Delhi District Court
Rajkumari vs Kherati Lal on 29 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA GUPTA, LD. ARC-02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
RC ARC No.480298/2016
CNR No. DLCT03-002283-2016
E - 427/17/16
Smt. Raj Kumari
W/o Late Sh. Ghanshyam Dass,
R/o E-16/915, Gali No.3,
Ganesh Gali, Tank Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005.
... Petitioner
VERSUS
Mr. Kherati Lal
Prop M/s Ganpati Garments
Shop No.3, E-16/915,
Ganesh Gali No.3,
Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
Through his legal heirs;
a) Smt. Raj Rani
W/o Late Sh. Kherati Lal
b) Sh. Ravi Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Kherati Lal
c) Sh. Amit Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Kherati Lal
d) Sh. Pankaj
S/o Late Sh. Kherati Lal Digitally
signed by
DIVYA DIVYA GUPTA
e) Smt. Anju GUPTA
Date:
2026.05.29
15:09:52
D/o Late Sh. Kherati Lal +0530
No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 1 / 35
All Resident of :
House No. 1085/30
New Chinyot Colony, Rohtak
Haryana- 124001
... Respondent
Date of Filing of petition : 20.01.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 28.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 29.05.2026
Decision of petition : Allowed
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with section 25-B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of premises i.e. Shop No. 3, E-16/915, Ganesh Gali no. 3,Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, as shown in 'red' color in the site plan annexed with petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises').
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT: -
2. It is pertinent to mention that after being served with the summons in the prescribed format, detailed application for leave to defend was filed on behalf of the respondent which was allowed by the court vide order dated 15.02.2018 and thereafter, WS was filed on behalf of the respondent and subsequently, No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 2 / 35 matter was fixed for evidence.
3. During proceedings, respondent expired on 07.07.2020 and LRs of deceased respondent were impleaded vide order dated 11.12.2023.
FACTS OF THE PETITION: -
4. Succinctly put, the facts of the petition as alleged by petitioner are as follows:
a. That the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises, i.e. Shop No.3, E-16/915, Ganesh Gali no. 3, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, which is being used by the Respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 730/- exclusive of electricity charges for running a garment shop under the name and style of M/s. Ganpati Garments since 01.10.1985, which was let out at a monthly rent of Rs.
350/-. The respondent from 1.06.2013 till July, 2014, intermittently has been tendering rent to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 730/- which was increased on 01.06.2013. b. That petitioner is a widow and does not have any source of income and is dependent upon the rentals of the tenanted premises but still the respondent has failed to No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 3 / 35 make the payment since July 2014. The petitioner cannot survive on the miniscule rentals and now needs the shop in question to start her own business from the said shop. It is averred that the petitioner on various occasions requested the respondent to vacate the tenanted shop but the respondent has neither tendered the rentals nor has vacated the property in question and already demand notice has been issued in that regard.
5. On the above stated grounds, the present eviction petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent for vacation of the tenanted premises.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
6. The petition has been contested by the respondent by way of written statement; wherein preliminary objections have been taken to the effect that the present petition is liable to be dismissed as the petitioner is not the owner of shop and that she does not have bonafide need and petitioner is in possession of various other commercial premises. It is pertinent to note that written statement was filed on 15.03.2018. Thereafter, upon an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC filed on behalf of respondent amended written statement was taken on record vide No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 4 / 35 order dated 27.09.2025 whereby it was pleaded that during trial, petitioner has got vacated shop no.4 through execution proceedings and shop no.2 by amicable settlement. The submissions of respondent, in brief, are as follows:
a. That petitioner is not the owner qua the tenanted premises, the land underneath the shop is acquired land by Union of India/DDA and is delivered to Ministry of Defence for installation of Wireless Experimental Centre. The Ministry of Defence is the owner of the land underneath the shop.
b. It is averred that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent has never paid the rent to the petitioner or her husband Late Sh. Ghanshyam Dass or her father-in-
law Late Sh. Charan Singh. The father-in-law and husband of the petitioner have never claimed themselves to be the owner or landlord qua the shop in question. It is submitted that the shop in question is part of Shiv Temple. The land underneath the shop is a part of Khasra No. 1422/662/364/2 of Village Sadora Khurd owned by No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 5 / 35 one Santosh. The Union of India vide its Notification No. F-15 (III)/59/LSG dated 13.11.1959 acquired 34070 Acres of land of Village Sadora Khurd and Chokri Mubarkabad for planned development of Delhi. The award No.1235 was passed on 30.10.1961 and the land owners were compensated by paying award. In the year 1976, the occupants of the area were evicted by DDA and were allotted alternative plot towards village Nangla Sakrawati, Najafgarh, Delhi.The area was fenced with wire and was given to Ministry of Defence for installation of Wifeless Experimental Centre.
c. When the Ministry of Defence did not use the land till 1979, the Sikh Residents with other Hindu Residents broke the fencing wire. The Sikh residents have constructed a Gurudwara and the Hindu residents have constructed one Barat Ghar and one Shiv Temple.
Alongwith Shiv Temple, six shops were also constructed. Sh. Charan Singh out of his influence got installed electricity connection for the supply of electricity in Barat Ghar and Shiv Temple as he was the head of Dhobi Samaj. The fact of acquisition of land by No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 6 / 35 Union of India came to the knowledge of the respondent through status report filed by Admin. Officer, Land & Estate Department of MCD in suit No.423/97 titled as Tersem Singh versus Mangal Singh and further from the written statement filed by DDA in suit No.43/2000 titled as Mangal Singh versus Satender Pal Singh and from the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 22.8.2007 passed in WP (C) 12404/2006 titled as Gurudwara Guru Singh Sabha Vs. DDA & Ors.
d. It is submitted that the petitioner has her own houses bearing E - 16/687-688, Bapa Nagar, Ganesh Gali, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. It is averred that the petitioner is in unauthorized possession of Barat Ghar.
The father- in- law of the petitioner Sh. Charan Singh shifted in the Barat Ghar during the renovation/ construction of his two houses, which are situated nearby bearing No. E- 16/687-688 and never vacated the same. Charan Singh was a very influential person, therefore, nobody could raise voice due to fear, for eviction of Barat Ghar from Charan Singh. After the No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 7 / 35 death of Charan Singh, the husband of the petitioner Sh.
Ghanshyam Dass raised some construction in Barat Ghar and after the death of Ghanshyam Dass, the petitioner raised the construction of 2 ½ storey building in the Barat Ghar and also constructed 18 shops bearing no. P-1 to P-18 on the lower ground and ground floor therein and let out the shops to the tenants. that shop no.
P-7 is lying vacant.
e. That on 01.10.1984, the respondent approached caretaker Sultan Singh for taking the shop. Sultan Singh directed Sh. Kailash Chand Sharma, the priest of the temple to receive Rs.5000/- as cost of the shop prevalent at that time and put in the donation box which was paid by the respondent in the donation box at the instance of Sultan Singh Care taker and no receipt was issued. In the same manner, the other occupants of the shop have also taken the shop and are running their business as an owner without title. The respondent was further putting Rs.50/- in the donation box for the maintenance of the temple and now days, the respondent is putting Rs.200/-
No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 8 / 35 in the donation box. The electricity is consumed from the one common electric meter installed in the temple.
f. That the respondent is occupying the shop in question as an owner without title since the year 1984 by donating the cost of the shop amounting to Rs.5000/- through Pt.
Kailash Chand Sharma in the donation box of the temple. It is submitted that the petitioner is getting rent more than Rs.60,000/- from 18 shops constructed in Barat Ghar, out of which shop No.P-7 is lying vacant and the petitioner can very well start her business from the said shop. Rest of the contentions of the petition have been denied in toto. It has been prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
REPLICATION
7. Replication has been filed on behalf of the petitioner to the written statement of the respondent, wherein the averments made in the petition have been reiterated whereas the defence taken by the respondents in the written statement has been vehemently denied as false.
No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 9 / 35
8. It is stated that the entire property bearing no. E-16/915, Ganesh Gali No.3, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 was owned by the late father-in-law (Late Sh. Charan Singh) of the petitioner and after his death the property has been bequeathed onto the four sons of Late Sh. Charan Singh and the petitioner is the wife of one his sons namely Late Sh. Ghanshyam Dass. After the demise of her husband, the ownership of property devolved upon the petitioner and she has been paying the House Tax qua the said property. It is stated that if the defence of the respondent is to be believed then he should establish why is he paying rent to the deity and why not the Government for using the subject land/shop. It is further submitted that the averments made with regard to Gurudwara are of no relevance to the present dispute.
9. It stated that the entire construction of the Mandir, electricity etc all was all done by Late Shri Charan Singh out of his own funds. It is admitted that Kailash Chand Sharma did not have any title documents in respect of suit property because property belongs to father-in-law of the petitioner. It is submitted that so named Pandit Shri Kailash Chand Sharma or Pandit Hukuma Chand Sharma, as alleged in the application seeking leave to defend, or No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 10 / 35 any other person never had any right to let out any property nor have any one else except the deceased husband of the Petitioner who had let out the subject property on a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. It is submitted that complete electricity fittings were provided by the husband of the petitioner while giving the subject property on rent to the respondent and the electricity meter was installed by the deceased father-in-law of the petitioner and later on it was transferred to the name of the husband of the petitioner.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER
10. The petitioner has examined Kailash Chand Sharma as PW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 was duly cross-examined on 06.04.2019 and discharged.
11.The petitioner has also examined Pandit Sh. Hukam Chand Sharma as PW-2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW-2/A. PW-2 was also duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent on 06.04.2019 and discharged. No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 11 / 35
12. The petitioner has got herself examined as PW-3 and tendered her evidence by way an affidavit which is Ex. PW-3/A and she relied upon following documents;
i. Ex.PW3/1: Site Plan.
ii. Ex.PW3/3: Photograph (objected as to mode of proof).
iii. Ex.PW3/4 (OSR): Copy of hand written note showing rent having been paid.
iv. Mark A: Copy of house tax receipt.
13. PW-3 was duly cross-examined on 03.09.2019 and 03.03.2020 and discharged. During her cross-examination, the petitioner placed on record documents i.e. power of attorney dated 29.12.2017 executed in her name by Harkaur Devi and others vide Ex.PW3/X1, settlement dated 30.12.2013 vide Ex.PW3/X2, receipts of MCD in the name of Charan Singh, Ghanshyam and the petitioner qua property E-16/915 vide Ex.PW3/X3 and electricity meter vide Ex.PW3/X4.
14. Vide order dated 23.10.2021, evidence on behalf of petitioner was closed.
No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 12 / 35 EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT:
15. The LR no. (b) Sh. Ravi Kumar examined himself as RW-1 and filed evidence by way of an affidavit which is Ex. RW-1/A and relied upon the Original Site Plan which is Ex. RW-1/1. RW-1 was duly cross-examined on 18.12.2023 and 31.08.2024.
16. Thereafter RW-1 tendered additional evidence affidavit which is Ex. RW-1/X and he relied upon Judgment dated 27.03.2025 in the matter of Raj Kumari vs Radhey Shayam Batra given by the Court of Ms. Arjinder ARC-02 (Central), THC/Delhi (Ex. RW1/2). RW-1 was further cross-examined on 13.10.2025 and was discharged and RE was closed on the same day.
17. Thereafter, in rebuttal evidence petitioner examined summoned witness Sh. Mukesh Kumar, GST Inspector as PW-4 who brough summoned record Ex. PW-4/1 (Colly) (running into 18 pages) as well as chart prepared by Mr. Harbans Lal, GST Officer Ex. PW-4/2 (Colly) (running into 4 pages). Thereafter, petitioner closed her rebuttal evidence on 22.01.2026. No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 13 / 35 ARGUMENTS
18. I have heard the arguments at length. I have also carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents and material on record and case law relied upon.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS
19. 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."
20. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish the following ingredients:
i. That he is the owner of the tenanted shop and there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 14 / 35 and the respondent.
ii. That tenanted shop is required bonafide by the petitioner for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
iii. That the petitioner does not have any other alternate, reasonable and suitable accommodation.
21. 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 AND LANDLORD TENANT
RELATIONSHIP: -
22. Petitioner while deposing through her evidence by way of an affidavit as PW-3 reiterated the facts of the petition and deposed that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises which is being used by the Respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 730/- exclusive of electricity charges for running a garment shop under the name and style of M/s. Ganpati Garments since 01.10.1985, which was let out at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/-. The respondent from 01.06.2013 till July, 2014, intermittently has been tendering rent to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 730/- No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 15 / 35 which was increased on 01.06. 2013.
23. Hence, it is contended by the petitioner that she is the owner of the property comprising of tenanted premises. By virtue of being an owner, she has exercised her right of eviction of the respondent being landlord thereof. These submissions of the petitioner have been refuted by the respondent.
24. PW-3/petitioner has filed on record copy of hand written note showing rent having been paid [Ex.PW3/4 (OSR)]; Copy of house tax receipt (Mark A) and a site plan (Ex. PW3/1).
25. Further in order to substantiate her case, the petitioner has placed on record receipts of MCD in the name of her father-in- law Late Sh. Charan Singh, her husband Late Sh. Ghanshyam and herself qua subject property bearing no. E-16/915 vide Ex.PW3/X3 and photocopy of electricity bill vide Ex.PW3/X4 in the name of Late Sh. Charan Singh. The said documents are not disputed by the respondent. It is also not disputed that Sh. Ghanshyam was the husband of petitioner and Late Sh. Charan Singh was the father-in-law of the petitioner. Whereas, there is nothing placed on record by the respondent to prove his title qua the subject matter except for marked documents which have remained unproved on record.
No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 16 / 35
26. It is also pertinent to mention that the respondent has changed his stand repeatedly. It has been stated by the respondent in his written statement that he took the tenanted premises from one priest namely Kailash Sharma at the cost of the shop to the tune of ₹5000 at the instance of care taker namely, Sh. Sultan. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that it is not the version of the respondent that he took the tenanted shop from its owner but caretaker thereof. Hence, in these circumstances, no title could have ever passed to the respondent by any stretch of imagination as caretaker cannot be assumed to be the owner thereof in the absence of any title documents in his favour. The respondent has then changed his stand and has deposed that the property in dispute belongs to the government and one Santosh Kumar.
27. A perusal of the cross-examination of the respondent further clears the picture as he has deposed contrarily that he is the owner of the subject property. There is nothing placed on record by the respondent in order to prove his title qua the subject property. He has deposed very clearly that in the name of No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 17 / 35 ownership of the shop he has only registration certificate of 1987. The original license issued under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1984 as deposed by him was never placed and proved on record. Then in contradiction to his earlier plea, he has testified that he has taken the tenanted shop from Shri Sultan Singh. Although it has been alleged by him that the subject shop is built on government land but he has not placed on record anything to prove the same. In fact, it has come in his deposition that he has not paid any money whatsoever till date to the government for occupation of the subject shop. Hence, the plea on behalf of the respondent that the subject property is a government land is totally meritless being contrary to his own case. Thereafter, the respondent has deposed that the Barat ghar is unauthorised as the land underneath it is unauthorized as the entire land was a military land and was occupied by various persons in parcels. He has deposed that the entire area of Bapa Nagar/Tank Road is unauthorised including the subject shop. But there is nothing on record to prove the same. It was urged on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner is in unauthorised possession of Barat Ghar and father-in-law of the petitioner namely Shri Charan Singh shifted to Bharat Ghar and failed to No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 18 / 35 vacate the same but there is nothing on record to prove the same.
28. Furthermore, it is also important to highlight one important contradiction of the respondent. The respondent in his written statement has submitted that he has taken the tenanted shop from one Kailash Chand Sharma whereas he has denied the same during his cross-examination and has voluntarily deposed that he has taken the same from Sultan Singh.
29. It is also important to mention that the petitioner has also examined Kailash Chand Sharma as PW1 who has categorically deposed that he does not know any Sultan Singh and he has not given any shop on rent. Hence, the version of the respondent is falsified by the testimony of this witness. The petitioner also examined Pandit Hukam Chand as PW2 who has also deposed on similar lines and submitted that he has never accepted the rent from the respondent.
30. It is also surprising to note that RW1 has deposed that Pandit Kailash Sharma has come after he had started working from the shop in question whereas he has stated in his written statement that he has taken the disputed shop by making payment to Pandit Kailash Chand Sharma. Hence, it is amply clear that this witness No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 19 / 35 is not speaking truth in this regard.
31. It is respondent's case that the tenanted shop was taken for ₹5000/- whereas, during his cross- examination he has deposed that he has paid ₹8000 to Shri Sultan Singh. No receipt was executed. Hence, there is nothing in writing to prove the said transaction. He has not even examined Shri Sultan Singh. Admittedly, the respondent has never paid any property tax with regard to the subject property and he has not even made any effort to get his name changed in the meter connection. The respondent has admitted that there is only one electricity meter for the six shops. It has been admitted by him that the meter has been purchased in the name of Ghanshyam Das. Then he has deposited he did not ask Ghanshyam Das to get the meter in his name but he did on his own. He has deposed that he did not make any police complaint or any other complain with regard to Ghanshyam Das having got the electricity meter in his name then he has voluntarily deposed that the electricity meter was burnt by the sons of Ghanshyam Das hence, he did not make any complaint. Clearly, the respondent has come out with a new version regarding electricity meter burning which is also beyond his pleadings. Hence, it is clear that there is nothing on record No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 20 / 35 to prove any title on behalf of the respondent. Whereas, the petitioner has proved that she has better claim than the respondent.
32. Moreover, the law regarding concept of 'ownership' under the DRC Act is different from the title suit under CPC. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162 a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows: -
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
33. In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court has specifically held that: -
"It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be.
No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 21 / 35 The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppel against such tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this respect".
34. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt. Ved Prabha & ors 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed: -
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
14.It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
35. In terms of Bansraj Lataprasad Mishra vs. Stanley Parker Jones (2006) 2 SCC 91, it is well-settled that for the purpose of seeking eviction, the landlady/landlord was only required to show that he was enjoying rights in respect of the subject premises and held better title than the tenant. In fact, vesting of absolute ownership is not a pre-requisite for adjudication of an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 22 / 35 landlord's ownership is good against the world except the true owner.
36. As far as the relationship of landlord or tenant is considered, same has been initially refused by the respondent but the in the cross- examination of the respondent he has categorically admitted that there was no specific person who had collected the donation for the construction of Barat Ghar. Thereafter, Rajkumari, Ghanshyam and Rakesh, son of Rajkumari gave the shop on rent. Thereafter, they started taking rent and they all paid rent till long time and stopped paying the rent after the case was filed. Meaning thereby that the respondent was making the payment of rent to the petitioner prior to the filing of the present petition.
37. It is a settled law that once a tenant always a tenant. section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, lays down as under: -
"116. Estoppel of tenant; and of licensee of person in possession.--No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession thereof, shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given."
No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 23 / 35
38. Hence, the petitioner has duly proved by preponderance of probabilities that she is the owner of the tenanted premises for the purpose of the present eviction petition and that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties to the present petition.
39. Therefore, relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent is not in question in any manner. As such, the ownership of petitioner and landlord tenant relationship between petitioner and respondent stands established.
II. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT: -
40. The Petitioner through her evidence affidavit Ex. PW-3/A, as PW3 reiterated her case and deposed that petitioner is a widow and does not have any source of income and is dependent upon the rentals of the tenanted premises but still the respondent has failed to make the payment since July 2014. The petitioner cannot survive on the miniscule rentals and now needs the tenanted premises to start her own business from the said shop. and has no other alternate suitable commercial accommodation.
41. It is observed that the law is very well settled that the No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 24 / 35 requirement of the landlord is to be presumed as genuine and, in this regard, reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Abid-Ur-Islam Vs Indersen Dua dated 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 that requirement of the landlord is bonafide......".
42. In the case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 100, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: -
"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 bona fide. 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 in 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."
No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 25 / 35
43. It is a settled law that that while deciding the question about bonafide need, Court would look into the broad aspects of the need. In the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision of Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, it was held 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 was a question of fact and should not be normally interfered with.
44. The bonafide need must be seen by the whole set of circumstances. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Siddharth Viyas v. Ravi Nath Misra, decided on 25.11.2014 that the context of bonafide need, that Rent Control Acts must be interpreted in balanced manner keeping in mind the interest of the landlord also. It has also been held that tenants as a class cannot be treated to be weaker section (Prabhakaran Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1987 SC 2117) hence sympathetic or equitable view in the favour of the respondent need not be taken.
45. It is trite law that the term 'need' or 'requirement' should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 26 / 35 landlord to get a decree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act.
46. In light of the references made above, it is clear that it is the prerogative of the landlord to utilize his premises the way he desires. He is entitled to assert that he requires the property for his own use or that of his family members.
47. The petitioner has contended that she requires the tenanted premises for herself to start her own business. Per contra, the bonafide need of the petitioner for has been contested by the respondent. It cannot be assumed that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide as nothing has been brought on record by the respondent to prove otherwise.
48. It was argued by learned counsel of the respondent that the present case is a classic case of self-induced lack of suitable accommodation. In order to see the landlord's bona fide one has only to see whether the landlord is seeking to get eviction for an ulterior purpose i.e. to let out the property for higher rent to someone else. However, said apprehension is already taken care of in the DRC Act itself by our legislative forefathers while enacting the laws who have already considered possibility of No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 27 / 35 misuse in the hands of unscrupulous landlords and thereby inserted Section 19 of DRC Act which reads as follows: -
"Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose 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."
49. Hence, if the requirement of landlord is not bonafide and if a landlord abuses the process of the court, obtains an order of eviction, subsequently lets out the property or sells the same, the tenant can always apply for restitution under section 19 of the DRC Act.
50. Hence, the evidence adduced by the respondent is not sufficient to strike out the bonafide need of the petitioner. The facts in hand show that the petitioner genuinely requires the tenanted shop for her own business as discussed above and therefore the bonafide need stands duly established by the petitioner. Once it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that need is really bonafide then adverse inference cannot be drawn. Hence, this court is of the view that need of the petitioner is No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 28 / 35 bonafide, which the petitioner has proved on record. III. AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATE REASONABLE SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION WITH THE PETITIONER.
51. It is well settled that the availability of alternative accommodation clause cannot be read literally and it does not mean that the landlord should have no other accommodation available. The need is to be seen with respect to the suitability of such accommodation for the said purpose of the tenant. The bar applies only when the accommodation available to the landlord is suitable. Reference be made to the decisions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Boorgu Jagadeshwaraiah v. Pushpa Trading Co., 1998 (5) SCC 572 and Rasik Auto Stores v. Navin V. Hantodkan, AIR 1999 SC 113. It was held in the case of in Bega Begum v. Abdul Ahad Khan (AIR 1979 SC 272 that the question as to whether in a given circumstance alternative accommodation is available or not is not a matter of which any judicial notice can be taken but is one which had to be proved by evidence as has been emphasized.
52. The burden lies on the respondent to prove the availability of an equally or more suitable premises. In the instant case, the No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 29 / 35 respondent has put forth nothing to substantiate this plea. Even for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the petitioner is having various other tenanted shop but that does not stop the petitioner from starting her own business. There is nothing on record to prove if there is another shop which is vacant and available to the petitioner but the petitioner has not availed the same for malafide reason. Mere contentions in this regard on behalf of the respondent are not sufficient without any iota evidence in this regard. Hence, these contentions on behalf of the respondent fails miserably being unsustainable.
53. It is argued by respondent that at present the shop bearing No. 2 and 4 have recently got vacated by petitioner and that same are available with petitioner for alleged bonafide need. Per contra it is argued on behalf of petitioner that said shop no.2 and 4 are grossly insufficient for the petitioner to start her own business.
54. During cross-examination dated 13.10.2025, RW-1 has deposed that he is not aware of the actual measurement of alleged shop no.2 and 4. It is observed that it is a settled law that mere availability of other alternate accommodation is itself not the decisive factor for denial of eviction proceedings by the No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 30 / 35 landlord, more so, since there are various factors like the size, location, access, purpose, viability, safety concerns, football, and/or like, amongst others which have/ are to be taken into consideration while dealing with the aspect of availability of alternate suitable accommodation. Reliance is placed upon case titled Shiv Sarup Gupta v Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222.
55. Moreover, admittedly three petitions with regard to three shops occupied by Mr. Devanand, Mr. Batra and respondent herein were filed together. Hence, need of petitioner since beginning, was of all three shops. Hence, Bonafide need of petitioner is not affected by the fact of vacation of other two shops as alleged.
56. Even otherwise, it can be observed that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord that how he should meet or fulfill his requirement. In this regard reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi 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 No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 31 / 35 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".
57.In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, at pg-2512 in para 14 & 15, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 which speaks of non- availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 32 / 35 of the landlord and his family members would be relevant fact Ors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come."
58. In the 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."
59. Further, in the eviction petition, the landlord need not disclose the alternate properties available to him if he is of the view that the alternate properties are unsuitable for him. The eviction petition is not a declaration or disclosure of all the immovable assets of the landlord and then and the exercise of sifting through the ones' which are or could be deemed to be suitable as alternate accommodation. For any property to be considered alternately available, it has first to be available, i.e. in possession of the landlord and capable of being put to immediate use; thereafter only the issue of its suitability for the No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 33 / 35 bona fide need arises. The landlord's discretion and prerogative in this regard cannot be questioned, except insofar as it is not whimsical, ex facie or shockingly unreasonable. Reliance is placed upon Babu Lal vs Atul Kumar & Anr. CRP NO. 147 of 2012 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
60. In view of the settled legal position, it is not for the respondent to dictate to the petitioner that he should use some other accommodation for their business, even if it is indeed available with the petitioner. The tenanted premises belong to the petitioner and it is for the petitioner to see whether it is suitable for his requirement or not. It is the right of the petitioner to choose a property which is going to be more profitable and convenient for bonafide need. If the tenanted premises is suitable as per his needs, the petitioner has every right to possess the said premises and the respondent cannot contend that the petitioner should manage their affairs otherwise. While deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted. Thus, the petitioner has successfully established alleged bonafide need and paucity of accommodation.
No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 34 / 35 CONCLUSION
61. 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. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e., Shop No. 3, E-16/915, Ganesh Gali no. 3, Tank Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan (Ex. PW-3/1) annexed with the petition. 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.
62. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
63. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by DIVYA This order contains 35 pages and DIVYA GUPTA each page has been signed by me) GUPTA Date: 2026.05.29 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Divya Gupta) 15:10:08 +0530 Today i.e. on 29.05.2026 ARC-02 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi No. 480298/16 Raj Kumari Vs. Kherati Lal 35 / 35