Delhi District Court
Mahesh Chander vs Gyan Singh on 5 April, 2025
Digitally
signed by
MANSI MANSI
Date:
MALIK
MALIK 2025.04.05
15:50:04
+0530
IN THE COURT OF MS.MANSI MALIK, ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
JUDGE/ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER : NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
RC ARC No. 5396/2016
CNR No. DLNW03-000163-2011
Sh. Mahesh Chander,
S/o Sh. Surajpal,
R/o Village & Post Lodhmai,
Distt. Aeta, U.P. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Gyan Singh
S/o Sh. Tota Ram,
R/o L-849, Mangolpuri, Delhi.
2. Sh. Govind
S/o Sh. Harparasad,
R/o H. No. L-827, Mangolpuri,
Delhi. ... Respondents
Date of Institution 14.01.2011
Under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B, Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958
Date of Judgment 05.04.2025
Decision Petition is allowed
JUDGMENT
(1) This is an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (or in short the "Act" or "DRCA") filed by the RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 1 of 19 Digitally signed MANSI by MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:51:09 +0530 petitioner/landlord against the respondent/tenant seeking eviction order with cost in favour of petitioner and thereby directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. Shop bearing no. K-1/17, situated at D.D. Market/Shivaji Market, Mangolpuri, Delhi-83.
(2) To understand the controversy behind the present matter, it is necessary to briefly advert to the case history. The present matter was instituted in the year 2011. Thereafter, the leave to defend filed on behalf of the respondent was allowed and evidence was led in the matter by both the parties. Ultimately, the petition was allowed in favour of the petitioner and eviction order was passed vide judgment dt. 29.07.2016, Unfortunately, before the judgment was pronounced, the petitioner expired on 22.07.2016. On the ground that the factum of death of the petitioner was not brought on record, respondent no. 2 preferred revision before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi wherein the Hon'ble Court vide order dt.
18.04.2018 held that as the death occurred prior to the judgment being passed, the judgment is a nullity and the order was thus set aside and was remanded back for further proceedings. With this background, the Court shall now proceed with the matter.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER (3) It is submitted that the petitioner is the owner of tenanted premises i.e. Shop bearing no. K-1/17, situated at D.D. Market/Shivaji Market, RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 2 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.04.05 15:51:15 +0530 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 and respondent no. 1 was known to the petitioner being his relative and requested the petitioner in the year 2001 to give the shop on rent to him and the plaintiff consented to the same and Rs. 500/- was fixed as rent from March 2001. It is also agreed that whenever the petitioner requires the suit premises the respondent will vacate the same and handover the possession to the petitioner. Further, the rent of the shop was increased every year with mutual consent and the same was done till February 2009 and the rent of the shop was fixed at Rs. 1,000/- from March, 2009 to February, 2010.
(4) It is further submitted that in the month of September, 2010, the petitioner came to Delhi to shift his family in Delhi from Aeta, U.P. as he was not earning enough to run his family and was unable to meet his daily requirement. It is further stated that the petitioner told this to respondent no. 1 herein that he wants to run his own shop and wants to settle in Delhi and the petitioner requested the respondent to vacate the shop as the tenanted premises is bonafidely required by the petitioner for earning his livelihood for running his family needs and that the petitioner has no suitable accommodation available to him. Respondent no.1 replied in affirmative and sought 3 months to vacate the shop. Thereafter, on 05.01.2010, the petitioner came to Delhi and went to the shop where he met with respondent and surprised to hear that respondent no. 2 was claiming himself to be the tenant of the shop, however, nowhere respondent no. 2 was given shop by the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner went to the house of respondent no. 1 and asked for the keys RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 3 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.04.05 15:51:21 +0530 of the shop but he refused to do the same and has showed some papers related to a case pending between respondent no. 1 and 2 in the Court. It is further stated that respondent no. 1 and 2 in connivance with each other are trying to grab the shop under the grab of fictitious litigation and respondent no. 1 has unauthorizedly sub-let the shop to respondent no. 2 without any authority and consent of the landlord.
(5) Hence, the petitioner has filed the present eviction petition seeking eviction order with cost in favour of petitioner and thereby directing the respondents to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. K-1/17, situated at D.D. Market/Shivaji Market, Mangolpuri, Delhi-83.
LEAVE TO DEFEND (6) After service of summons, the leave to defend was filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 which was allowed vide order dt. 03.08.2012.
CASE OF THE RESPONDENTS (7) In the written statement filed by the respondent no. 1, the respondent no. 1 admitted that the petitioner is the landlord and owner of the shop bearing no. K-1/17, situated at D.D. Market/Shivaji Market, Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 and that the petitioner had purchased the said shop from Sh.
RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 4 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:51:27 +0530 Vinod Kumar on 18.02.2000 vide agreement to sell, GPA and will duly registered with Sub Registrar-VI of North West District. It is further stated that respondent no.1 being a relative of petitioner was inducted as a tenant under the tenancy of petitioner herein since 2001 at a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- and he always promised the petitioner to vacate the shop as and when required by the petitioner. It is further stated that the answering respondent gave the shop to respondent No. 2 for his personal use for some period in the year 2005 on his own without informing this to petitioner herein at a rent of Rs. 500/- which was gradually increased to 1200/- in the year 2010 and the shop was given to respondent No.2 on his promise to vacate the same as and when required by the respondent no.1. It is further stated that in the month of September, 2010, the petitioner asked the respondent no.1 to vacate the premises for his bonafide requirement of settling down in Delhi as he has no other property in Delhi and the said respondent promised to vacate the premises till 31 December, 2010, however, the respondent No. 2 asked for some more time to vacate the premises. It is further stated that respondent No.2 did not vacate the shop and neither is he paying rent to the answering respondent nor to the owner of the shop i.e. petitioner herein. It is further stated that the answering respondent has no intention to possess the shop which has been required by the petitioner herein and he has already vacated the shop but the respondent no.2 who was inducted as sub tenant is not vacating the same.
(8) In the written statement filed by the respondent no. 2, respondent no.
2 has denied the contentions of the petitioner in toto. It is stated by RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 5 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.04.05 15:51:33 +0530 respondent no. 2 that the petitioner is neither the landlord nor the owner of the suit property and that there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 and that respondent no. 2 has been never been the tenant of the petitioner and the petitioner is only a stranger to the respondent no. 2. It is further stated that the present petition is barred by the principle of res-judicata u/s 11 of CPC and further barred under Section 12 of the CPC as a suit no. 09/11 titled as "Govind Versus Gyan Singh" has already been decided in favour of the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 16.07.2011 passed by the Hon'ble Court of Sh. Ashutosh Kumar, SCJ-
Cum-RC North West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
(9) It is further stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 so the question of payment any rent does not arise and that respondent no. 2 was inducted as a tenant by the respondent no. 1 in the shop bearing No.K-1/17, DDA Market/Shivaji Market, Mangolpuri, Delhi-110083 at a monthly rent of Rs.200/- besides electricity charges in the year Jan 2000 and thereafter the respondent no. 1 had increased the rent from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/- p.m. then Rs. 600/- and now the rent has been increased to Rs. 800/- p.m. besides electricity charges w.e.f. 1 Jan, 2010 and since then the respondent no. 2 has been continuously paying the rent to respondent no. 1 and electricity charges are being paid to the electricity company i.e. NDPL directly by the respondent no. 2. It is further stated that as the petitioner has never purchased the suit property by virtue of legal and authentic documents, all the above referred documents referred by him are totally RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 6 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:51:39 +0530 forged and fictitious documents manufactured by the petitioner with malafide intention to harass the respondent no. 2 for the purpose of extorting money from him and all the above referred documents referred by him are void ab-initio and against the public policy and are forbidden by law under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the said documents are not enforceable in law. It is further stated that the petitioner has failed to prove that he has let out the suit property to the respondent no. 1 at any point of time and he has also failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the respondent no.1 has been his tenant in the suit property at any point of time. It is therefore prayed that the eviction petition of the petitioner be dismissed.
REPLICATION (10) The petitioner filed a replication wherein the petitioner denied the contentions raised by the respondents in the Written Statement and reiterated the submissions made in the petition.
EVIDENCE LEAD BY PETITIONER (11) In order to prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the petition and relied upon the following documents:-
RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 7 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:51:44 +0530
(i) Site plan of the suit property i.e. Ex. PW1/1;
(ii) Agreement to Sell i.e. Ex. PW1/2;
(iii) General Power of Attorney Ex. PW1/3;
(iv) Will i.e. Ex. PW-1/4;
(v) Copy of petition bearing CS no. 9/11 i.e. Ex. PW-1/5;
(vi) Copy of his Election ID card i.e. Ex. PW-1/6;
(vii) Eviction petition i.e. Ex. PW-1/7.
PW-1 was not cross-examined by counsel for respondent no. 1 despite opportunity given but he was duly cross-examined by counsel for respondent no. 2.
(12) The petitioner also examined Sh. Ravinder Kumar, UDC, Sub Registrar, Pitampura, Delhi as PW-2. PW-2 produced the Will registered vide Registration no. 8955 in Addl. Book no. III, Volume No. 1214 on pages 189 dt. 18.02.2000 and the same was already exhibited as Ex. PW-1/4(OSR) in the testimony of PW-1. He also brought the registered GPA, which is already exhibited as PW-1/3 and stated that the original GPA placed in the court file is same which is available in the record of the office of Sub-Registrar, Pitampura, and the same was registered vide registration no. 8804 in additional book no. IV, Vol. No. 3022(page no. 94-
96) and the same is tallied and found to be correct. PW-2 was not cross- examined by counsel for respondent no. 1 despite opportunity given. PW-2 was duly cross-examined by counsel for respondent no. 2.
(13) No other witness was summoned or examined by the petitioner, thus, RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 8 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:51:50 +0530 PE was closed on 25.01.2014 and matter was listed for Respondent Evidence.
(14) Respondent no. 1 examined himself as RW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex. RW-1/1. RW-1 was duly cross-
examined by counsel for the petitioner. RW-1 was also cross-examined by counsel for respondent no. 2. RW-1 was confronted with statement in the civil suit i.e. Mark RP1; Written Statement filed by him i.e. Ex. RW-1/A; and the document Ex. RW-1/B. No other witness was examined by RW-1 and he closed his evidence on 23.08.2014.
(15) In order to prove his case, respondent no. 2 has also examined himself as RW-2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex. R2/W1/A1. RW-2 relied upon following documents :
(I) Copy of order dt. 16.07.2011 and statement i.e. Ex.
R2/W-1/1(colly);
(ii) Order dt. 03.08.2012 i.e. R2/W-1/2;
RW-2 was duly cross-examined by counsel for the petitioner. RW-2 was not cross-examined by counsel for respondent no. 1 despite opportunity given.
(16) No other witness was summoned or examined by the respondent, accordingly RE was closed and matter was listed for final arguments.
RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 9 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:51:59 +0530 (17) Final arguments were heard on behalf of both parties and matter was reserved for judgment. The Court has perused all the citations/judgments filed by the parties.
FINDINGS (18) Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bona-fide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. In order to succeed in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord/petitioner is required to establish three conditions:-
i. The petitioner must be the owner/landlord of the suit permises ii. The tenanted premises must be bonafidely required by the landlord either for himself or for his family members iii. There is no other alternate suitable accommodation available with the landlord.
(19) The thresholds herein above are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP (20) In the present matter, the petitioner has contended that he is the RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 10 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:52:04 +0530 owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and that he had given the same on rent to respondent no. 1 in the year 2001. It is his case that the tenanted premises was further let out by respondent no. 1 to respondent no. 2 illegally and without his permission. Respondent no. 1 has admitted that the property was let out to him by the petitioner and that he further sub-let the property to respondent no.2 without the knowlege and permission of the petitioner. However, respondent no. 2 contends that he has no concern with petitioner no. 1 and that respondent no. 2 let out the shop in question to him. Therefore, it is seen that respondent no. 2 has admitted the relationship of landlord/tenant with respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 1 has in turn admitted the relationship of landlord/tenant with the petitioner. Thus, it can be discerned that respondent no. 2 though may not be having direct relationship of landlord/tenant with the petitioner but that he is drawing his title of tenant from respondent no. 1 who admits that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the shop in question. Once the respondent no. 2 has admitted that he is carrying on business from the tenanted premises in the capacity of being a tenant, he cannot be permitted to challenge the ownership/landlordship of the petitioner/landlord. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the definition of the "landlord" in Section 2
(e) of the DRC Act. As per Section 2 (e) of the DRC Act, "landlord"
means a person who, for the time being is receiving, or is entitled to receive, the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or on account of or on behalf of, or for the benefit of, any other person or as a trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person or who would so receive the rent or be entitled to receive the rent, if the premises were let to a tenant. Thus, from the definition, it is clear that a Rent Collector also falls RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 11 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:52:09 +0530 within the definition of landlord. Since the respondent has attorned to the petitioner through respondent no. 1 by tendering rent, therefore, the respondent no. 2 is estopped from denying the title of the petitioner or accepting the petitioner as his landlord. Furthermore, the respondent no. 2 has merely denied that the petitoner is the owner of the property in question, however, no averments have been made by respondent no. 2 as to who is the actual owner of the tenanted premises. Respondent no. 2 has merely challenged the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises without mentioning as to who the actual owner is. Such bald averments without any corroborating evidence does not help the case of the respondent in any manner. Moreover, an illegal sub-tenant cannot be permitted to challenge the title of the petitioner. In any case, the law is well settled that for the purposes of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner is not required to prove his absolute ownership.
(21) Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 has strongly argued that the present petition is a collusive petition filed by the petitioner in connivance with petitioner no. 1 as they are both related to each other. The Court does not find any merit in the said contention as the petitioner has fairly impleaded both respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 2 as parties in the present matter.
If the intention of the petitioner was to file a collusive suit, he would not have impleaded respondent no. 2 as party in the matter and could have obtained a decree from the Court against respondent no. 2 in his absence. Even otherwise, a sub-tenant does not have to be mandatorily impleaded as a necessary party in a suit filed by a landlord. The law on the subject is well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment titled as RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 12 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:52:15 +0530 Importers and Manufacturers Ltd. Vs. Pheroze Framroze Taraporewala and Ors. (1953 4 SCR 226) had held that in a suit for possession by the landlord against a tenant, sub-tenant is merely a proper party and not a necessary party. Further, in Rupchand Gupta Vs. Raghuvanshi Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. (1964 7 SCR 760), an ex-parte decree was passed in favour of landlord and against the tenant. An application for setting aside the decree was made by the sub-tenant by invoking the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by contending that the decree was collusive as the sub-tenant was not joined as party defendant. Repelling the said contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows :
"...........it is quite clear that the law does not require that the sub- lessee need be made a party. It has been rightly pointed out by the High Court that in all cases where the landlord institutes a suit against the lessee for possession of the land on the basis of a valid notice to quit served on the lessee and does not implead the sub-lessee as a party to the suit, the object, of the landlord is to eject the sub-lessee from the land in execution of the decree and such an object is quite legitimate. The decree in such a suit would bind the sub- lessee. This may act harshly on the sub-lessee; but this is a position well understood by him when he took the sublease. The law allows this and so the omission cannot be said to be an improper act."
(22) In view of the aforementioned law, it is clear that a sub-tenant is not a necessary party to the suit and thus it was not incumbent on the landlord to implead him in an eviction petition filed against the tenant. However, in the present case, the tenant as well as the sub-tenant have been impleaded by the petitioner and thus the averments that the present petition is a RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 13 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK Date:
MALIK 2025.04.05 15:52:21 +0530 collusive one is not substantiated in any manner. The Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2 has placed on record number of judgments on the lines that any any judgment/order obtained by supressing material facts and through fraud are not valid. However, as observed above the Court does not find that any such supression of material facts has been done by the petitioner in the instant case.
(23) Accordingly, it has been established that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and that the respondent is the tenant in the premises in question. Thus, the first ingredient for succeeding in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act stands fulfilled.
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOMODATION (24) Moving forward, in order to succeed in his petition, the petitioner is required to establish his bonafide need as well as that there is no other suitable accommodation. Since, both the issues are inter-connected, they shall be dealt with simultaneously for consideration. In respect of bonafide need of the petitioner, it has been duly settled by a catena of judgments including Mrs. Meenal Eknath Vs. Traders & Agencies (1996) 5SCC 344, R.C. Tamrakar Vs. Nidhi Lekha (2001) 8 SCC 431 and Raghvendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. (2001) 1 SCC 679 that once a landlord has stated that he/she requires the tenanted property for a particular use, the Courts are obliged to believe the statement to be true and genuine, unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent material that the RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 14 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.04.05 15:52:28 +0530 requirement is fanciful or whimsical.
(25) In any event, it is a settled law that the Court must presume the bona fide requirement of the landlord. Additionally, the burden to refute the said presumption squarely lies on the tenant and the mere assertion on part of the tenant is insufficient. Reference can be made to Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119 and Baldev Singh Bajwa v.
Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778. Tenant is to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary material. A mere assertion of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption, that the need is real and genuine, in the landlord's favour.
(26) In view of the above-stated position, the Court shall now procced to discuss the case in hand. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner required the shop in question to run his own business as he wants to settle in Delhi. It is his case that the premises are required for the purpose of earning livelihood and for fulfilling the needs of the family of the petitioner and the same cannot be done without the premises being vacated. The petitioner was cross-examined at length by counsel for respondent no. 2 but in the entire cross-examination, the bonafide need of the petitioner was not questioned by him. The entire cross-examination was limited to the question as to whether the relationship of landlord-tenant existed between the parties and whether the petitioner was the owner of the tenanted premises. The onus was on the respondent to establish that the premises was not bonafidely required by the petitioner, however, only vague suggestions have been given by counsel for the respondent no. 2 to RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 15 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.04.05 15:52:33 +0530 the petitioner in his cross-examination. Further, it is a matter of record that the petitioner expired on 22.07.2016 and thereafter his LRs were impleaded in the present matter. Once, the LRs of the deceased petitioner were impleaded in the present matter vide order dt. 28.08.2023, it is implied that the bonafide requirement for which the property in question was required by the petitioner subsisted and that the property was therafter require bonfidely by the LR's for their needs. The reply filed by the respondent no. 2 to the application for impleadment of LRs of the petitioner has also been perused. The said reply does not anywhere question the bonafide requirement of the LRs of the petitioner. Infact, the order of impleadment of LRs of petitioner dt. 28.08.2023 was also challenged before the Ld. Principal District and Sessions Judge, North- West, Rohini, Delhi. However, the said order was upheld by the Ld. Appellate Court. Even before the Ld. Appellate Court, no objection has been raised by respondent no. 2 qua the existence of bonafide requirement of the LRs of the petitioner. Therefore, it is clear that respondent no. 2 has not challenged the bonafide requirement of the petitioner/his LRs at any point of time. Even otherwise, it is clear from the record that the petitioner required the tenanted premises for the purpose of running his business/shop for the purpose of earning livelihood for his family. Once the petitioner expired, the need of the family does not cease to exist and the shop can be run by his wife/other family members for earning their livelihood.
(27) As discussed earlier, it is not for the respondent/tenant to direct the landlord as to how he must use his own property. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4244 of 2006 titled as "Dinesh Kumar Vs. Yusuf Ali"
RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 16 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:52:40 +0530 AIR 2010SC 2679 and Honorable High Court of Delhi in R.C. REV.307/2018 titled as "Simarjit Singh Vs. Balbir Singh"
252(2018)DLT737 and in R.C. REV No.588/2015 titled as "Subhash Chander Rana Vs. Jitender Verma" and many other similar cases, has held that the landlord is the best judge of his own needs and cannot be mandated and dictated by the tenants as to how he should adjust himself in his own accommodation, in order to satisfy his need instead of seeking eviction from the tenant.
(28) Accordingly, it can be said that the LR's of the petitioner bonafidely require the tenanted premises for running of a business by them for earning their livelihood. Thus, the second ingredient for succeeding in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act stands fulfilled.
(29) With regard to the contention that the petitioner has alternative accommodation, it is well settled proposition of law that it is not sufficient that any kind of property be available to the petitioner/landlord to rule out the benefit of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. Rather, the property available with the petitioner/landlord should also be a reasonably suited property keeping in mind the needs of the petitioner/landlord. In light of the above, the contentions of the respondent shall now be considered.
(30) Respondent no. 2 in his WS or in his evidence by way of affidavit has not mentioned the details of any additional accommodation, which is available with the petitioner/LRs of the petitioner to carry on any business. Moroever, even in the cross-examination of the petitioner, no such RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 17 of 19 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:52:46 +0530 suggestion has been put to him that he has an alternative accomodation for running of business. Therefore, respondent no. 2 has not raised the issue of an altenative accomodation being available with pettioner/LR's of the petitioner at any point of time. Thus, it is crystal clear that no material has been brought on record by the respondent to raise a suspicion that the petitioner/LRs of the petitioner have alternative accommodation in their ownership which can be used by them for their bonafide need. Accordingly, it can be said that no other alternate suitable accommodation is available with the landlord for running of a business. Thus, the third ingredient for succeeding in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act stands fulfilled.
RELIEF (31) In view of the discussion above, the eviction petition is consequently allowed and it is directed that both the respondents/tenants shall handover the vacant possession of tenanted premises i.e. Shop bearing no. K-1/17, situated at D.D. Market/Shivaji Market, Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 to the petitioner.
(32) No order as to costs.
(33) In view of the provisions of Section 14 (7) DRC Act, 1958, this order for recovery for possession shall not be executed before expiration of a period of 6 months from this date.
RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 18 of 19 (34) Since nothing else survives, file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.04.05 15:52:53 +0530 (Mansi Malik) ACJ/ARC/North-West Rohini District Courts/Delhi 05.04.2025 RC ARC 1/2011 5396/16 MAHESH CHANDER Vs. GYAN SINGH Page 19 of 19