her mother-in-law, who was the previous owner. It is an undisputed fact, that the respondent was originally inducted as a tenant in the tenanted shop by the petitioner's mother-in-law during her lifetime. Upon the demise of the mother-in-law, the petitioner, having become the rightful owner of the property, stepped into her shoes as the landlord. The respondent, by continuing to tender rent to the petitioner, as evidenced by the subsequent rent receipts dated 10.08.2022 for the rent from 01.08.2022 to 31.08.2022 and rent receipt dated 01.04.2023 for the rent w.e.f 01.01.2023 to 31.03.2023, has acknowledged the petitioner's status as the new landlord. The said receipts also mentioned the address as Shop No. 4, BE-358A, Hari Nagar. This conduct unequivocally reinforces the continuity of the landlord-tenant relationship, now subsisting ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:58:23 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.16 of 35 between the petitioner and the respondent, and signifies an attornment of tenancy in favor of the petitioner.
39. It is settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord , neither is the landlord required to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppel also bars the respondent herein from challenging the landlordship of the petitioners. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title between than the tenant. So, what has to be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
40. It is further not out of place to mention, that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment titled as A. K. Nayyar Vs. Mahesh Prasad (decided on 05.09.2008) has categorically held in para no. 6 as under :-
"it is settled law that under DRC Act, a landlord seeking eviction of premises for his bonafide requirement is not required to show his absolute ownership over the property. The word "owner" has not RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.08.01 15:58:28 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.17 of 35 been defined in the Act and the concept of ownership for the purpose of DRC Act has to be understood in proper context. If a person has let out a premises as an attorney of some other person for the benefit of some other person and he is only collecting rent and passing it on to the person for whose benefit the premises is let out, then such person cannot be considered as an owner unless he is able to show that for whom he is acting, has relinquished his rights in his favour and after letting it out as attorney, he subsequently becomes the owner. This Court on number of occasions, held that the concept of ownership under DRC Act is different from the concept of ownership under TPA and the ownership under DRC Act, it is not an absolute ownership."
41. Further, it is a settled law that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The petitioners have to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 RICHA Digitally signed by ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:58:34 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.18 of 35 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word "Owner", it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioners have to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
42. In this regard, reliance is further placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Ashok Bimal Ghosh Vs. Beant Kaur, Civil Appeal No. 1522 of 2000 decided on 09.04.2002, whereby it has been held in para no. 6, as .....
"no tenant of any property shall, during the continuance of tenancy, be permitted to deny the title of the lesser of such property. The rule of estoppel contained in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:58:39 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.19 of 35 continues to operate so long as the tenant has not surrendered possession of the tenancy premises to his lesser or unless evicted by holder of title paramount, which is not the case here."
43. Therefore, at the cost of brevity, it is reiterated, that it is a settled law that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord, neither is the landlord require to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppel also bars the respondents herein from challenging the landlordship of the petitioner. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant. So, what has to be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
44. Therefore, in lieu of the above, the ownership in favour of the petitioner and the relationship of landlord - tenant stands duly proved for the purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act.
WHETHER THE NEED OF THE PETITIONERS IS
RICHA Digitally signed by
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:58:46 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.20 of 35 BONAFIDE?
45. Before delving into the merits of the bonafide need of the landlord, this Court deems it fit to discuss the essence of term "bonafide" and the law settled in this regard.
46. The word "genuine" means "natural: not spurious: real: pure:
sincere". In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean "good faith, without fraud or deceit". Thus the term bonafide refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra- distinction with a mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation, which treats the landlord with some sympathy.
47. The question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on re- cord the need to Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA 15:58:54 +0530 Date: 2025.08.01 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.21 of 35 occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer were in positive the need is bonafide.
48. The Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court distinguished between the genuine requirement and the reasonable requirement. It was held in case Damodar Sharma and an- other v. Nandram Deviram that:-
"It is wrong to say that "genuinely requires" is the same as "reasonably requires". There is distinction between the two phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the later to an objective standard. "Genuine requirement" would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he lives and thinks. Reasonable requirement belong to the "knowledge of the law" and means reasonable not in the mind of the person requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to the actual facts. In my opinion, in this part of Section 4 (g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises. His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was un- reliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy."
49. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession, however honest Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Date: 2025.08.01 15:59:00 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.22 of 35 it might otherwise be, has in-inevitably a subjective element in it and that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely "illusory or whittled down". The words "reasonable requirement" undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. Mere desire of a land- lord/owner cannot be equated with bonafide need.
50. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words "required bonafide by the landlord" signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore incorporate a concept, which is both objective as well as subjective. The statute makes both the motivations of the owner as indeed the reasonableness of the desire, justiciable and the law therefore requires not only that the need of the owner for the premises should be honestly and genuinely entertained but must also be the need of a reasonable person in the position of the owner having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as the extent of the family of the owner, the standard of living to which the family is used, its social status, the pattern of life relevant to that status, the social conditions and any peculiar requirement of the family. All these have to be considered in the wider context of the socioeconomic Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA 15:59:07 Date: 2025.08.01 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.23 of 35 conditions obtaining in the country. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord is result of honestly entertained need the court would not weigh the requirement in a fine scale, even while keeping the landlord confined within reasonable limits having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
51. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Indian Insurance Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100, wherein it was held that :-
"..... the crux of ground envisaged in clause
(e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that the requirement of landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide. 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 primafacie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It is often said by the 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 requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself..."
52. On the basis of the law as above, returning to the facts of the case in hands, it is the case of the petitioner, that the petitioner is a house wife and her husband Shri Sushil Kapoor was working as Advisor ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA 15:59:13 Date: 2025.08.01 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.24 of 35 with Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Manesar and had retired on 30th November, 2022. However, he was put to Retainer-ship by the company and he was issued the extension of Retainer-ship Contract for the period with effect from 1st December 2022 to 30th November 2023 vide letter dated 6.12.2022 and the said period of Retainer- ship had already expired. Further, now her husband is doing nothing and he wants to run some commercial business to earn livelihood and the shop in question, which is under the tenancy of the respondent/tenant, is required for the same purpose.
53. Per contra, it is stand of the respondent, that the husband of the petitioner is still working with Maruti Suzuki Company and the petitioner has sought the eviction of the respondent from the tenancy premises for bonafide requirement of his husband for running a business at the tenanted shop, however the husband of the Petitioner has no experience to do any kind of business. Even the nature of business has not been disclosed in the entire petition. It has been further contended, that the requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide but the petitioner just wants to evict the respondent from the tenanted shop and to further let the shop at higher price, which is now prevailing in the market.
54. It is pellucid to note, that the petitioner requires the shop in question for the genuine and bonafide need of her husband, who has recently retired and now intends to start a business to sustain himself and contribute to the family's livelihood. In support of her contentions, the petitioner has submitted a retainer-ship contract Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Date: 2025.08.01 15:59:19 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.25 of 35 issued by Maruti Suzuki Company to her husband, which was effective from 01.12.2022 to 30.11.2023. It is pertinent to note that the said contract was not renewed thereafter and the petitioner's husband was no longer associated with Maruti Suzuki in any official capacity. Consequently, he is now desirous of commencing an independent commercial business / venture in order to sustain his as well as his family's livelihood. The tenanted premises, being suitable and strategically located for such a business, is thus genuinely required by the petitioner for her husband's proposed commercial activity. The need is neither a pretext nor a sham, but a pressing and legitimate necessity. Hence, the petitioner's need / requirement of the premises qualifies as a bona-fide requirement in the eyes of law.
55. The petitioner is admittedly not employed anywhere and her husband is also not working and stands retired. From the facts of the present petition, it stands transpired that the petitioner does not have any regular income and therefore, the premises is needed for starting a new business for their survival and living.
At this stage, it is further not out of place to mention, that in the case of "Raj Kumar Khetan & Ors Vs. Bibi Zubaida Khatun & Anr." AIR 1995 SC 576, the Hon'ble Apex Court of the country held as under:-
"it was not necessary for the appellants- landlords to indicate the precise nature of the business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if the nature of Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15:59:24 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.26 of 35 the business would have been indicated nobody could bind the landlord to start the same business in the premises after it was vacated"
This Court further takes assistance from the judgment of "Shri Gurcharan Lal Kumar Vs. Smt. Satyavati & Ors" RC REV 285/2012, whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under:
"merely because the exact nature of business has not been described could not take away their boanafide need to carry the business when admittedly both of them are dependent upon petitioner no.1 and 2 for this need."
56. It is further apposite to note, that the line of argument of the Ld. counsel for the respondent, that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide as neither she nor her husband has an experience of business is devoid of merits as in the judgment titled as "Ram Babu Aggarwal Vs. Jay Kishan Das" Civil Appeal No(s). 1388 of 2003 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held as under :-
However, as regards the question of bonafide need, we find that the main ground for rejecting the landlord's petition for eviction was that in the petition the landlord had alleged that he required the premises for his son Giriraj who wanted to do footwear business in the premises in question. The High Court has held that since Giriraj has no experience in the footwear business and was only helping his father in the cloth business, hence RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15:59:29 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.27 of 35 there was no bonafide need. We are of the opinion that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business. That does not mean that his claim for starting the new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new businesses even if they do not have experience in the new business, and sometimes they are successful in the new business also. Hence, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have gone deeper into the question of bona fide need and not rejected it only on the ground that Giriraj has no experience in foot wear business.
57. Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment, it can safely be deduced, that a person can start a new business even if he has no experience in the new business and the objection of the respondent is flatly discarded in view of the same.
58. Further is has also been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the judgment tilted as "Aero Traders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Mohan Singh & Anr, 2014 (140) DRJ 560, as under:
"with regard to bonafide requirement of respondent, it is not permissible for the tenant to raise such issues pertaining to the age of the landlord, his experience and financial status, these issues are not much relevant of the purpose of deciding the application for leave to defend in the eviction petition, if it is established prima facie that the requirement of landlord is genuine and bonafide and no triable issues raised by the tenant."
RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA
SHARMA
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:59:35 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.28 of 35 Thus, at the cost of repetition it is being stated, that the line of arguments with respect to the petitioner and her husband having no experience to start or run the business, thereby dis-entitling them from seeking the eviction under the head of bonafide need is devoid of any merit and therefore discarded at the threshold.
59. Another line of arguments, harped upon by the Ld. counsel for the respondent is, that Smt. Shakuntala Rani i.e. the deceased mother- in-law of the petitioner accepted a security deposit from the respondent equivalent to the then market value of the suit property and if the said version of the respondent is accepted even as a gospel truth, it stands unexplained and it is further beyond comprehension as to why the respondent despite paying the alleged exorbitant amount stated by him to be equivalent to the then prevailing market rate, he did not obtained any written or registered document in written as an acknowledgment for the amount alleged to be paid/advanced by him.
Admittedly, no receipt, document, bank transaction record/report is placed on record even to prima facie substantiate the averment regarding any amount being paid by the respondent to the petitioner's mother-in-law with respect to the property in question in form of the security amount. What is further surprising to note is that the respondent has nowhere specified the exact alleged amount paid by him to the petitioner's mother-in-law but has only made a bald averment regarding paying some random amount stated to be equipment to the market value of the property Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:59:40 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.29 of 35 that existed at the relevant point of time when the admitted tenancy was executed. This argument advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent does not cut much ice with the Court as a person who had sufficient funds to pay an amount equivalent to the market value of the property as security did not actually choose to purchase the property in his own name but on the other hand deposited the said amount with the other party and continued to live in some other persons property on rent.
60. Therefore, in the teeth of above analysis qua this aspect of bonafide need as well, it can be deduced that there is no triable issue that stands established by the respondent against the petitioners.
WHETHER THE SUITABLE ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATE IS AVAILABLE TO THE PETITIONERS OR NOT?
61. The respondent 2 has averred in his leave to defend qua this aspect, that the petitioner has not disclosed about the other properties owned by her and by her husband and to the best of his knowledge, the petitioner also acquires a share in Flat No. 228, Block C-4, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and also a share in property bearing No. B-276, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. Further, the Petitioner is also the owner of another property BE-268, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
Thus, vide this contention, the respondent is harping on the fact, that the petitioners is having alternative accommodation available with her in the form of aforesaid properties.
62. Per contra, it has been contended by the petitioner, that the ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:59:47 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.30 of 35 petitioner though owns residential property bearing no. 9/42, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi, which is also occupied by various tenants who are using the same for residential purposes. Further, property at Gurgaon is a residential flat owned by the petitioner and her husband as joint owners and the same is being used by them for residential purpose.
63. Now, before delving into this aspect of suitability of premises in question for running a business venture and the availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner, if any, this Court deems it fit to discuss the law laid down vide plethora of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court in determining that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he is at complete liberty to take this call. Law is well settled that it is the landlord who has to decide as to how and in what manner, he should live and that he is the best judge of his requirement.
64. In the case of Om Prakash Singhal Vs. Shri Roshan Lal, 1969 RCR 391, it has been held that as a broad workable rule, the landlord must left to assess his requirement in the background of his possession, circumstance, status and life and social and other responsibilities, and other relevant factors.
65. In Parvati Devi Vs. P. V. Krishna, JT 1987 (1) SC 764 , it has been held as under :-
"The landlord is the best judge of his requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 15:59:53 +0530 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.31 of 35 in what manner he should live and prescribe for him a standard of their own. There is no law that deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property.
66. In Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja, MANU / SC / 0435 / 2014 : (2014) 15 SCC 610, it has been held as under :-
"It would hardly require any reiteration of the settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property AIR 1999 SC 100 (1996) 5 SCC 353 (2014) 15 SCC 610, Neutral Citation Number :
2023 : DHC : 3199 belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business."?
67. In Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarhan Kumar, MANU / SC / 0087 / 2021 , it has been held as under :-
"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."
68. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr) MANU / SC / 0432 / 1999: (1999) 6 SCC 222, it has been held as under :-
"Once the Court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for the premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA 16:00:00 +0530 Date: 2025.08.01 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.32 of 35 available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the Court."
69. On the basis of the law reproduced on this aspect, coming to the facts of the case in hand, it is the case of the petitioners, that the tenanted shop in question along with the another shop which were gifted by her mother-in-law vide gift deed are suitable for bonafide requirement of the husband of the petitioner for running a commercial activity and they have no other suitable alternate accommodation lying vacant in their favour.
70. The argument of the respondent is that the petitioner also has a share in Flat No. 228, Block C-4, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, a share in property bearing No. B-276, Hari Nagar, New Delhi and the Petitioner is also the owner of another property BE-268, Hari Nagar, New Delhi.
It is pertinent to note, that the respondent has not mentioned anywhere whether the aforesaid properties cited by the respondent as mentioned above are residential or commercial. Further, the said averment is merely a bald one as no prima facie documentary proof has been filed by the respondent to show that the petitioner or her husband are the owners of the aforesaid properties.
71. Further, the petitioner has herself disclosed in her petition, that she also owns residential property bearing no. 9/42, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi, which is occupied by various tenants for residential purposes and the petitioner and her husband also own a residential flat at Gurgaon, which is also a residential property.
Digitally signed byRICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 16:00:07 +0530 RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.33 of 35 The petitioner has filed on record the copy of her aadhar card to prove her residence. Perusal of the same shows, that the address mentioned in the aadhar card and the memo of parties is same as that of Gurgaon, Haryana.
72. Thus, the plea of the respondent qua the availability of an alternative suitable accommodation with the petitioner apart from the premises in question does not give rise to any triable issue which may disentitle the petitioner from obtaining the eviction order in their favour.
73. Further, in light of the detailed law discussed as above, it is being averred at the cost of brevity, that neither the tenant nor the Court can dictate the landlord / petitioner as to how he should be using her property or premise. The entire genesis behind enacting the DRC Act would stand punctured, if the landlord is deprived of the beneficial use of his property in accordance with the dictum of the tenant.
74. In the considered view of this Court, undoubtedly, in case the eviction order is passed against the tenant, it would cause the hardship to the respondent but the requirement of the petitioners has more importance than the hardship to the respondent as being the owner of the tenanted premises, landlord can not be left suffering merely to save the tenancy of the respondent. Although, this Court has sympathy with the respondent. Moreover, it is well settled law that a Rent Controller is not supposed to weigh such plea of the tenant while deciding the petition U/S 14(1)(e) of DRC ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.34 of 35 SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01 16:00:15 +0530 Act.
Conclusion
75. Therefore, in the teeth of the above exhausted discussion and settled proposition of law, in the considered opinion of this Court, the undisputed conclusion is, that the respondent has failed to raise any triable issue, which requires evidence to be proved. The petitioner, on the other hand, have clearly established her bonafide requirement regarding tenanted premises. The application for leave to defend filed by respondent is ordered to be dismissed. Consequently, eviction order is liable to be passed against both the respondents under Section 25 B (4) of the Act. In view of above, petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e. "Shop Bearing Pvt. No.4, BE-358C, Forming Part Of The Property Bearing No. 358-A, Gali No.1, Hari Nagar, New Delhi-110064, as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioners would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act. Keeping in view the facts & circumstances, no order as to costs.
76. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.08.01
16:00:25 +0530
on 01.08.2025 Richa Sharma
SCJ-cum-RC (West)
THC / Delhi / 01.08.2025
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ RC/ARC No.71/23 Savita Kapoor Vs. Vinod Kumar Malhotra Page No.35 of 35