Delhi District Court
Gagan Gupta vs M/S Victor Traders on 13 November, 2025
RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-2 (CENTRAL), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No: 80899/2016
Gagan Gupta
S/O Late Sh. Prem Lal Gupta
R/O A-3/14, Rajasthali Apartments,
Madhuban Chowk,
Pitampura, Delhi-110034 ........Petitioner
VERSUS
M/S Victor Traders
Through Its Proprietor
Sh. Vaneet Kumar Bhambri
S/O Late Sh. K. K. Bhambri
2853, Peepal Mahadev,
Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 ........Respondent
***********
Date of Filing of petition : 05.10.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 08.10.2025
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment : 13.11.2025
Decision of petition : Eviction Petition
Allowed
************
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 14 (1)
(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as Page no. 1 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:39:29 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of premises i.e premises bearing Municipal No. VI/3349, Ground Floor, Peepal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 as shown in colour red in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as 'subject premises').
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT: -
2. It is pertinent to mention that present petition was filed u/s 14(1) (e) r/w section 25 B of DRC Act. The application for leave to defend was filed on behalf of the respondent, which was allowed by the court vide order dated 10.04.2017 and thereafter WS and replication were filed and matter was fixed for evidence.
EVICTION PETITION:-
3. As per the eviction petition, the case of petitioner is that the respondent was the tenant in the tenanted premises for monthly rent of Rs. 393.25 P/M and that he was let out the said premises by previous owner Smt. Radha Rani. That the petitioner is owner/landlord of tenanted premises on the basis of Sale Deed, registered on 21.01.1998 in the office of Sub-Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. That respondent, is the tenant in occupation of tenanted premises, but due to inadvertence, shop/Godown No.3348, is being mentioned in the Rent Receipts issued by the petitioner and accepted by the respondent. That Premises No. 3348, Gali Peepal Mahadev does not belong to the petitioner. That respondent M/s Victor Traders have been shown in occupation of the Godown at Ground Floor premises No. VI/ Page no. 2 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.13 16:41:26 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders 3349, Peepal Mahadev in Para No. 4 of Sale Deed registered on 21.01.1998.That but for the godown at Ground Floor under tenancy of the respondent no other portion property No. VI/3349 (¼) Peepal Mahadev is either available or can be used for business purposes. That petitioner is unemployed at present for the last over one year. He has family consisting of his wife and two sons. The elder son is college going, while the younger son is school going. That petitioner being unemployed is unable to maintain his family and to bear day to day expenses on the education of the children. That Petitioner, therefore, to start his own business with the financial assistance of his relatives. That the tenant/ respondent is a person of means. It is running its business at premises No. 2853, Peepal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi in the name and style of M/s Victor Traders for the last several decades. 2C, That the respondent /tenant is using in colour tenanted premises No.3349, shown in colour red in the site plan only as a godown for storing its merchandise. style of M/s Victor Traders for the last several decades. 2C, That the respondent /tenant is using in colour tenanted premises No.3349, shown in colour red in the site plan only as a godown for storing its merchandise. Hence, the present eviction petition has been filed seeking eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
Page no. 3 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.13 16:41:48 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
4. In the WS, preliminary objections are taken regarding concealment of facts by the petitioner. It is stated that respondent had filed the petition u/s 27 of DRC Act, as the petitioner refused to accept the rent. The bonafide requirement of the petitioner is denied. That the petitioner had to deposit the rent in the court, as petitioner refused to accept the rem for the period 14.2015 m 11.3.2016 amounting to Rs.4719/- Rs.393 25 per month, when tendered personally and then through money order, with malafide intentions and the petitioner again did not accept the rent for the period 1.4.2016 to 31.5.2017 amounting to Rs.4719/- Rs.393/25 per month, when sent by money order and refused to receive the money order and that the respondent is again compelled deposit the said rent under Section 27 of the Delhi Rem Control. Act. That the premises under the tenancy of the respondents are not required bonafide by the petitioner as alleged in the petition. That the the true facts of the case are that the respondent took on rent two rooms on the ground floor godown improperty No.5548, Gan Pipai Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi in the year 1966 from The previous owner on a monthly rent of Rs. 60/2. That the previous owner Smt. Radha rani was issued rent receipt in the name of description of the tenanted premises has been mentioned as "two rooms on ground flour as godown in property No 3348, Gaii Pipal Mahadev Hauz Qazi Delhi". It is submitted that in the year 1982, the rent of premises was Rs 60/- per month and at present the rate of rent is Page no. 4 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:41:57 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders Rs.393.25 per month. That in year 1998 the petitioner demanded rent from the respondent alleging that he was the new landlords of the premises and that the rent be paid to him. That said Smt Radha Rani, the previous landlord also informed the respondent that the petitioner is the new landlord and the rent of the premises tenancy be paid to Shri Gagan Gupta, the petitioner. That electricity connection in the premises measuring 70yard was in the name of the respondent, in which the property no. was mentioned as 3348 and again the same number was mentioned in the record of MCD and also in rent receipts issued by the petitioner. That petitioner is not the owner of the property no.
3348. That he does not require the premises for his bonafide need.
4.1. In reply on merits, para no. 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 18(a) are denied, para no. 3, 4, 9, 11 are not denied and para no. 6, 7, 15, 16, 17 and 18(b) are stated to be matter of record and they have not been replied. It is stated that the tenanted premises in possession of respondent bears Municipal No. 3348 and area in his possession is 70 Sq yards. Again the ownership of the petitioner is denied, however, his landlordship is admitted. It is stated that previous landlord Smt. Radha Rani had issued rent receipts to the respondent in which the number of the premises was mentioned as 3348 and again the electricity bill in the name of the respondent, the number of the premises is mentioned as 3348. In fact the respondent is tenant in property No.3348, Gall Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi. It is denied that the premises Page no. 5 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.13 16:42:06 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders are required by the petitioner bonafide for running self business. It is denied that the petitioner is owner of the shop/godown having an area of 73 sq.yds. on ground floor of property bearing No.VI/3349(1/4), Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, as shown in red colour in the site plan on the basis of alleged sale deed dated 21.1.1998 registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi. It is submitted that the petitioner is landlord in respect of To sq.yd. area on the ground floor of premises No.3348, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi. It is denied that petitioner is owner of the property bearing No.3348. It is denied that the petitioner is unable to maintain his family and bear day-
to-day expenses of the family and the children and therefore intend to start his own business with the financial assistance of his relatives. It is submitted that the petitioner deliberately and intentionally has concealed material facts in the para under reply. He has not disclosed as to since when he was in the employment, where he was working besides other particulars of his employer. That the petitioner has even not mentioned about his age in the affidavit. The petitioner has falsely alleged that he is unemployed. It is submitted that the petitioner is carrying on flourishing business under the name and style of Tara Electricals, from the shop bearing No.324, Fatehpuri Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Not only that, the petitioner is also running hotels under the name and style of Hotel Tara Palace, which was opened by him in the year 2016 in Central District. The photographs showing that the petitioner is carrying on business in the name of Page no. 6 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.13 16:42:14 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders Tara Mobile Shop, referred to above and Hotel under the name and style of Hotel Tara Palace are annexed herewith. As such the allegations made by the petitioner that he is unemployed at present for the last more than one year is totally false and the photographs belies his above allegations. 4.2. It is submitted that the petitioner in his reply to the leave to defend and contest the eviction petition alleged that the petitioner was unemployed but it is submitted that he is still showing himself to be the employee of Tara Electricals in the Income Tax Returns filed by him. Copy of the ITRs have already been filed by the respondent alongwith the rejoinder filed in this Hon'ble Court to his application seeking leave to defend and contest the eviction petition. The petitioner has not placed any document to show that he was under the employment of Tara Electricals. He has not show as to who is the owner under whom he was employee. Photographs filed by the respondent belie the allegations of the petitioner that he was in the employment. The respondent has also filed a recent Video showing the petitioner actively managing the affairs of Tara Electricals. That if the petitioner was in financial crunch, he would have accepted the rent when tendered by the respondent. The petitioner has not disclosed the source of his income in the petition as to how he is maintaining his family. The above facts clearly show and prove that the petitioner is not unemployed and is having good income and the allegations made by him regarding starting his own business with the financial assistance of his relatives is false, Page no. 7 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.13 16:42:22 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders baseless and just to get the premises evicted from the respondent .
4.3. It is further stated that the petitioner has other suitable accommodations in his possession being owner thereof.
The petitioner has many other suitable properties for his business of which he is owner, details whereof are as hereunder:
(a) Shop No.3344, Vasundhra Market, Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, which is in occupation of the petitioner where he is doing the business of sanitary;
(b) Petitioner has property bearing No.2826, Bhagirath Market, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi where he has roof rights in the said property;
(c) Property No.2875, 2876, 2877, 2879 and 2890 situated at Gali Jajmanpura, Bazar Sirki Walan, Delhi;
(d) Property No.2856 to 2862 situated at Gali Ghasiram, Bazar Sirki Walan, Delhi. In the above properties the petitioner has shops/premises in his possession and respondent has come to know that many of the above shops, in possession of the petitioner, are lying vacant;
(e) Petitioner was owner of property No.3342 and 3343, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi which he recently sold by Page no. 8 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date:
AGARWAL 2025.11.13 16:42:29 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders registered sale deed. As such the petition filed by him with malafide intention as if had the petitioner really required the suit premises bonafide, he would not have sold the said property in the year 2015-16.
4.4. That the petitioner has concealed that there are various other properties in his possession beside the tenanted premises in property No.3348, Gali Pipal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi. It is submitted that the petitioner owns several properties in Delhi and that the respondent is unable to collect documentary evidence in this behalf. It is, however, submitted that as per the ITRs filed by the petitioner for the year 2014-15 he has paid advance tax of Rs.75,000/-towards capital gain and has again paid Rs.10,00,000/- in the year 2015-16 towards long term capital gain. From the above it is clear that the petitioner has sold property and has paid capital gain tax. All the other averments of petition are denied with the prayer to dismiss the petition.
REPLICATION :-
5. In pursuance of WS of the respondent, the petitioners filed the replication in which the averments of WS are denied and averments of the eviction petition are reiterated. It is specifically denied that petitioner is having any flourishing are owned the business or that M/s Tara Electricals by petitioner.
respondent is making false claim and The the alleged photographs relate to the period prior to 31.07.2016 when the petitioner was working as an employee of Tara Electricals. That Page no. 9 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.13 16:42:38 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders It is further specifically denied Tara Hotel to the belongs petitioner. It is further specifically denied that Income Tax returns relied upon by the respondent pertain to the period after 31.07.2016. It is stated that none of the properties mentioned in WS belong to the petitioner and that respondent has to place on record the proof of ownership thereof in support of his claim.
That it is further reiterated and reaffirmed that the tenanted premises bear Municipal No.3349, Gali Peepal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi and not 3348 as is being alleged by the respondent. That petitioner does not deny the correctness of the income tax returns which pertains to the period prior to 31.07.2016.
EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER:-
6. To prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. PW1/A and relied upon the document i.e. site plan Ex. PW1/1 and sale deed Ex.PW1/2(OSR). The witness was duly cross examined. And during his cross-examination, the copy of legal notice sent by the petitioner was taken on record as Ex.PW1/D1 and rent receipts issued by him were taken on record as Ex.PW1/D2 and Ex.PW1/D3. Again one electricity bill was also taken on record as Ex.PW1/D4, copy of ITRs were taken on record as Ex.PW1/D5 and one photograph was taken on record as Ex.PW1/D6. Thereafter, PE was closed on 17.10.2023.
Page no. 10 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:42:48 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders THE RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:-
7. On the other hand, the respondent examined himself as RW1 and tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. Notice sent by the petitioner Ex.
PW1/DI, Rent Receipts Ex. PW1/D2 and Ex.PW1/D3 respectively, Electricity bill Ex. PW 1/D4 (Colly), Income tax return Ex. PW1/D5 (colly), Photographs already Ex.PW1/D6(Colly), Application of deposit of rent u/s 27 of DRC Act is marked as Mark X, License issued by the MCD is marked as Mark Y (Colly). The witness was duly cross examined. Thereafter, DE was closed on 02.07.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
8. Final arguments advanced by ld counsel for respondent have been heard at length. File including written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties has been carefully and minutely perused and the findings with reasons thereof are given in the succeeding paragraphs.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS:-
9. At the outset, it is expedient to reproduce Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under-
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Page no. 11 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.13 16:42:54 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
10. As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(I) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(II) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises. (III)That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(IV)Landlord/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
11. Now, before appreciation of the evidence of the petitioner with respect to the satisfaction to the ingriedients of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, I find it pertinent to discuss the contention raised on behalf of respondent with respect to the identity of thee subject premises.
IDENTITY OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES:-
11.1 It has been submitted by Ld. counsel for respondent Page no. 12 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:43:05 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders that the identity of the subject premises is in dispute in the present matter, as the case has been filed with respect to the property no. 3349, whereas, in the rent receipts i.e. Ex. PWD1/2 and PWD1/3, duly admitted by the petitioner being issued to the respondent, the property no. was mentioned as 3348. Again in the legal notice sent on behalf of the petitioner himself i.e. Ex.
PWD1/1, the property no. was mentioned as 3348/49. It is further submitted that again in the electricity bill issued in the name of the respondent in the subject premises i.e. Ex. PWD1/4, the property no. was mentioned as 3348 only and said document was never challenged by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the site plan Ex. PW1/1 did not prove, if same pertained to the property no. 3349 only. Accordingly, it is further submitted that in the absence of the identification of the subject premises, eviction petition cannot be allowed.
11.2. On the other hand it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that there was inadvertent error on behalf of the petitioner that the property no. was mentioned as 3348 instead of 3349 in the rent receipts. That the no. of tenanted premises is 3349 only and even the respondent has duly admitted the location of the subject premises as being correct as marked ABCD in the site plan Ex. PW1/1. It is submitted that respondent has taken the false plea with respect to the identification of the subject premises, whereas, the tenancy of the respondent with the petitioner is duly admitted.
11.3. Heard. It is observed that as reflected from the WS Page no. 13 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 AGARWAL 16:43:13 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders as well as from the cross-examination of RW1, it is in admitted position that only 'one' premises was let out to the respondent by the previous owner namely Smt. Radha Rani and that on being asked by Radha Rani, the respondent started paying rent to the petitioner. Again, it is the version of the respondent only, as reflected from his cross-examination that he had deposited the rent of the subject premises in the name of the petitioner in the court. Again, respondent has duly admitted that in the sale deed of the subject premises, the property no. was mentioned as 3349 itself. Said sale deed has been placed on record by the petitioner as Ex. PW1/2 and from perusal of the said sale deed, it is clear that petitioner had purchased the property no. 3349 from the previous owner Smt. Radha Rani. As genuineness of the said sale deed is not in dispute, there is no reason to conclude that the property no. would have been mentioned wrongly in the said sale deed, which is 3349 only. Again, as it is the case of the respondent only that he had taken only one property on rent from Smt. Radha Rani, there is no reason to conclude that the said property no. would have been 3348. Again, the respondent has not led any evidence to prove that there was any other property in the vicinity of the subject premises which was bearing no. 3348. Though in his cross-examination, respondent/RW1 has deposed that he was in possession property no. 3348 and that property no. 3349 was in possession of some other person, however, the respondent failed to specify that who was there in possession of property no. 3349. As discussed above, Smt. Radha Rani had Page no. 14 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:43:20 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders sold property no. 3349 to the petitioner and the respondent was her tenant in only one property, it can be safely concluded that the respondent was the tenant of Smt. Radha Rani in property no. 3349 only and after the same was sold to the petitioner way of sale deed Ex. PW1/2, the respondent became the tenant of petitioner in the said property no. 3349 only. Even otherwise, the respondent has duly admitted the location and position of the said subject premises marked as ABCD in the site plan i.e. Ex. PW1/1 and at that time, the respondent had not taken the objection that said site plan did not pertain to subject premises. As reflected from said site plan, it pertains to property no. 3349 only. Moreover, if the said plan would not have been of the subject premises, there was no occasion for the respondent to admit the location and the description of the subject premises as ABCD in the said site plan.
11.4. It is further observed that as there is nothing on record to draw any inference that any property bearing no. 3348 was existing in the vicinity of subject premises, it appears that it was certainly a clerical or inadvertent error that the property no. was mentioned as 3348 in the rent receipts issued by the petitioner to the respondent and certainly the rent receipts or any other similar documents would have been the basis for the respondent to obtain the electricity connection showing the no. of the subject premises as 3348 and consequently, the electricity bill mentions the property no. as 3348 itself. 11.5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is concluded Page no. 15 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:43:27 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders that the correct and actual no. of the subject premises is 3349 only, which is mentioned in the eviction petition.
OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT PREMISES and RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD AND TENANT:-
11.6. In regard to ownership of the petitioner in the subject premises, it is observed that to prove his ownership in the property in question, the petitioner has placed on record the copy of sale deed Ex. PW1/1. The genuineness of said document has not been disputed in any manner in the cross examination of PW1 and no single question has been asked with respect to the genuineness and execution of the said document. Though, the defendant denied the ownership of the petitioner in his WS, however, at the stage of evidence, fail to impeach the veracity of the document Ex.PW1/2 in any manner. The document Ex.PW1/2 is a registered document which carries the presumption of genuineness in favour of the petitioner and the respondent failed to rebut the said presumption in any manner.
On perusal of said sale deed, it is clear that same pertains to the subject premises i.e. VI/3349, as held above. Even otherwise, as the respondent has clearly admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties, as discussed above, he can not challege the ownership of the petitioner in the subject premises in view of Sec 116 IEA ( S 122 BSA). 11.7. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that ownership of the petitioner in the subject premises and the Page no. 16 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:43:36 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties is not matter of dispute in any manner.
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT OF THE PETITIONER 11.8. Regarding the bonafide requirement of the subject premises by the petitioner, it has been submitted by the counsel of the petitioner that petitioner has specifically stated the requirement of the premises in question, which are commercial in nature, for his own use as being unemployed. On the other hand, it has been submitted by counsel for defendant that in his cross- examination PW1 / petitioner has admitted that he was salaried and employed with Tara electronics and that he was unemployed only for 1.5 month. It is further submitted that petitioner has also not stated that what kind of business he wanted to do in the tenanted premises and where from he had to arrange the finance to start the said business.
11.9 Heard. Before coming to the case of petitioner, it is to observe that the law is very well settled that the requirement of the landlord has to be presumed by the court as being bonafide. In this regard, reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Abid-Ur-Islam Vs. Inder Sain Dua, dt. 07.04.2022, wherein it was observed as follows :-
".........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 Page no. 17 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.13 16:43:42 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders that requirement of the landlord is bonafide......".
Again in case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
11.10. In view of this legal position, the requirement of the petitioner has to be presumed, as being bonafide, by the present Court. Now, it can be observed that as per the case of the petitioner, he required the tenanted premises to start his own business. It is further observed that legal proposition is very well settled that a tenant cannot dictate the landlord that in what manner he should use his own property. Accordingly, now if the petitioner wants to start his own business, he cannot be compelled to continue his job with some other person. Certainly, it is the petitioner who has to decide that he wants to make his living by doing the job or doing business and the respondent certainly has no right to dictate the petitioner / landlord that how he should make his own living. Again, it is also not a madate in law that a landlord has to establish that he was having any prior experience of doing business, as any person can start a new business even without any experience. Accordingly, even if the Page no. 18 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:43:50 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders petitioner was doing his job as on date of his cross-examination or even thereafter, it can not be concluded that he cannot start his business and rather on the contrary, the petitioner specified in his cross-examination dt. 17.10.2023 that he wanted to start the business of hardware. Again, it is not the concern of the respondent / tenant that how, petitioner would arrange the finance to start the said business. Going one step further, though not proved by the respondent, even if for sake of arguments, it is taken that petitioner was already running the business of Tara Electricals, even then I do not find any reason to presume that petitioner can not start a separate business of hardware from the tenanted premises. To flourish in business and to earn more money cannot be called simply a mere wish of a person and as on date in the era of consumerism and global market, to earn more money is certainly a bonafide requirement of a person.
11.11. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that petitioner has successfully established the bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises to start his own business.
ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER 11.12. In this regard, counsel for respondent failed to specify the availability of any alternate property with the Page no. 19 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:44:03 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders petitioner against the tenanted premises. In his WS, the respondent has specified about availability of some other properties with the petitioner, however, they were clearly denied in the replication filed on behalf of the petitioner and moreover, no question was asked on behalf of respondent in this behalf in the cross-examination of the petitioner / PW1. One question was asked with respect to some other property bearing no. 33 Prakash Apartment, not mentioned in WS, to which the petitioner clearly denied and on the contrary respondent failed to lead any evidence about the availability of said property or any other property with the petitioner as an alternate to the tenanted premises.
11.13 Accordingly, as respondent has failed to plead or to prove if the petitioner was having any other alternate property available with him for his requirement, it is further established that the petitioner has no other suitable alternate accommodation to fulfill the bonafide requirement for purpose of business to be run by him.
CONCLUSION
12. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, it is concluded that petitioner has been able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act Page no. 20 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:44:09 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises i.e. i.e 3349, Ground Floor, Peepal Mahadev, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 as shown in colour red in the site plan. i.e. Ex.PW1/1. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
13. It is further observed that the present eviction petition was filed in the year 2016 and the was pending before the court for more than 9 years. As reflected from the ordersheets the delay was caused for the reasons to be assigned to both the parties, however, the fact remains that for more than 9 years, the petitioner was deprived of the enjoyment of her own property, which is commercial in nature. It is the case where the respondent falsely denied the ownership of the petitioner and raised unnecessary dispute with respect to the identification of the subject premises. Accordingly, I am of the view that it is a fit case where realistic amount of cost should be imposed upon the respondent. Even otherwise, the imposition of cost goes a longway in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings by the litigants. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Ram Rameshwari Devi & Ors Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors dated 04.07.2011 and also on the celebrated case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC Page no. 21 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 16:44:16 +0530 RC ARC No. 80899/2016 Gagan Gupta Vs. M/S Victor Traders 3353. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is imposed the cost of Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to be paid to the petitioner. File be consigned to record room. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.13 AGARWAL 16:39:39 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.11.2025 (Announced in open court On 13.11.2025 ).
Note: This judgment contains 22 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me. VIVEK Digitally signed by VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL KUMAR Date: 2025.11.13 AGARWAL 16:39:47 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/13.11.2025 Page no. 22 of 22. (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC), 13.11.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.11.13 16:44:25 +0530