Delhi District Court
Usha Sachdeva vs Khadi Gramudyog Bhavan on 13 May, 2025
RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARJINDER KAUR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-2 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No: 78270/2016
Usha Sachdeva
W/o Late Sh. Krishna Sachdeva
(since deceased)
Through her legal heirs:
I. Hemant Sachdeva - son
II. Jatin Sachdeva - son
III.Smt. Shruti Sachdeva - daughter-in-law
(wife of late Amit Sachdeva)
IV. Hitashi Sachdeva - grand daughter
(minor daughter of late Amit Sachdeva)
V. Soham Sachdeva - Grand - son
VI. (minor son of late Amit Sachdeva)
Both legal heirs no. (iv) and (v)
Through their mother/ natural guardian/ next friend
Smt. Shruti Sachdeva
All R/o 110098/A, Doriwalan, East Park Road
Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005
..... Petitioners
VERSUS
Khadi Gramadyog Bhavan
Through its Administrator/
Commissioner/ Principal Officer
(Arjinder Kaur)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
13.05.2025 Page no.1 of 15
RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan
24, Regal Building
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi -110002
Also at:-
Basement forming part of
Property no. 110098/A, Doriwalan, East Park Road
Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005
.... Respondent
***********
Date of Filing of petition : 02.09.2015
Date of reserving judgment : 13.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 13.05.2025
Decision of petition : Allowed
***********
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are that the petitioner filed the present petition under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of basement forming part of property bearing no. 11098/A, Doriwalan, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi -110005 as shown in red colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises").
THE PETITION
2. The petition was originally filed by Smt. Usha Sachdeva pleading that the tenanted premises is bonafide required (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.2 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan for starting business by her daughter in law Smt. Shruti Sachdeva as she is totally dependent upon the petitioner after the death of her husband Sh. Amit Sachdeva and has two minor children whose upbringing she has to take care of. During the pendency of proceedings original petitioner expired and her legal heirs were impleaded. Thus, the eviction of respondent from tenanted premises has been prayed for.
THE WRITTEN STATEMENT
3. The respondents through the written statement denied the claim of the petitioner mainly on the ground that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation available and has filed incorrect site plan to conceal the available accommodation.
REPLICATION
4. Replication/ rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to each written statement of the respondents, wherein the averments made in the petition have been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondent in the written statement has been vehemently denied as false.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER
5. PW-1 Hemant Sachdeva had tendered affidavit Ex. PW-1/A in his evidence and relied upon following documents in his evidence:-
Ex. PW 1/2 site plan.
Ex. PW 1/3 copy of letter dated 27.03.2014. Ex. PW 1/4 rent receipt.
Ex. PW1/5 & PW1/8(OSR) copies of election cards. Ex. PW1/6(OSR) (Colly) copy of relinquishment deed dated (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.3 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan 28.02.2007.
Ex. PW1/7(OSR) (Colly) copy of sale deed dated 17.09.1973.
Ex. PW1/9(OSR) (Colly) copies of certificate of pranatherapy and rikei.
5.1 PW-2 Shruti Sachdeva had tendered affidavit Ex. PW-2/A in his evidence and relied upon following documents in his evidence:-
Ex. PW1/6(OSR) (Colly) copy of
relinquishment deed dated 28.02.2007.
Ex. PW1/7(OSR) (Colly) copy of sale deed
dated 17.09.1973
Ex. PW2/8 (OSR) copy of election card.
Ex. PW2/9 certificate of pranatherapy and
rikei.
5.2 Vide order dated 04.10.2023, evidence on behalf of
petitioner was closed in affirmative.
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT
6. Sh. Raghvendra Vijay Mahindrakar, Director General Manager, Khadi and village Industries Commission appeared as RW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1/1A bearing his signatures at point A & B. 6.1 Vide order dated 19.03.2025, RE was closed.
ARGUMENTS
7. I have heard the arguments at length and have also carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents and material on record and case law relied upon.
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.4 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan REASONING AND ANALYSIS
8. 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:
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."
9. 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.
10. Let us now discuss the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act one by one as applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
I. OWNERSHIP & LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
11. As stated in the petition the petitioner is the owner and landlord of the property bearing no. 11098/A, Doriwalan, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi -05, which was originally owned by her father-in-law Sh. Matwal Chand Sachdeva who had purchased (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.5 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan one third share of the said property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 07.09.1973 from its previous owners. Sh. Matwal Chand Sachdev died intestate on 02.07.1981 leaving behind his wife Smt. Suhagwanti Sachdev, his only son Krishan Lal Sachdev and only daughter Krishna Bhutani. Smt. Suhagwanti expired on 05.11.2000 leaving behind son Krishan Lal Sachdeva and daughter Krishna Bhutani. Sh. Krishan Lal Sachdeva expired on 23.03.2002 leaving behind wife Usha Sachdev, the petitioner herein, and sons Amit Sachdeva, Hemant Sachdeva and Jatin Sachdeva. Thereafter all the legal heirs of Sh. Krishan Sachdeva including his sister Krishna Bhutani executed a relinquishment deed in favor of the petitioner registered on 28.02.2007 by virtue of which the petitioner became the sole, absolute and exclusive owner of 1/3rd share in the above said property. 11.1 As per the written statement of the respondent none of the above said facts have been denied by the respondent except to the extent of ownership of the petitioner which has been denied only on the ground that correct and full document conferring alleged ownership right upon the petitioner have not been filed and as such the petitioner has failed to show her ownership. 11.2 From the petitioner side, Sh. Hemant Sachdeva, son of the petitioner appeared as PW-1 and deposed through his affidavit Ex. PW-1/A. He reiterated the averments made in the petition regarding the ownership of the petitioner and relied upon copy of relinquishment deed dated 28.02.2007 Ex. PW1/6 OSR (colly.) and copy of sale deed dated 07.09.1973 Ex. PW1/7 (colly.) (OSR). None of the depositions made by PW1 and (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.6 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan documents relied upon by him regarding ownership of the petitioner have been disputed or challenged by the respondent, either during cross examination of PW-1 or through respondent evidence.
11.3 Further, Smt. Shruti Sachdeva, w/o late Sh. Amit Sachdeva, while deposing as PW2, also reiterated the averments made in the petition regarding the ownership of the petitioner and remained unrebutted in her cross examination in this regard. Thus, evidently the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises stands established.
11.4 As stated in the petition and as deposed by PW-1 and PW-2 the respondent is tenant in the basement forming part of the property no. 11088/A, Doriwalan, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05 show in red color in the site plan Ex. PW1/2. The said fact has not been denied by the respondent in written statement. Neither the same has been disputed or challenged, either during the cross examination of the PWs or through the respondent evidence. Thus, the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent also stands established.
II. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT & ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION
12. As stated in the petition, one of the sons of the petitioner namely Sh. Amit Sachdeva expired on 12.05.2012 leaving behind his wife namely Shruti Sachdeva and two children namely Hitashi (14 years) and Soham (8 years) as his legal heirs and now they are fully dependent upon the petitioner. That since Smt. Shruti Sachdeva is not having sufficient source of income, (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.7 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan therefore, for the future upbringing of her children she wants to start her own business. It is further stated that Smt. Shruti Sachdeva is expert in reiki and has also obtained Masters and Grand Masters in the reiki method of natural healing and has also received a certificate from Indian Institute of Holistic Health, New Delhi. It is further stated that she has also completed second level of Pranaherapy. It is further stated that it is comfortable to run the said profession at the open spacious place which is situated at the basement being easily accessible to the old persons. That as such the requirement of the basement premises for the daughter in law of the petitioner is necessary as the tenanted premises is very suitable for the said purpose. It is further stated that the petitioner has no other suitable reasonable accommodation available with her in the entire Delhi. It is further stated that Smt. Shruti Sachdeva is doing her advanced level of Pranatherapy classes from Karuna Wellness which is also situated at basement portion of A-105, Defence Colony, New Delhi.
12.1 Through the written statement the respondent has not denied the bonafide need stated in the petition and has just pleaded that the petitioner already has more than sufficient accommodation available to her to fulfill the stated need of her daughter in law.
12.2 To prove the averments made in the petition, Sh. Hemant Sachdeva deposed as PW1 that the tenanted premises is bonafide required by Smt. Shruti Sachdeva to start her business of reiki for the upbringing of children as her husband Sh. Amit Sachdeva has expired and she was completely dependent upon the (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.8 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan petitioner for accommodation to start her business. He further reiterated about the qualification and courses done by Smt. Shruti Sachdeva as sated in the petition. Though the respondent had not challenged the qualification of Smt. Shruti Sachdeva in pleadings but perusal of cross examination of PW1 and PW2 shows that certain questions were asked disputing her qualification on the ground that the Karuna Wellness which issued certificate Ex. PW1/9 (colly) and Insights Institute of Holistic Health are not approved by the government to grant such type certificates. However, this court is of the considered opinion that this fact is irrelevant for the purpose of deciding eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement. The law is well settled in this regard that a person for whose Bonafide need the eviction is being sought need not have any experience or qualification in the business he/she is intending to start. (Ram Babu Aggarwal vs. Jay Kishan Das 2009(2) RCR 455) 12.3 Further perusal of cross examination of PWs show that the impending Bonafide need of Smt. Shruti Sachdeva due to death of her husband Sh. Amit Sachdeva has nowhere been disputed or questioned by the respondent. The only defense of the respondent has been that the petitioner has sufficient accommodation available and has not properly shown the available accommodation in the site plan. 12.4 It is to be noted that the petitioner has mentioned in the petition itself that the basement of the property is best suited for the requirement of Smt. Shruti Sachdeva and admittedly the upper floors of the property are being used as residence by (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.9 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan families of three sons of the petitioner, it is only the space available in the basement floor that shall be considered for determining if reasonably suitable accommodation is available to the petitioner since it is a trite law that the suitability of the premises shall be decided as per the convenience of the landlord and the tenant cannot dictate the landlord to use his property in way or the other in order to accommodate the tenant. In the case titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT 652 it was observed that:-
"24. 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.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement".
12.5 Regarding the basement floor it is pleaded by the respondent through the written statement that as per sub-para 6 of para 18(a) of the eviction petition itself that the respondent was inducted as a tenant in respect of part of basement measuring 500 square yards however in the site plan filed by the petitioner the length and the width of the premises has been given as 82 ft. and 23 ft. 9 inches which is 216.1 square yards only and the remaining portion of the tenanted premises has been taken over by the petitioner and the petitioner has failed to hand over the same to the respondent despite repeated demands by the respondent. It is (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.10 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan further pleaded that the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect and does not show the correct position of the tenanted premises. It is also pleaded that the petitioner has intentionally concealed and not filed the tenancy agreement entered into between the parties which is in possession of the petitioner.
12.6 PW1 through his evidence affidavit Ex. PW1/A deposed that the respondent is trying to twist the facts that the respondent is a tenant in respect of 500 sq. yards of the basement whereas the petitioner has clearly mentioned in the petition that the respondent is a tenant in respect of part of basement measuring 500 sq. yards and the said tenanted premises is more clearly shown in red color in the site plan attached with the petition. It is further deposed that the small portion of the basement which is in the possession of the petitioner is being used as godown. PW2 also deposed on the similar lines.
12.7 During cross examination of the PW1 on 16.07.2016 it is stated that "it is correct that the total area of the basement is approximately 500 sq. yards." This suggestion in itself implies admission on the part of the respondent to the effect that the total area of basement is 500 sq. yards. Further the PW1 was confronted with contents of para 18(1)6 of the petition to which he submitted that the part of same is not correct and voluntarily stated that "there are certain words missing i.e. part of 500 sq. yds. of the basement."
12.8 Further in cross examination dated 30.10.2018 PW1 stated that "it is wrong to suggest that the area of 500 sq yds was letout by my grandfather to the respondent. Vol. only the part (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.11 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan mentioned in the site plan was let out." During the course of cross examination of the PW1 it has come on record that 40-50 sq yds of the basement area on the front side is in the possession of the petitioners and the same is being used by the petitioner as godown. This fact has not been disputed by the respondent. There is no suggestion to the contrary in the entire cross examination of the PWs. It has also come on record that back portion of the basement is under tenancy of M/S J. K. sales Corporation. 12.9 In respondent evidence, Sh. Raghvendra Vijay Mahindrakar, Director General Manager, Khadi and village Industries Commission appeared as RW1. None of the pleas mentioned in the written statement of the respondent have been proved by RW1. He has just vaguely deposed that the site plan filed by the petitioner is incorrect and petitioner already has sufficient accommodation available to her. No detail of any allegedly reasonably suitable accommodation available to the petitioner has been disclosed in the affidavit of RW1. During his cross examination dated 19.03.2025, RW1 admitted that he never visited the suit property and he is deposing on the basis of records available in the office of the respondent. He also admitted having not checked the office records prior to filing of the evidence. He further admitted that there is no other site plan available on the record of the respondent on the basis of which the site plan of the petitioner is being alleged as incorrect. He further stated that he does not know as to how many members are there in the family of the petitioner and he is also not aware about the genuine Bonafide need of the petitioner.
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.12 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan 12.10 It is also pertinent to note that respondent has not denied the need stated by the petitioner and has just emphasized on the issue that petitioner has sufficient and suitable alternative accomodation to fulfill his need. Here it is important to quote the following observation made in "Shri Satish Chand Vs. Girdhar Gopal Gupta decided on 10.01.2023 as under:-
"......21. In the present petition there is no plea challenging the finding of the Trial Court with respect to the bona fide need of the landlord and his son addressed during the arguments. It is not disputed that Sh. Amit Gupta, son of the landlord is carrying on business and therefore the contention of the landlord that he needs the tenanted premises for his son's business stands sufficiently established on record.
22. As per Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord/landlady, is required to prove his/her bona fide need for the tenanted premises as well as that he/she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation, to satisfy their requirement. However, recently the Supreme Court in Abid-Ul-Islam (Supra) has held that in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the Court is concerned only with the requirement of a bonafide need and that the plea of alternative accommodation is 'incidental one' at best. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment read as under:
"29. Section 14(1)(e) deals with only the requirement of a bona fide purpose. The contention regarding alternative accommodation can at best be only an incidental one. Such a requirement has not been found to be incorrect by the High Court, though it is not even open to it to do so, in view of the limited jurisdiction which it was supposed to exercise. Therefore, the very basis upon which the revision was allowed is obviously wrong being contrary to the very provision contained in Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B(8)."
The word 'incidental' as defined in the Oxford dictionary, sixth edition, refers to 'occurring as something casual or of secondary importance'. This would mean that availability of alternate accommodation should not become the decisive or pivotal factor in eviction proceedings. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, once a landlord/landlady (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.13 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan has sufficiently established his/her plea of bona fide need, the mere availability of alternate accommodation at the disposal of the landlord/landlady is but a secondary factor and not a primary one and therefore the same cannot become the sole basis for permitting the tenant to retain the tenanted accommodation to the peril of the landlord/landlady, particularly once the other factors entitling him/her to recovery the premises have been established. The landlord/landlady having duly disclosed the alternate available accommodation and having reasonably explained that the same are not adequately suitable for his/her requirement, the fact that tenant contends that the said alternate accommodation is suitable cannot detain the Court from passing the eviction order. The Court will reject the explanation offered by the landlord/landlady with respect to the unsuitability of the alternate accommodation only if it is perverse, however the Court need not substitute the preference for tenanted premises shown by landlord/landlady with the dictates of the tenant. The preference shown by landlord/landlady for the possession of the tenanted premises vis-à-vis another alternative accommodation available to him/her cannot be rejected on the say-so of the tenant so as to set at naught the salutary purpose of Section 25B of the DRC Act. [The Technological Institute of Textiles and Sciences v. M/s Shree Nath Ji Developers, RC. REV. 174/2020]....".
12.11 Therefore, in view of the above discussion, in the light of above cited judgments, pleadings, evidence and the entire material placed on record, the respondents miserably failed to prove on record that the petitioner has any other alternate reasonable suitable accommodation to satisfy bonafide need of the petitioner. Therefore, it can be said that no other reasonable suitable alternate accommodation is available with the petitioner.
CONCLUSION
13. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, the petitioner is 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 is allowed. Petitioners are held (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.14 of 15 RC ARC No. 78270/2016 Usha Sachdeva Khadi Gramodyog of Bhawan entitled for recovery of the suit premises i.e. basement forming part of property bearing no. 11098/A, Doriwalan, East Park Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi -110005 as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. However, the petitioners would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of 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.
14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
15. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 13.05.2025 (ARJINDER KAUR) Additional Rent Controller-02, Central District, THC, Delhi (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 13.05.2025 Page no.15 of 15