Delhi District Court
Ms. Deepa vs Shri Kashmiri Lal on 10 February, 2025
DLET030004512014
Presented on : 24-01-2014
Registered on : 25-01-2014
Decided on : 10-02-2025
Duration : 11 years, 0 months, 17 days
IN THE COURT OF
ACJ/CCJ/ARC AT EAST DELHI
Presided Over by Sh. Vinik Jain
RC ARC/558/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Ms. Deepa
W/o Sh. Bhajan Lal,
R/o IX/6163, Main Road,
Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031 ...Petitioner
vs
Sh. Kashmiri Lal
Prop Kashmiri Lal & Sons,
Private Shop no. 16,
in Property No. IX/6163, Pratap Gali,
Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 1 of 19
AND
3461, Gali no.1, Raghubarpura No. 2,
Near Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031
AND
Shop in property No. 6384,
Netaji Gali, Gandhi Nagar,
Delhi-110031 ....Respondent
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT/RESPONDENT UNDER
SECTION 14 (1 ) (b) OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the present petition under Section 14 (1) (b) of Delhi Rent Control Act filed by the petitioner.
2 For better appreciation, the brief facts of the petition as alleged by the petitioner in his petition is summarized as follows:
"Premises is identified as shop no. 16 in property no. IX/6163, Pratap Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031. The agreed rate of rent was Rs. 350/- per month. The respondent has sublet, assigned and parted with possession of the shop under the tenancy of respondent to Smt. Anita W/o Sh. Om Prakash R/o 315, Jheel RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 2 of 19 Khuranja, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi who is running a business under the name and style of "Shivalik Selection". Smt. Anita has applied for DVAT before the Department of Trade & Taxes, Govt of NCT, Delhi and has obtained and paying VAT in her name being the proprietor of Shivalik Selection. The respondent has no control over the shop in dispute and the shop is being opened and closed by Smt. Anita, who is in exclusive possession of the shop in dispute. There is a relationship of landlord and tenant between Sh. Kashmiri Lal and Smt. Anita, sub-tenant. Smt. Anita is carrying on business from the shop in dispute with the help of her husband Sh. Om Prakash. Sh. Kashmiri Lal is realizing rent from Smt. Anita, sub-tenant, more than the rent payable to the petitioner. Sh. Kashmiri Lal after sub-letting the shop in dispute to Smt. Anita, started running its business from a shop in property no. 6364, Netaji Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi under the name and style of Shivalik Saree".
3. Pursuant to the receipt of notice, the respondent appeared in the court and filed his WS denying the allegations levelled against him in the petition and briefly stated as follows :-
3.1 The respondent and his sons have been in continuous exclusive physical possession of the entire shop/tenant premises since the inception of tenancy.
3.2 The petitioner and her husband Sh. Bhajan Lal have been pressurizing the respondent since March 2012 to increase the rent of the tenanted premises @ Rs. 8,000/- per month or vacate the tenanted premises, which was declined by the respondent as the demand of the petitioner and her husband was illegal and unacceptable.
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 3 of 19 3.3 In the month of March 2012, the son in law of the respondent was
searching for a person, who can arrange loan from some bank or any other financial institution and a person named Amit Gupta was introduced by a known person of the respondent. Sh. Amit Gupta informed the respondent that he is a professionally qualified Chartered Accountant and has good links with some higher officials of the banks and can arrange loan for the son in law of the respondent. The respondent arranged the meeting of his son in law and Sh. Amit Gupta. Sh. Amit Gupta after having discussion with the son in law of the respondent, Sh. Amit Gupta demanded some photocopies of the documents of the son in law and daughter of the respondent. Sh. Amit Gupta applied for PAN card of the daughter of the respondent and instructed his son in law to meet Sh. Amit Gupta after receiving the PAN card from Income Tax Department.
3.4 On 2-3 occasions, Sh. Amit Gupta called the son-in-law and daughter of the respondent and took signatures of the son-in-law and daughter of the respondent and promised that uptill May-2013, the son in law and daughter of the respondent will receive a verification call from HDFC bank and thereafter within a week, Smt. Anita will receive a draft of Rs. 10,00,000/- and Sh. Amit Gupta had also demanded Rs. 50,000/- as commission for arranging aforesaid loan.
3.5 Sh. Amit Gupa has colluded with the husband of the petitioner and hatched a conspiracy to evict the respondent from the tenanted premises and Sh.
Amit Gupta in collusion with Sh. Bhajan Lal and the petitioner had forged, fabricated and manipulated the documents under a planned conspiracy to evict the respondent.
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 4 of 19 3.6 The petitioner, her husband and Sh. Amit Gupta have fabricated the
documents and framed a false story to evict the respondent.
3.7 The respondent and his sons namely Gagan and Manoj Malhotra along with other family members are jointly residing at X/3461, Raghubar Pura, Delhi-110031 under one roof and all the three persons are managing the business of garments, sarees & suits jointly at all three shops. The respondent and his sons have been continuously and jointly managing the business of garments in the name of "Shivalik Selection" at the tenanted premises and another business of sarees and suits as "Shivalik Sarees" and "Palak Sarees" at other shops. The respondent and his sons have been jointly managing all the three shops with the sales staff with the help of CCTV on all the three shops.
3.8 The daughter of the respondent is a house wife and has been totally confined to her house and has never ever been indulged in any kind of business in her life.
3.9 Sh. Gagan Prakash Malhotra, the elder son of the respondent and the respondent manage the business at the tenanted premises and the tenanted premises is in legal and exclusive physical possession of the respondent.
4. Replication was filed on behalf of the petitioner affirming the averments made in the petition and denying all the averments made in the written statement.
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 5 of 19
5. The petitioner led its evidence by calling two witnesses. PW-1 Sh. Bhajan Lal (husband of petitioner), tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and deposed on the same lines as stated in the petition. He relied upon the documents:-
(a) GPA dated 11.05.2015, which bears signature of my wife at point A, B and C and also bears my signatures at point D is Ex PW-1/1 (consisting of 3 pages).
(b) Site plan is Ex PW-1/2.
(c) Six counterfoils of rent receipts are Ex PW-1/3 (colly).
(d) Three photographs of the shop in dispute are Ex PW-1/4 to Ex PW-
1/6.
(e) The photocopy of DVAT and Sales Tax record are Mark X
(consisting of 30 pages) (colly).
He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the respondent.
6. PW-2 Sh. Tilak Chand, Junior Assistant (Ward No. 78), Department of Trade and Taxes, Vyapar Bhawan, I P Estate, New Delhi who has deposed that as per the record, the firm Shivalik Selection is registered in their department having shop no. 16 in property no. IX/6163, Ground Floor, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi- 31 and Smt. Anita D/o Sh. Kashmiri Lal is the proprietor of M/s Shivalik Selection having the same address as mentioned above. M/s Shivalik Selection was registered on 06.08.2012 in the name of Smt. Anita in their department. The same is Ex PW-2/1 (colly 18 pages).
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 6 of 19
7. Respondent examined five witnesses in his favour. RW-1 Sh. Gagan Prakash Malhotra (son of the respondent), tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and deposed on the same lines as stated in the petition. He relied upon the documents:-
(i) Voter ID card of respondent, his brother and father is Ex RW-1/1 to RW-1/3.
(ii) Four photographs Mark A (colly)
(iii) Two original bill books Ex RW-1/5 (colly).
(iv) Copies of receipts regarding conversion charges Ex RW-1/6 and Ex
RW-1/7.
(v) Copies of property tax is Ex RW-1/9 and RW-1/10.
(vi) Copies of 15 electricity bills Mark B (colly).
(vii) Visiting card of the respondent and his father Ex RW-1/13.
(viii) Copy of Trade license Ex RW-1/14.
He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
8. RW-2 Ms. Sudha Singh, JSA, MCD(BLDG, DEPTT), Shahdara South Zone, 419, Udyog Sadan, Patparganj Industrial Ara, Delhi-92 who brought the summoned original record with respect to conversion/parking charges dated 29.07.2010, 03.01.2012 and 25.03.2013. The same is Ex RW-2/A. He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 7 of 19
9. RW-3 Ms. Anju Goyal, Good and Services Tax Officer, Department of Trade and Taxes, Vyaphar Bhawan, I P Estate, Delhi who brought the DVAT record of M/s Shivalik Selection bearing registration no. 07020431141. The same is Ex RW-3/1 (colly 34 pages).
He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
10. RW-4 Smt. Anita, tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW- 4/A. He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
11. RW-5 Sh. Rajesh Choudhary S/o Late Sh. P L Choudhary who was a summoned witness and deposed qua the registration of M/s Shivalik Selection in Department of Trade and Taxes.
He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
12. I have already heard the final arguments and perused the entire record and written submissions advanced by both the parties.
FINDINGS
13. The present petition has been filed under section 14(1)(b) of DRC Act. For the sake of benefit , the same is reproduced as below :
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 8 of 19 Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:--
(b) that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the consent in writing of the landlord;
14. The tenancy between the petitioner and the respondent is not disputed in the present case. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent has sublet the premises to her married daughter and the daughter is running the business from the suit shop in the name of 'M/s Shivalik Selection'. The petitioner in his evidence has brought the photographs of the shop in question bearing Ex PW1/4 to PW-1/6. These photographs pertain to the shop in question purportedly showing the daughter of the respondent no.1 sitting at the suit premises. Ld. Counsel for the respondent during the cross-examination of PW-1 has asked some questions as to who has clicked the photographs to which the witness has replied that they were clicked by his son. It is pertinent to note here, that no objection as to the admissibility of the above said photographs in evidence has been put forth by the respondent.
15. Now, the son of the respondent (RW-1) was also shown PW1/4 to PW1/6 during his cross-examination to which RW-1 has admitted that the photographs pertain to the suit shop and the lady (Anita) shown at point A in PW1/4 to PW/16 is the daughter of the respondent.
On the contrary, the respondent in para no. 8 of the written statement has averred as follows:-
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 9 of 19 "That the daughter of the respondent is a house wife and has been totally confined to her house and has never ever been indulged in any kind of business in her life uptill date and she is not even that much educated that she can manage any business or service. It is further submitted that the daughter of the respondent has no time to come outside of her house because she has to maintain and look after her mother in law, who is more than 80 years old and her mother in law and her husband do not permit the daughter of the respondent to go outside the house, therefore the allegations about the working of daughter of the respondent in the disputed shop is an after thought and just a false allegation to file the present petition to harass the respondent."
16. Same kind of deposition is made by the daughter of the respondent in her affidavit bearing RW-4/A. Thus, there is a patent contradiction between the evidence and the averments of the respondent. On this point, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the photographs were clicked at the time when the petitioner came to meet her father. Well it may have happened as pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, but by glancing through the photographs it does not appear to be true although it does appear that she is working at the suit premises.
17. Going further, it has also been averred by the petitioner that the daughter of the respondent namely Anita applied for DVAT before the Department of Trade and Taxes as a proprietor of Shivalik Selection and has obtained DVAT No and is also filing returns to the concerned Department.
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 10 of 19
18. To prove the aforesaid, the petitioner summoned an official from the Department of Trade and Taxes who brought the record bearing PW2/1(colly). On analysing PW2/1(colly) , following facts come to fore :
1. A form DVAT 04 was submitted on behalf of Shivalik Selection through her proprietor Anita for obtaining DVAT No.
2. The place of business in the application form is being shown as IX, 6163 , Shop No.16 , Main Road , Gandhi Nagar which is the address the suit shop.
3. The respondent has given his NOC for obtaining this DVAT No..
4. I-cards of Ms Anita were filed along with the form DVAT-04.
5. Certificate of Registration was granted to M/s Shivalik Selection on 06.08.2012.
19. If the aforesaid documents are taken on their face value, it clearly appears that the suit premises was used by Anita for running her own business namely M/s Shivalik Selections.
20. Per contra, the stand of the respondent in this aspect is that the daughter of the respondent never applied for DVAT Registration. It is alleged by the respondent that the same has been done by the petitioner in connivance with one person namely Amit Gupta. It is alleged by the respondent that the son in law of the respondent was in need of a loan for which the respondent arranged a meeting with one person namely Sh. Amit Gupta . Amit Gupta later on took some blank signed documents of Anita and later on in conspiracy with the petitioner obtained DVAT Registration. In crux, it is averred by the respondent that Ex RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 11 of 19 PW2/1 are forged and fabricated documents and the daughter of the respondent has no relation whatsoever with the above said documents.
21. Hypothetically if the aforesaid stand is taken to be true, then the interesting fact is that on the filing of petition the respondent would have got aware of the forged DVAT Registration but till date no criminal complaint has been filed against Amit Gupta by the respondent. During cross-examination of the son of the respondent (RW-1) and Anita (RW-4) when questions on these lines were asked, the witnesses replied that as Amit Gupta had tendered apology to the respondent, so no criminal action was taken against him.
22. To further support his stand, the respondent has also summoned two witnesses. One is RW-3, GST Officer, who also brought on record the DVAT Registration documents in the name of Shivalik Selection, running in 34 pages bearing Ex RW3/1. These documents also consist of PW2/1 which were already brought on record by the petitioner's witness. Thereafter, the respondent also summoned Sh. Rajesh Chaudhary(RW-5) who was the erstwhile VAT Officer who gave the DVAT registration certificate to M/s Shivalik Selection. It is noteworthy here that the whole line of examination in chief of RW-5 by the respondent is to prove that proper physical inspection was not made by the tax authorities to verify the identity of the applicant (Anita) as well as of the place of business before granting the DVAT registration. The witness has deposed that the field inquiry was to be done by the official of the ward and not by him. Further, the prerequisite of NOC of the respondent before DVAT registration was put to the witness to which the witness deposed that he does not remember. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has tried tooth and nail to prove that the requisite formalities were not RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 12 of 19 carried on before the DVAT Registration. In the arguments, Ld. Counsel for the respondent also urged this Court to take judicial notice of the fact that the rules and regulations were not complied by the Department before DVAT Registration.
23. The relevant question is if the rules and regulations were not followed , what was done by the respondent in this regard. The answer is nothing substantial as :
(i) Firstly, the respondent has levelled serious allegations against Amit Gupta but never preferred any criminal complaint against him. The allegations levelled by the respondent are of forgery which is a very serious offence and despite this he was forgiven on the basis of an apology.
(ii) Secondly, why would Amit Gupta and the petitioner connive with each other and use the blank signed documents to take DVAT Registration. Was this the only thing they could have done to adversely affect the respondent? The theory propounded by the respondent seems unconscionable.
(iii) Thirdly, not only the DVAT Registration was made, but returns were also filed under the signature of the daughter of the respondent for M/s Shivalik Selection. RW3/P1 shows that at least two quarterly returns were filed from 01.10.2012 - 31.03.2013. Thus, atleast for six months after the DVAT registration, returns were filed and that too under the signatures of Ms Anita. If it was not Ms Anita, who filed these returns and for what purpose still remains unexplained.
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 13 of 19
(iv) Fourthly, PW2/1, RW3/1 bears signatures of the daughter of the respondent. If the stand of the respondent is that the blank documents were handed over to Sh. Amit Gupta to obtain a loan, then how come the signatures are appended to the application forms, on the returns etc. The application forms, the returns are pre-filled with the typed material and it is bewildering that the daughter of the respondent signed these pre-filled documents assuming them to be blank. Also, if these were not her signatures, then no positive evidence has been led by the respondent to prove that they were not her signatures. By just simply averring it, does no good to the respondent unless it is proved.
In fact, on comparing the signatures available on record, the signature on the DVAT Registration forms and returns appears to be of Ms Anita only.
(v) Fifthly, if the DVAT was registered in the name of the daughter of the respondent and the daughter of the respondent never applied for it, whether any complaint was preferred against the officials in the DVAT Department. Nothing to this effect has been brought on record.
(vi) Sixthly, this Court is not sitting as an appellate tribunal of the Department of Trade and Taxes and so it is not in a position to enquire about the legality of the impugned DVAT Registration or analyse whether all the formalities mentioned in the rules and regulations were compiled or not. If the respondent or her daughter were aggrieved with the DVAT registration, they should have pursued the same before appropriate authority.
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 14 of 19
(vii) Seventhly, even if it is presumed that there were lapses in the field verification , the respondent has failed to prove by any other cogent evidence that the daughter of the respondent never applied for the DVAT No.
24. On the holistic reading of the material available on record, it is very clear that the defence raised by the respondent in relation to DVAT registration is nothing but a fantastic story made up by the respondent to delay the trial and hide the truth. The best witness to prove the stand of the respondent was Amit Gupta but he was not summoned as a witness. The defense raised by the respondent is illusory and lacks any evidentiary support at all.
25. The next thing to consider is whether the evidence brought on record by the petitioner is sufficient to discharge his burden of proof. It would be fruitful to mention here the settled law on this point.
Hari Ram v. Rukhmani Devi and others 64(1996) DLT 662 wherein it has been held that " The relationship of sub-lessee and the lessee is a matter of knowledge which is confined to those two parties alone. All that the landlord can do in such circumstances is to prove the circumstances which would reasonably lead to an inference of sub-letting or parting with possession or assigning the premises or any part of thereof. In the present case, enough evidence has been brought on record to discharge this onus and now it is for the appellant to prove with the help of best evidence to prove the contrary. The witnesses produced by the applellant are interested witnesses and their testimony does not inspire confidence."
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 15 of 19 Jagan Nath (deceased) through LRs v. Chander Bhan AIR 1988 SC 1362 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that for proving sub- tenancy , the tenant should have divested himself of the physical possession as well as the legal possession.
On the same point of law, the Ld. Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Munshi Lal v. Sumitra Devi &othrs CM(M) No. 1574/2010.
26. The petitioner has been successful in proving by Ex PW-1/4 to PW- 1/6 that the daughter of the respondent was present at the suit shop and she was present at the suit shop not as a visitor but like a person who works in the shop. The factum of DVAT registration of M/s Shivalik Selection through its proprietor Anita, who is the daughter of the respondent, clearly shows that the business in the same and style of M/s Shivalik Selection was run by the daughter of the respondent from the suit premises. These facts in totality show that the respondent divested himself from possession of the suit shop and its possession was conveyed to his daughter. If that is the case, the respondent cannot be said to be in legal as well as physical possession of the suit property. Thus, the petitioner has been quite successful in discharging his burden that the respondent was not in exclusive possession of the suit shop thereby shifting the burden on the respondent.
27. As discussed above, the respondent has failed to prove that DVAT registration was not done on behalf of the daughter of the respondent. The respondent has brought on record the trade license of Shivalik Selection bearing Ex RW-1/4 depicting the name of the proprietor as the respondent. This document pertains to the year 2014 which is after filing of the present petition and thus does not inspire any confidence.
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 16 of 19
28. Thereafter, the respondent has relied on RW1/P4 (colly) which are the photographs of the suit shop depicting the respondent sitting at the shop. Admittedly, these photographs have been clicked after the filing of the present documents and thus could not be given much value.
29. Then, the respondent has also relied on conversion charges paid by the respondent bearing RW-1/6 (colly) and some photocopy of electricity bills bearing Mark B of 2011-2014. These receipts and bills pertain to pre-filing of the present petition. Before the alleged sub-letting was done , admittedly, the respondent was in possession of the suit shop and therefore resultantly he would have been paying the conversion charges and the electricity connection is bound to be in his name naturally. In the general course of transactions, the name in which the electricity connection is, does not get automatically changed when there is conveyance of title/possession. An application has to be filed by the interested person before the concerned electricity department and then the name of the user changes. If the name of the user is not changed , it does not result in disconnection till the time the bill is paid regularly and the bill could be paid by any person whether the electricity connection is in his name or not. So, it is not surprising that the name of the user qua the electricity connection has not been changed. So, the electricity bills are not a very substantial proof of evidence to rebut the factum of sub- tenancy. The conversion charges receipt bearing RW1/6(colly )pertains to the year 2010 and 2013. Again at the cost of repetition , the respondent was in possession of the suit shop and he must be paying the conversion charges. The factum of sub- tenancy and the conditions of the sub tenancy is between the respondent and his daughter and only they know what was the arrangement between them as to the RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 17 of 19 sub-tenancy. Reliance can be placed on Hari Ram v. Rukhmani Devi and others(supra). Thereby the fact that the respondent was paying the conversion charges is not sufficient in itself to rebut the case of the petitioner.
30. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent to support their case has placed reliance on :
• Jagan Nath v. Chander Bhan AIR 1988 SC 1362 • Hari Narayan v Smt. Bela Devi 1993(2) RCR 653 • Munshi Lal v. Sumitra Devi & othrs CM(M) No. 1574/2010 • K B Watts v Vipin Kalra CM(M) 390/2012
31. All the aforesaid judgment inter alia held that merely use of the premises by some person other than the tenant does not tantamount to sub-tenancy as long as the legal possession is retained by the tenant. It is noteworthy here that the case in hand is not where the respondent has a shop and the daughter of the respondent aids the respondent in running the shop. It is also not the case that the respondent was ill and the daughter of the respondent was taking care of the shop in his absence. The case in hand actually covers the situation where the respondent has given his daughter the control of the shop for running her own separate business and she runs that business there as a proprietor. On the face of it without any doubt that it is the divestment of legal possession by the respondent in favor of her daughter.
32. It is also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the petitioner herself never came in the witness box to support her case but appointed an attorney for that purpose. Reliance has been placed on Sudesh Sethi v Strategic Systems Pvt Ltd RSA 145/2018 , DHC. The deposition has been done on behalf of RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 18 of 19 the husband of the petitioner in the present case and he has himself in his evidence by way of affidavit has claimed that he is the person who is managing the affairs of the suit shop. Thus, on reading the deposition it does not appear that he is not personally aware about the facts of the present case and thereby the argument of the Ld . Counsel for the respondent does not hold water.
33. Thus, considering all the evidence at hand brought on record by the respondent, the same does not appear sufficient on the anvil of preponderance of probability to discharge his burden of proof of rebutting the case of the petitioner.
34. Concluding, in the view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner has been successful in proving all the ingredients of section 14(1)(b) of DRC Act. Thus the petition is hereby allowed. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted private shop no. 16 in property bearing no. IX/6163, Pratap Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi specifically shown in red colour in the site plan filed by the petitioner, in terms of Section 14 (1) (b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
35. File be consigned to the record room.
VINIK Digitally signed by
VINIK JAIN
JAIN Date: 2025.02.10
05:03:43 +0530
Announced in the open Court (Vinik Jain)
on this 10th of February, 2025 ACJ/ARC/CCJ (East)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
RC/ARC No. 558/16 Page no. 19 of 19