Delhi District Court
Aanchal Sharma vs Deepak Sisodia on 20 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY SINGH PARIHAR
ACJ-CUM-ARC, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI, DELHI
RC ARC No. 11/2025.
CNR No. DLNT030004392025.
Aanchal Sharma
D/o Late Arvind Sharma
R/o 78 UB, Jawahar Nagar
Delhi-110007
......Petitioner
VERSUS
Deepak Sisodia
Tenant at Shop No. 7
Property No. 11, Block B3
Model Town-I, Delhi
.....Respondent
Date of Institution : 19.03.2025
Date of reserving the order : 12.11.2025
Date of pronouncement : 20.12.2025
ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. The present petitioner seeks the eviction of the respondent
from Shop No. 7, in property no. 11, Block B3, Model Town-I,
Delhi as indicated in red color in the site plan annexed to 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").
RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 1 of 28
Facts disclosed in petition
2. Briefly stated, the facts as asserted by the petitioner in the present petition are that the petitioner is the co-owner in respect of tenanted premises. It is averred that entire ground floor of property was owned by Sh. Chander Kanta Sharma, grandfather of petitioner vide Court decree dated 12.03.1975 passed in Suit No. 105/75 and the tenanted premises was given on rent by Sh. Chander Kant Sharma to Sh. Ramsharan, however, after the death of Sh. Ramsharan, his son/ respondent is in occupation of tenanted premises as tenant and is carrying on the business of car accessories. It is averred that son of Sh. Chander Kant Sharma namely Sh. Arvind Sharma/father of petitioner has predeceased on 27.09.2001 leaving behind 3 legal heirs i.e. Ms. Sangeeta Sharma/wife; petitioner/daughter and son namely Sh. Divyanshu Sharma. Sh. Chander Kant Sharma expired on 30.06.2002 leaving behind daughter Ms. Anamika Sharma, son Sh. Rakshit Sharma and heirs of Sh. Arvind Sharma. Sh. Rakshit Sharma has been missing since the year 2001. Thus, it is stated that the property devolved upon legal heirs of Sh. Arvind Sharma and Ms. Anamika Sharma. Ms. Anamika Sharma executed a registered Relinquishment Deed dated 24.08.2017 in favour of Sh. Divyanshu Sharma. Thus, the legal heirs of late Sh. Arvind Sharma became co-owner of tenanted premises. It is averred that respondent has accepted the legal heirs of Sh. Arvind Sharma as landlord and has been making payment of rent to them which stands paid till December 2024 and the last paid rent of tenanted premises is Rs 605/- per month duly reflected in rent receipts annexed with the present petition and thus, the relationship of landlord-tenant is not in dispute. It is averred RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 2 of 28 that respondent is carrying on the business of car parts and accessories from the tenanted premises.
3. It is averred that brother of petitioner/ Sh. Divyanshu Sharma is LLB graduate and is presently working as an Assistant Professor. It is averred that petitioner has also completed her LLB in the year 2024 and has been enrolled as an Advocate in Bar Council of Delhi and has started practice as an Advocate. It is stated that the tenanted premises is required by the petitioner for setting up her office where she can operate and deal with her clients as currently petitioner is facing great difficulty and humiliation due to non availability of office. It is averred that petitioner does not have any other reasonable and suitable accommodation available for setting up her office. The petitioner requires tenanted premises to set up her office wherein she can engage a staff of minimum 8-10 persons and can set up for purposes of dealing with clients and for doing work from the said premises. It is averred that petitioner requires atleast six different shops i.e. one premises can be used for office dealing, one premises as waiting area, one for staff/ junior advocates, one premises for library as presently books and files are kept in the house of petitioner, one premises for conference room, one premises for record room of file. It is stated that all above requirements are cumulatively referred to as 'office' in the present petition. It is stated that ground floor of property consists of nine shops and partly residential area on the backside and out of said shops, shop no. 3 has already been sold off due to hardships of petitioner, shop no. 1 & 9 are rented out to some other tenant, shop no. 2 is lying vacant. Shop no. 1, 2 and 9 are not suitable for petitioner for her bonafide requirement as they are situated apart from RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 3 of 28 the said shops in different directions and gali whereas 5 shops are situated on the main road and are adjacent and thus, are ideal for the purpose of operation of office of an Advocate.
4. Notice of the petition was sent to the respondent in the prescribed format which was duly served upon the respondent, in response to which the respondent filed affidavit disclosing grounds on which leave to defend application of eviction is sought.
Leave to defend affidavit
5. In leave to defend affidavit the respondent has taken following grounds:-
• That the present eviction petition does not specifically mention Section 25-B DRC Act though filed u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, hence summary procedure u/s 25B of DRC Act will not apply. The case must be treated as a regular eviction suit. • That the petitioner is not the exclusive owner of tenanted premises. It is stated that the relinquishment deed executed in favour of Sh. Divyanshu Sharma. There is no document on record which discloses the share of each legal heir of Late Sh. Arvind Sharma and the petitioner has not obtained NOC from the other co-owners for filing the present petition. That the petitioner is not authorized to file the present petition on behalf of other co-owner as no authorization letter has been filed. • It is deposed that Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma (brother of grandfather of petitioner) sold out his share i.e. Ist Floor and IInd Floor to Sh. Ashish Bhasin 5/6 months back. Thereafter Sh. Ashish Bhasin pressurized respondent to pay rent to him as the shop is under his staircase.RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 4 of 28
• That the petitioner has not disclosed the height of the shop in question. It is deposed that the tenanted premises is measuring about 3 feet x 5 feet located under the staircase. The roof of the said shop is low height. Adjacent to the said shop is a passage in which the staircase goes upto first floor and the said floor was in possession of Mr. Pramod Kumar Sharma and now Mr. Ashish Bhasin.
• That the present petition has been filed in order to harass and get the eviction of the premises from the respondent by misusing the legal process of law. It is deposed that the petitioner presently using the vacant part of the property as her law office but intentionally and deliberately did not disclosed the same to take undue advantage.
• That the ground that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required to setup a law office by the petitioner is vague and false. In the annexed site plan the petitioner has shown herself owner of 9 shops, one closed passage, one other passage, one big room alongwith open area and latrine bathroom. But intentionally and deliberately petitioner concealed the fact that the closed passage was in the custody and ownership of Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma and tenanted premises is the part of closed passage as per site plan which is now in Sh. Ashish Bhasin possession, hence the petitioner is not entitled for any claim in regard to the tenanted premises.
• That the Shop No.1 occupied by one tenant and he is paying rent in the sum of ₹26,000/- per month to Mr. Divyanshu Sharma. Shop No. 2 is presently vacant and having poster VACANT/FOR LEASE. Shop No.3 have been sold by the family of the petitioner to one Mr. Jain. The tenanted premises is not having any number because it is not under the ownership RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 5 of 28 of the petitioner. In regard of Shop No.9 it is deposed that the said shop is on rent in the sum of ₹18,000/- per month and used by Surjeet Motors. Other big area is also lying vacant. So, three shops and on big hall and open space is in possession of owner. Tenanted premises has no concern with Sh. Divyanshu Sharma or the petitioner in any manner.
• That respondent is in possession of tenanted premises for last about 55 years, however the petitioner only filed receipt from 01.07.23 to 31.12.2024 which may be forged and fabricated. It is argued that only few rent receipts have been filed for a tenancy of 55 years.
• That the petitioner is having other property bearing no. 78 UB, Jawahar Nagar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-07, however this property has also been let out as PG for rent. That the petitioner wants to change the tenant and gain higher rent from new tenants.
Counter affidavit of petitioner
6. The petitioner filed counter affidavit to leave to defend affidavit refuting the claim of respondent.
7. In the counter affidavit, it is deposed that co-owner can always file and maintain a petition under section 14(1) (e) of DRC Act and more so since none of the co-owner are objecting to the petition in that event the respondent can not challenge the filing of the present petition.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner has already elaborated that the shop no. 1, 2 and 9 are not suitable for the petitioner for her bonafide requirement as the same are situated in different RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 6 of 28 directions and in gali whereas the tenanted shop is situated at main road. It is submitted that shop no.2 on which the board of 'VACANT/FOR LEASE' is fixed is in different direction in gali which is otherwise not suitable for the petitioner. It is submitted that even otherwise the respondent cannot dictate the petitioner as in what manner and from which place the petitioner has to run his business.
9. That respondent has not filed any site plan alongwith the leave to defend application and law in this respect is very much clear that if the tenant/respondent challenges the site plan filed by the landlord and do not file his own site plan then the site plan filed by the landlord shall be considered to be true. That the respondent has not filed any documentary proof to substantiate the deposition made in affidavit of leave to defend. That the contents of the preliminary submission and contents of the petition may be read in reply.
10.Arguments heard. Record perused.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
11.In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish that:-
i. He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii.He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 7 of 28
12.In case of eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, the Rent Controller has to see the affidavit filed by the tenant and the counter affidavit filed by the landlord. The controller is not required to conduct a full fledged trial and should only see that if the affidavit of the tenant raise any triable issues.
13.In Precision Steel Engineering Works and Anr. Vs Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, AIR 1982 Supreme Court 1518, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :-
"If the averments in the affidavit disclose such facts which, if ultimately proved to the satisfaction of the Court, would disentitle the landlord from recovering possession, that by itself makes it obligatory upon the Controller to grant leave. It is immaterial that facts alleged and disclosed are controverted by the landlord because the stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly possible that a tenant may fail to make good the defence raised by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are materially different from each other and one cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility has to be shown.".
14.It was further held :-
"Statutory duty is cast on the Controller to give leave as the legislature uses the expression 'the Controller shall give' to the tenant leave to contest if the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such fact as would disentitle the landlord for an order for recovery of possession. The Controller has to look at the affidavit of the tenant seeking leave to contest. Browsing through the affidavit if there emerges averment - of facts which on a trial, if believed, would non- suit the landlord, leave ought to be granted. Let it be made clear that the statute is not cast in a negative form by enacting that the Controller shall refuse to give to the tenant leave to contest the application unless the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 8 of 28 facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order etc.... The language of sub-section 5 of section 25B casts a statutory duty on the Controller to give to the tenant leave to contest the application, the only precondition for exercise of jurisdiction being that the affidavit filed by the tenant discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of 13; possession of the premises on the ground mentioned in section 14(1) (e).
15.In Nirmala Kumari & Ors vs Girish Kakkar & Anr RC.REV. 156/2018 (17th May 2024), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that ARC is only required to sift/comb through the application for leave to defend and to take stand of landlord as genuine. It was held :-
"27. The learned ARC is not required to take a magnifying glass and minutely scrutinize the averments made in the Eviction Petition. Once the landlord has stated that he requires the tenanted property for a particular use, the Courts are required to believe the statement to be true and genuine, unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical. The learned ARC is further required only to sift/comb through the averments made in the leave to defend application and see whether the tenant has established with cogent and material defence, facts which disentitle the landlord from an Eviction order. This Court in "Sarwan Dass Bange v. Ram Prakash" [2010 SCC OnLine Del 351] has clearly held that:- Praveen v. Mulak Raj, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7721, "7... The Controller is required to sift/comb through the application for leave to defend and the affidavit filed therewith and to see whether the tenant has given any facts/ particulars which require to be established by evidence and which if established would disentitle the landlord from an order of eviction. The test is not of the tenant having controverted/denied the claim of RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 9 of 28 the landlord and thus disputed questions of fact arising; the test is to examine the pleas of facts and then to determine the impact thereof.".
16.In light of the above guidelines enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High court, this court has to see whether affidavit of leave to defend raises any triable issues.
Ownership and landlord-tenant relationship
17.It is argued by Ld. Counsel for respondent that the present eviction petition does not specifically mention Section 25-B DRC Act though filed u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, hence summary procedure u/s 25B of DRC Act will not apply. The case must be treated as a regular eviction suit.
18.Section 25 B (1), Chapter III A of DRC Act provides that every application filed u/s 14(1)(e), 14 A, 14 B, 14 C and 14 D of DRC Act shall be tried as per the procedure provided in Section 25B of DRC Act. It cast a duty upon the controller to try and deal with such applications as per the procedure laid down u/s 25B of DRC Act. What is relevant is the substance of the pleading and the form of summons issued. If the application for eviction has been filed u/s 14(1)(e), 14 A, 14 B, 14 C and 14 D of DRC Act then irrespective of non mentioning of special procedure in title of application, the application for eviction shall be dealt with procedure laid down in section 25B of DRC Act, hence the contention that omission to mention Section 25-B in the title bars application of the summary procedure is untenable.
RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 10 of 2819.It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent that petitioner is not the exclusive owner of tenanted premises. It is stated that the relinquishment deed executed in favour of Sh. Divyanshu Sharma. There is no document on record which discloses the share of each legal heir of Late Sh. Arvind Sharma, and the petitioner is not authorized to file present petition as she has not obtained NOC from the other co-owners.
20.It is an admitted fact that petitioner is co-owner of tenanted premises. Now the question arises as to whether co-owner can file eviction petition without taking NOC or seeking authority from other co-owner?
21.Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Dharam Veer Goel vs Renu Jain & Anr RC.REV. 118/2022, in respect of eviction petition filed by co-owner held as follows :-
26. As regard the contention that the eviction petition was filed with-
out the authorization of the co-owners, the impugned judgment right- ly takes note of the judgment in case of Sheikh Mohd Zakir v. Sha- hanazparveen, 2012 (2) RCR 235 (DHC), wherein it was held that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the coowners and this principle is based on the doctrine of agency. The said position has been reiterat- ed in catena of judgments. Reference in this regard may be made to a judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this court in Puran Chand Ag- garwal v. Lekh Raj, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 1506, which takes note of various judgments on the issue of the right of a co-owner to institute an eviction petition, as under: "24. The following cases are relevant in this regard, i.e. on the issue of coownership : -
(i) This Court in Ram Dularithr. LRs v. Om Parkash Gupta, 169 (2010) DLT 301, observed that the learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal went wrong in holding that the peti-RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 11 of 28
tioner being owner only of a part of the premises could not have filed the eviction petition unless she was joined by her husband, who was a joint owner of the premises. Even other- wise, it is settled law that the court can take into account subsequent events and in this case, the petitioner's husband had died soon after filing of the petition and she became the owner of not only in her own right but as legal heir of her husband of the remaining portion of the premises. Learned Additional Rent Control Tribunal could not have ignored this fact.
(ii) In Yashpal v. Chamanlal Sachdeva, 129 (2006) DLT 200, it was held that a co-owner can maintain a petition and that the inter se arrangement between owners is no business of the tenant.
(iii) In India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. BhagabandeiA- garwalla (Dead) by L.R.s, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1321, the Supreme Court observed that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners and this principle was based on doc- trine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so, on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant.
(iv) In Col. Inderjeet Singh v. Mr. Vikram Singh, 194 (2012) DLT 209, it was observed that it is a settled principle of law that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of tenant in a property generally owned by the co-owners. (also see India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. BhagabendeiAgarwalla (Dead) by LRs Smt. Savitri Agarwalla AIR 2004 SC 1321, paragraph 6 cited Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, 1977 1 SCR 395; Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai, AIR 2002 SC 2572). A co-owner filing a suit for eviction does so on his own behalf RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 12 of 28 and in his own right and as an agent of other co-owners. The consent of other co-owners is assumed to be taken unless, it is shown that other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed in disagreement. In the present case, the suit was preferred by the plaintiff himself. One of the co-owners, cannot withdraw his consent so as to preju- dice the other co-owner. The suit once filed, the rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of the suit and the enti- tlement of the co-owners to seek ejectment must be adjudged by reference to the date of institution of the suit. (See also Mohinder Prasad Jain v. Manohar Lal Jain, AIR 2006 SC 1471, paragraphs-7 & 8).
(v) In Sri Ram Pasricha v. Jagannath, AIR 1976 SC 2335, it was observed that jurisprudentially, it is not correct to say that a co-owner of a property is not its owner. He owns every part of the composite property along with others and it can- not be said that he is only a part-owner or a fractional owner of the property. The position will change only when partition takes place. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submis- sion that the plaintiff who is admittedly the landlord and co- owner of the premises is not the owner of the premises within the meaning of Section 13(1)(f). It is not necessary to estab- lish that the plaintiff is the only owner of the property for the purpose of Section 13(1)(f) as long as he is a co-owner of the property being at the same time the acknowledged landlord of the defendants.
(vi) In Sheikh Mohd Zakir v. Shahnaz Parveen, 2012 (2) RCR (Rent) 235, it was observed that in the suit between the land- lord and tenant, a third person claiming to be co-owner of the property cannot intervene as the issue of ownership could not be decided in the proceedings under the DRCA...... It is not necessary that all co-owners need to file the petition for eviction.
RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 13 of 28(vii) In Krishan Lal v. Rajan Chand Khanna, AIR 1993 Delhi 1, it was observed that being a heir, the person will be one of the co-owners of the property and as such will be entitled to file the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
(viii) In Fibre Bond (Sales) Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt. Chand Rani, 1993 (1) RCR 492 it was held that widow, a co-landlady of the premises can initiate eviction proceedings against the tenant in absence of other co-owners."
22.Hon'ble High Court has categorically and clearly held that eviction suit can be filed by a co-owner. It is not necessary for one of the co-owner to join other co-owners or get NOC from them. In light of the judgment of Dharam Veer Goel (supra), plea of the tenant that petitioner can not file presets application without taking NOC from remaining co-owners can not sustain, hence is dismissed.
23.It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent that as per the decree 10.03.1975 relied by petitioner, the grandfather of petitioner Late Sh. Chander Kant Sharma was declared to be owner of entire ground floor in property bearing no. B-3/11, Model Town except the staircase and the passage portion leading to upper floors. It is also submitted that vide same decree Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma was declared to be owner of first floor including the staircase and the passage attached thereto from ground floor upwards. It is argued tenanted premises is measuring about 3 feet x 5 feet situated under the staircase and part of closed passage as per site plan. Since first floor has been sold by Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma to Sh. Ashish Bhasin, the petitioner is not the owner of tenanted premises as it forms part of staircase and passage.
RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 14 of 2824.It is submitted on behalf of respondent that respondent is in possession of tenanted premises for last about 55 years, however the petitioner only filed receipt from 01.07.23 to 31.12.2024 which may be forged and fabricated. It is argued that only few rent receipts have been filed for a tenancy of 55 years.
25.It has not been denied by respondent that he paid rent to petitioner till 31.12.2024. In para 4 (c) of affidavit of leave to defend the respondent has admitted that petitioner received rent upto 31.12.2024. The petitioner has also filed rent receipts bearing the sign of respondent. Prior to alleged sale by Sh. Pramod Kumar Sharma, the tenanted premises was there under the staircase and still the respondent was paying rent to petitioner. Even after the alleged sale the tenanted premises remains to be under the staircase, now it is difficult to understand as to what has changed qua tenanted premises. It appears the respondent has taken flimsy ground for seeking leave to defend as the tenanted premises is there under the staircase since the predecessor of respondent were inducted as tenant. It is no wonder that the staircase and passage are in possession of new purchaser Sh. Ashish Bhasin as the seller Sh. Chander Kant Sharma was owner of first floor including passage and staircase, however the space under the staircase where tenanted premises is located does not form part of staircase or the passage. The staircase and the passage are essential for access to first and second floor, however the space under the staircase is part of ground floor under the ownership of petitioner. If the tenanted premises was part of staircase then why the respondent was paying rent to petitioner RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 15 of 28 prior to alleged sale. The respondent has admitted to have paid rent to petitioner till 31.12.2024, hence the tenant is estopped from disputing tenancy and title of petitioner u/s 116 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 (Sec 122 of BSA 2023). In view of the court no triable issue is made out so far as ownership and landlord-tenant relationship is concerned. Hence first ingredient of sec 14(1)(e) DRC is fulfilled by petitioner.
Bonafide requirement
26.Qua bonafide requirement, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100, held :-
".....The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. Facts such as the cordial relationship between a landlord and her daughter-in-law or that he is comfortably residing in the present building are not relevant in judging the bona fides of the claim of the landlord. Otherwise it would appear that landlord can think of residing in his or her own RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 16 of 28 residential building only when cracks develop in the relationship between him and his other kith and kin".
27.In Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. Bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should not be normally interfered with.
28.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghunath G. Panhale (Dead) by LRs. vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co. observed that the word `reasonable', connotes that the requirement or need is not fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be a mere desire. The Word `requirement' coupled with the word reasonable means that it must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly be a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. A reasonable and bona fide requirement is something in between a mere desire or wish on one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity at the other end. It may be a need in presenti or within reasonable proximity in the future.
29.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bega Begum And Ors vs Abdul Ahad Khan And Ors, 1979 AIR 272, 1979 SCR (2) 1 while dealing with civil appeal in relation to Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 held :-
"...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 as the High Court has done in this case. It seems to us that the connotation of the term 'need' or 'requirement should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 17 of 28 as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for one landlord to get a decree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act which affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds. This appears to us to be the general scheme of all the Rent Control Acts, prevalent in other State in the country. This Court has considered the import of the word requirement and pointed out that it merely connotes that there should be an element of need."
30.In light of above broad guidelines set by Hon'ble Courts, it has to be seen whether the requirement of petitioner is bonafide or not.
31.It is submitted that the petitioner presently using the vacant part of the property as her law office but intentionally and deliberately did not disclosed the same to take undue advantage.
32.The respondent has not filed any document or photograph showing that petitioner is running her law office from the vacant part. Even if it is presumed that petitioner is using vacant part as her law office, no triable issue can be set to be raised in absence of material showing sufficiency of the same for setting up law office. The petitioner has mentioned in the petition that tenanted premises alongwith other shops is required for setting up her law office. The petitioner has categorically stated in clause (k) of Annexure 'A' of petition that she requires six shops for setting up her law office. As per the site plan filed by petitioner, there is vacant part, however, this vacant part opens up on the gali of the property. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that vacant part and other RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 18 of 28 shops are not suitable to petitioner as they open in gali, whereas the petitioner has sought shops located on the main road for her requirement. Apparently the vacant part is not suitable for petitioner. Even otherwise, the respondent has not filed any document to show that the office is being run from vacant part. The ground raised by respondent remained bald assertion without any substance, hence this ground does not raise any triable issue.
33.It is submitted on behalf of respondent that the petitioner is having other property bearing no. 78 UB, Jawahar Nagar, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-07, however this property has also been let out as PG for rent. It is argued that the petitioner wants to change the tenant and gain higher rent from new tenants.
34.It is alleged by respondent that tenanted premises is being vacated so that petitioner may relet it on higher rent. The assertion that the petitioner seeks eviction merely to re-let the premises at higher rent is a speculative and routine defence. No material is produced to show any ulterior motive. Moreover, the petitioner's immediate need to commence her professional career is natural, genuine, and time-sensitive. The law presumes the landlord's need to be bona fide unless material shows otherwise. Otherwise also, DRC Act has made sufficient provision for safeguarding tenant against any misuse of eviction grounds by landlord. Section 19 of DRC Act, provides for restoration of possession to tenant if the tenanted premises is not used by landlord. Section 19 of DRC Act reads as under:-
"Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 19 of 28 benefit the premises are held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or the premises having been so occupied are, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession, relet to any person than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Controller such tenant can be put back to the premises or can be paid such compensation as the Controller thinks fit."
35.Hence, if the landlord obtains eviction and does not occupy the premises or let out the same then tenant can always apply for restitution under section 19 of the DRC Act. Therefore, this ground also does not raises any triable issue and accordingly stands rejected.
36.It is also argued on behalf of respondent that the ground that the tenanted premises is bonafidely required to setup a law office by the petitioner is vague and false.
37.The respondent has merely stated that requirement of petitioner is vague and false, however it has not been disputed by respondent that the petitioner is practicing advocate. The petitioner has filed her enrollment certificate dated 28.11.2024. The petitioner is a newly enrolled advocate intending to establish her law office. The need of a professional to have an independent office or chamber is a legitimate requirement. The Controller has to presume the need of the landlord to be genuine and bonafide unless the tenant shows otherwise.
38.In Rajiv Mehra & Anr Vs Ravi Bhushan RC.REV. 341/2018, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that the Rent Controller has to presume the need of landlord as genuine and bonafide RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 20 of 28 and it is for the tenant to refute the presumption. It is observed:-
"43. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the judgement of Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778 has held that whenever a landlord seeks eviction of the tenant for bonafide need, Controller shall presume the need as genuine and bona fide. Additionally, the burden to refute the said presumption squarely lies on the tenant and the mere assertion on part of the tenant is insufficient. "19. ... In our view there are inbuilt protections in the relevant provisions for the tenants that whenever the landlord would approach the court he would approach when his need is genuine and bona fide. It is, of course, subject to the tenant's right to rebut it but with strong and cogent evidence. In our view, in the proceeding taken up under Section 13-B by the NRI landlords for the ejectment of the tenant, the court shall presume that the landlord's need pleaded in the petition is genuine and bona fide. But this would not disentitle the tenant from proving that in fact and in law the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. A heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine. To prove this fact the tenant will be called upon to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence, if available, to support his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine.".
39.In the present case the respondent has not been able to show how the need of petitioner is not genuine and bonafide and on the other hand, petitioner has shown her requirement, hence in RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 21 of 28 such circumstances second ingredient of sec 14(1)(e) DRC is also fulfilled by petitioner.
Availability of alternate reasonable suitable accommodation
40.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md. Ehshan & Ors. 2025 INSC 271, recently reiterated that tenant cannot dictate landlord to get another property vacated for bona fide need. It was held :-
"10. The law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord is well settled. The need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction.
41.Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shri Om Prakash Bajaj vs Shri Chander Shekhar 2003IAD(DELHI)669, 102(2003)DLT746, 2003(67)DRJ674 observed as follows:
"11. ...Suitability of the alternative premises cannot be determined by mere counting the rooms. But it has to be determined keeping in view the totality of the facts, the nature of need pleaded by the landlord, his and his family's standard and style of life and the purpose to which the landlord wants to actually put it after coming it into possession. The landlord has right to choose which of the accommodation is required by him for himself and the members of his family...".
42.It is further observed:-
RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 22 of 28"14. A landlord, who did not want his tenant to occupy the premises may terminate the tenancy or upon efflux of time stipulated in the lease ask the tenant to quit in accordance with the provision of Transfer of Property Act. The Rent Acts have put a clog on this right. The landlord cannot now evict the tenant on his whims and fancy. He has to satisfy the Controller about existence of one or more of the ground of eviction specified in Section 14(1) of the Act. Right of landlord is not absolute but curtailed by various provisions of Rent Acts. Crux of the ground of eviction under clause (e) on which eviction of the petitioner is sought is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenant premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires the suit premises for her own residence the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. Once the bonafide of the requirement of the premises for occupation is established by the landlord the tenant cannot ask the landlord how else he adjust without disturbing his own possession in the suit premises. Therefore, it will be unnecessary to try to ascertain as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself at another place...".
43.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balwant Singh @ Bant Singh & Anr. v. Sudarshan Kumar & Anr. in case bearing Civil Appeal Nos. 231-232 of 2021 observed that it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate. It has been further observed that the genuine need of the appellant to secure vacant possession of the premises for the proposed business is found to be established. The adequacy or otherwise of the space available with the landlord for the business in mind is not for the tenant to dictate.
RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 23 of 2844.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222 case held that for a petition for eviction under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act to succeed, the concept of bonafide need is required to be looked at practically in view of realities of life, neither a too liberal nor a too conservative approach must be taken. If the alternate accommodation available does not satisfy the need of the landlord or the convenience or safety of the landlord and their family members, the same cannot be held to be reasonable suitable accommodation. It was further held that the Court must consider the profession/vocation of the landlord and its family members, their style of living, habits, and their background.
45.In Nirmala Kumari & Ors vs Girish Kakkar & Anr RC.REV. 156/2018 (17th May 2024), Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the Court is not to sit in the armchair of the landlord. It was held :-
"29. 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 which property is to be utilized in what way. The respondent cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to utilize his property. If the respondents/landlord states that the alternate premises are unsuitable to meet his/her needs, the Court is to believe the same. The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard.".RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 24 of 28
46.In light of above pronouncements it has to be seen whether respondent has been able to raise any triable issues so far as alternate accommodation is concerned.
47.It is argued on behalf of respondent that Shop No. 2 is presently vacant and having poster VACANT/FOR LEASE. Shop No.3 has been sold by the family of the petitioner to one Mr. Jain. In regard of Shop No.9 it is stated that the said shop is on rent in the sum of ₹18,000/- per month and used by Surjeet Motors. Other big area is also lying vacant. It is argued that three shops and one big hall and open space is in possession of owner.
48.The petitioner has averred in petition that there are nine shops on the ground floor in the property bearing no. 11, Block-B3, Model Town-1, Delhi-110009 out of which Shop no.1 and 9 shown in the site plan are already rented out to different tenants and shop no.2 is presently lying vacant. The respondent has also deposed in affidavit that shop no.9 is rented to Surjeet Motors and that shop no.2 is advertised for letting out. However, the petitioner has averred in petition that shops bearing no.1, 2 and 9 are not suitable for the petitioner for her bonafide requirements as five shops bearing no. 4, 5, 6, 7(tenanted premises), and 8 are situated adjacent to each other, whereas the shop 1, 2 and 9 are situated apart from the said shops in different directions and gali. It is also averred that these five shops are situated on the main road and are thus ideally located for the purposes of the operation of the office of an advocate. It is also averred in petition that shop no.3 was sold to Sh. Rajender Kumar in the 2019 as petitioner was not RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 25 of 28 having any other source of income and remaining shops were let out.
49.The respondent has alleged that petitioner has three shops i.e., shop no. 1, 2 and 9, one big hall and open space in her possession, however shop no.1 and 9 are already rented out, hence they are not available to petitioner to fulfill her requirement. The landlord can not be asked to get another tenant vacated for his requirement. It is settled law that tenant can not dictate the landlord as to how he should utilize his property. The landlord has right to choose which of the accommodation is required by him for himself and the members of his family as observed in Kanahaiya Lal Arya (supra).
50.The petitioner has also averred in petition that shop no.2 is not suitable to her as the shop is located in different direction in a gali. The site plan filed by petitioner shows that shop no.2 opens in gali where as her requirement are the shops which are opening on the main road. The suitability has to be seen from the landlord perspective. The controller or the respondent can not dictate the suitability of an alternate accommodation. Refrence can be had to Nirmala Kumari & Ors (supra). The open space and room, as per the site plan, are located in the gali which are clearly not suitable for petitioner for opening law office as requirement of petitioner is to utilize the shops located on the main road which would obviously be more beneficial in attracting litigants.
51.The petitioner has mentioned her requirement in the petition. It is averred that petitioner requires at least six different shops RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 26 of 28 to setup an office wherein one of the premises can be used for as an office for dealing with the clients, one premises as waiting area for the clients, one premises for the staff/ junior advocates/ associates colleagues, one premises for library, one premises as a conference room and one premises for record room of the files.
52.The burden to prove existence of suitable alternative accommodation rests on the tenant once the landlord asserts non-availability. The availability of other shops, vacant area, room and property at Kamla Nagar are not found to be suitable by the petitioner and at the same time the respondent has not been able to show as to how such vacant and rented shops are suitable for running a professional law office, hence the ground taken by respondent remained bald and unsubstantiated averment. Hence, this objection does not raise any triable issue.
53.Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh, has specified that the Leave to Defend to a tenant cannot be granted on mere asking or in a routine manner as it will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter III-A of the DRC Act and what has to be seen while granting leave to defend is that there is a strong prima facie case against the landlord who is seeking eviction. In the matter at hand, no ground is made out to grant leave to defend.
54.In the present case the respondent has failed to show any reasonable alternative suitable accommodation, hence in such circumstances third ingredient of sec 14(1)(e) DRC Act is also fulfilled by petitioner.
RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 27 of 2855.In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that respondent has failed to raise any triable issue vide his leave to defend affidavit.
56.Consequently, petitioner has proved all the ingredients of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, hence petitioner is entitled for an eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e., Shop No. 7, in property no. 11, Block B3, Model Town-I, Delhi-110009, as indicated in red color in the site plan annexed to the petition filed with the eviction petition, in terms of Section 14(1)(e) r/ w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order as mandated by sec 14(7) of DRC Act.
57.No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record Room.
AJAY Digitally signed
by AJAY SINGH
SINGH PARIHAR
Date: 2025.12.22
Announced in Open Court
PARIHAR 13:12:52 +05'30'
(Ajay Singh Parihar)
on 20.12.2025. ACJ-cum-ARC-North
Rohini Court/ Delhi
RC ARC No. 11/2025. Aanchal Sharma VS Deepak Sisodia Page 28 of 28