Delhi District Court
Ms. Kaushal Soni vs Sh. Anoop Kothari on 15 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHUPINDER SINGH, SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-
CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS, NEW DELHI
RC No. 01/19
1. Ms. Kaushal Soni,
W/o Late Sh. Brahm Dev Soni,
Through her SPA/son,
Sh. Vikram Soni,
s/o Late Sh. Brahm Dev Soni,
2. Sh. Vikram Soni,
s/o Late Sh. Brahm Dev Soni,
Both residents of:
C-32, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi-110015 .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Anoop Kothari,
S/o Late Sh. N.K. Kothari,
C/o Kothari & Associates
G-65, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi-110001
Also at :
A-25/32, Middle Circle,
Connaught Place, New Delhi
2. Sh. Roopak N. Kothari
S/o Late Sh. N.K. Kothari,
C/o Kothari & Associates
6, Sirifort Road,
New Delhi-110049
Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 1 of 21
Also at :
A-25/32, Middle Circle,
Connaught Place, New Delhi
3. Mrs. Kuleen Kothari
W/o Late Sh. Kuleen Kothari,
211, Golf Links,
New Delhi
Also at:
A-25/32, Middle Circle,
Connaught Place, New Delhi
4. Pavet Kothari
S/o Late Sh. Kuleen Kothari
211, Golf Links,
New Delhi
Also at:
A-25/32, Middle Circle,
Connaught Place, New Delhi
5. Mrs. Mala Madhukar Parekh
D/o Late Sh. N.K. Kothari,
Flat No. 41, 4th Floor, Landmark
17/138, Carmichael Road,
Mumbai-400026
Also at:
A-25/32, Middle Circle,
Connaught Place, New Delhi
Also at:
Regent Chambers, 7th Floor,
208, Nariman Point
Mumbai-400021
.... Respondents
Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 2 of 21
Date of Institution : 15.01.2019
Date of Order reserved : 10.10.2019
Date of Order : 15.10.2019
ORDER
1 Present eviction petition has been filed by petitioners Mrs. Kaushal Soni and Sh. Vikram Soni against the respondents Sh. Anoop Kothari & Ors. for eviction from the tenanted premises i.e. one shop bearing no. A-24/32, Municipal No. I-P/A-74 at A-Block, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 as shown in color red in the site plan annexed along with the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement under section 14(1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as DRC Act).
2 The case of petitioner is that the premises was let out for commercial purposes by the erstwhile owner of the said property. It is averred that in the year in 1999 the petitioner no. 1 alongwith her husband stepped in the show of the landlord vide registered Sale Deed dated 10.03.1999. That after demise of Sh. Brahm Dev Soni, husband of petitioner no. 1, the legal heirs of Late Sh. Brahm Dev Soni, relinquished their share in respect to the suit property in favour of petitioner no. 2 vide Relinquishment Deed dated 24.09.2012 and as such as such, the petitioner no. 1 and 2 are co-owners of the suit Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 3 of 21 property in equal ratio.
2.1 It is also submitted that the petitioners are landlords of the suit property i.e. shop no. A-25/32, Municipal No. I-P/A-74 at A-Block, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 wherein Late Sh. N.K. Kothari, was a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- per month excluding electricity and other charges. It is further averred that initially the premises was let out to Late Sh. N.K. Kothari and after his demise, his widow Smt. Laxmi Kothari became the tenant and after her demise in the year 2012, her LRs become the tenants in the suit premises. That one of the LR Roopak Kothari sent a letter on 16.04.2013 that he is paying advance rent being tenant in the suit premises on behalf of Late Laxmi N. Kothari i.e. his deceased mother. It is submitted that the premises in question was purchased by Late Sh. Brahm Dev Soni and Smt. Kaushal Soni W/o Late Sh. Brahm Dev Soni and father of Sh. Vikram Soni, who is co-owner with his mother, as after demise of his father, share of his father went to him vide Relinquishment Deed by LRs, and Sh. Vikram Soni is the attorney of petitioner no. 1. That the said property was purchased in the year 1999 vide Sale Deed dated 10.03.1999. Initially the said tenanted premises was let out to Late Sh. N.K. Kothari by the erstwhile owner of the said property and after purchase of the said property, the petitioner alongwith his son/SPA became the lawful admitted landlord of the suit property and was receiving the monthly rent of Rs. 40/- from Late Smt. Laxmi Kothari, Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 4 of 21 widow of Late Sh. N.K. Kothari till she died in the year 2012-2013. After demise of Smt. Laxmi Kothari, Sh. Anoop Kothari was paying the rent.
2.2 It is also averred that the petitioners who are mother and son, are the landlord of tenanted premises and requires the same for the bonafide requirement of petitioner no. 2 to set up his office to run the business of event management ie providing specialized services for Conference and Exhibitions with in house design studio for which the tenanted premises is the most suitable place as it is situated in a very prominent location with parking facilities. That the said location is conducive for petitioner's existing clients like British Council, German Academic Exchange Service and others and will fetch more clients to the petitioner. It is stated that the tenanted premises is the most suitable premises to run their business as it is situated in the middle circle Connaught Place and has front entrance admeasuring 12 x 36 ft. which is suitable to run business of event management. It is further stated that the petitioners have good reputation in the area and the tenanted premises in question is the most convenient, suitable place for the business of the petitioner, which is not only commercially viable place to set up but also safe, comfortable and secure. It is further stated that in the first floor ie A-25/56 and second floor ie A-25/63 of the premises bearing no. A-25/32, some tenants exists since 2015 and the said first floor and second floor is not suitable even for the petitioner no. 2 to run his business as entrance to the first floor is from rear side which is very Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 5 of 21 shoddy and in the rear side of the same, there are crap-junk dealers and mechanics.
2.3 It is also submitted that though the petitioners have following properties but the same are not suitable commercial property to run their business.
a. A-25/56, Ist floor, Block A, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi (commercial).
b. A-25/63, 2nd floor, Block A, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi (commercial).
c. A-25/57, 1st Floor, Block A, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi (commercial).
d. Terrace Floor, A -25/57, 2nd floor, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi (commercial).
e Space No. 206 and Space no. 205, both on 2nd & 3rd
LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 (commercial).
c. Hailey Lane, Shop No. 2, Fuel Depot, New Delhi
(leased with NDMC (commercial).
d. C-106/3, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi-
110028 (industrial).
e. C-32, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 (residential).
f. Flat No. 201 and 203, 2nd floor, Hanuman Lane, New
Delhi-110001 (residential).
2.4 It is further averred that the petitioner no. 2 tried to run his
Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 6 of 21
business from Haily Road premises but his clients showed reluctance and least interest to do the business with him from the said premises. Moreover, the Hailey Lane premises is a leased premises having very small lane and there is huge parking problem, as well as there is a fuel depot which is not suitable for such type of business and the said premises is smaller than the tenanted premises. Moreover, the petitioner no. 2's son is doing MBA and petitioner no. 2 requires premises for his son also as he is on the verge of completion of Post Graduation and he is to join business of the petitioner no. 2.
2.5 It is further averred that the petitioner no. 2 bonafide require the said tenanted premises for himself and for his son. It is also submitted that the properties bearing no. A-25/56, Ist floor; A-25/63, 2 nd floor; A- 25/57, Ist floor, Terrace Floor; A-25/57, 2 nd floor all at Middle Circle, Connaught Place and Terrace Floor, A-25/57, 2 nd floor, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi have entries from back side and are very small in area and all occupied by tenants and moreover the said properties are not suitable for the business of event management so as to attract clients, needs very impressive office. It is further stated that the properties bearing no. Space No. 206 and Space no. 205, 3 LSC, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019 are also on second floor and already occupied by the tenants and are not suitable for the business of the petitioner and to have MNCs clients. It is also stated that the shop no. 2 is in a fuel depot and adjacent to shop no. 1 a running fuel depot and Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 7 of 21 further there are junk dealers in the area and further the said shop is a licensed shop and the petitioners are licencee in the said shop with NDMC, totally congested lane and same is not suitable in comparison to tenanted premises. It is further submitted that C-106/3, Naraina Industrial Area Phase-I, New Delhi-110028 is an industrial property in industrial area is not suitable to run the business of event management and no office or shop cannot be opened in the said industrial premises. In the said industrial area only industrial activities can be done which is being done since 2009.
2.6 It is also submitted that the properties bearing no. C-32, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015; Flat No. 201 and 203, 2 nd floor, Hanuman Lane, New Delhi-110001 are residential properties and business activities are not allowed in the residential area. Moreover, the flat No. 201 and 203 are sealed by the authorities since April, 2018. It is also submitted that petitioners nor any of family members have any other much less reasonable, suitable accommodation to open up the office for their said business. The said tenanted premises is situated in the prime location in Middle Circle of Connaught Place having ample parking space and idle space for opening such type of business. The petitioner can start his business in the tenanted premises once the tenanted premises is duly vacated in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the petitioners requested the respondent several times to vacate the premises but they did not pay any heed to the same despite Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 8 of 21 the fact that they are facing great inconvenience. It is also submitted that the petitioners i.e. the owners/landlord wrote a legal notice to the tenants late Smt. Laxmi Kothari wherein it was asserted that it seems that tenants have sub-let the property. The said notice was sent on 13.09.2002 but the said tenants through their advocate clearly denied and admitted that the said tenanted premises is in their continuous possession and they have not violated any provision of law and they are in continuous possession of the property. It is further averred that vide letter dated 21.04.2012 Late Laxmi Kothari, mother of respondents no. 1 and 2 that she is paying advance rent of shop no. A-25/32, Connaught Place, New Delhi for the period from Ist April till 31 st March, 2013 for an amount of Rs. 480/-. Thereafter, the said respondent no. 2 again wrote a letter alongwith advance rent stating that he is paying advance rent for the year 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014.
3 Summons were served upon the respondents. Only respondent no. 1, 2 & 4 appeared and filed leave to defend application on the following grounds :-
a) That the premise has been let out by the landlords for commercial purpose for purchase and sale of drawing material, stationery goods and general merchandise items from and/or any other business in the name of ''N. Pareek & Co.''.
Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 9 of 21
b) That since 1974 when the premises was let out for purchase and sale of drawing material, stationery goods and general merchandise items, he is not having any other place to carry on the said business or work of place except the suit premises. The suit premises is used with the permission , knowledge and consent of the landlords.
c) That the premises was let out by the previous owner/ landlord Sh. Vikram Soni to the respondent for carrying on the said business @ Rs. 40/- per month and had been paying the rent regularly but the petitioners are not depositing the cheque for encashment in the bank.
d) That the eviction petition is not maintainable and is illegal, and incorrect as the same has been filed with evil intention for eviction for a commercial premise. It lacks necessary ingredients required to be stated in the petition under section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. Neither the premises in question is let out for residential purpose only nor the same is required by petitioner for their bonafide requirement.
e) That the petitioners have several other properties in Delhi and situated at good locations to carry on the business event management but deliberately want to evict the respondents. The Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 10 of 21 petitioner has not given the complete details of the properties owned by her and her family members.
f) That the petitioners have failed to file any documents showing the nature and extent of the tenanted premises. That the site plan filed by the petitioners is also incorrect and does not depict the true and correct nature and extent of the tenanted premises as well as the accommodation available with the petitioners.
g) That the petition is absolutely false, baseless and concocted and has been done to increase the rent and there is no change of circumstances in the family of the petitioners since the inception of the tenancy has been pleaded in the petition.
3.1 No leave to defend was filed by respondent no. 3 and 5. Ld counsel for respondent no. 1, 2 and 4 has relied upon the judgment titled as Jawaharlal Vs Ravinder Kr Khanna (2012) 195 DLT 239.
4 Reply to leave to defend application was filed by the petitioners wherein they have denied all the averments made by the respondents in their leave to defend application stating that the respondents have averred no cogent ground grant to leave to defend. It is reiterated that the petitioners require the premises for their genuine Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 11 of 21 bonafide need as they have no other suitable alternative accommodation. It is denied that the petitioners in order to harass and pressurize the respondents so as to increase the monthly rent has filed the present petition. It is also denied that the respondents are not having any other place to carry out the alleged business. It is stated that respondents have the premises at G-65, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and 6, Siri Fort Road, New Delhi. It is also denied that the suit premises is being carried out with the consent of the landlord for commercial purpose. It is admitted that the rate of rent is Rs. 40/- per month but it is denied that the tenants are paying rent regularly. It is denied that the petitioner has several other properties in Delhi at good and posh locations to carry on the business of event management in other places also. The petitioners have disclosed all the properties with them but have no other alternate suitable accommodation except the tenanted premises to run their business. It is also denied that since inception of tenancy the respondents were regular in paying rent to the landlord. It is further denied that petitioners do not need the premises bonafidely and is ill motivated and unfounded. It is denied that the petitioners have more than sufficient accommodation and have deliberately did not disclose the details of the properties. It is admitted that the tenanted premises was not let out to the respondents for residential purposes. It is denied that the petitioners have failed to file any document to show the nature and extent of the tenanted premises. In fact the petitioners have filed correct site plan. It is further denied that there is no change Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 12 of 21 of circumstances in the family of the petitioners since the inception of the tenancy. It is prayed that since no triable issues have been raised by the respondent, their leave to defend be dismissed. 5 I have heard the contentions of both the parties and have gone through the record.
6 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 there requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are:
a) The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family members.
b) The landlord or the family members has no
reasonable suitable accommodation .
7 These twin thresholds 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.
8 The satisfaction of the two requirements of bonafide need Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 13 of 21 and no reasonable suitable accommodation has been time and again emphasized by the Supreme Court of India in several cases and more recently in the case of Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705 wherein Supreme Court observed thus:
"The Legislature in enacting the provision has taken ample care to avoid any arbitrary or whimsical action of a landlord to evict his tenant. The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bonafide which is intended to avoid the mere whim or desire. The 'bonafide requirement' must be in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need which would evidence the Court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire. The legislative intent is made further clear by making the provision that the landlord has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation of his own in his occupation in the city or town concerned. This requirement lays stress that the need is pressing and there is no reasonably suitable alternative for the landlord but to get the tenant evicted from the accommodation. Similar statutory provision is made in sub-section (e) of Section 12(1) of the Act in respect of accommodation let for residential purposes. Thus, the legislative mandate being clear and unambiguous, the Court is duty-bound to examine not merely the requirement of the landlord as pleaded in the eviction petition but also whether any other reasonably suitable non-residential accommodation in his occupation in the city/town is available. The judgment/order of the court/authority for eviction of a tenant which does not show that the court/authority has applied its mind to these statutory requirements cannot be sustained and the superior court will be justified in upsetting such judgment/order in appeal/second appeal/revision. Bonafide requirement, on a first look, Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 14 of 21 appears to be a question of fact. But in recording a finding on the question the court has to bear in mind the statutory mandate incorporated in Section 12(1)(f). If it is found that the court has not applied the statutory provisions to the evidence on record in its proper perspective then the finding regarding bonafide requirement would cease to be a mere finding of fact, for such erroneous finding illegally arrived at would vitiate the entire judgment."
9 Chamber 20th Century Dictionary defines bona fide to mean "in good faith and genuine i.e without fraud or deceit". Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much more higher than in mere desire. The phrase "required bonafide"
is suggestive or legislative intent that a mere desire which is the outcome or whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. Requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with mere pretence or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances protruding the need of the landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the court. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. it is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 15 of 21 prescribe for him a residential tendered of their own.
10 The meaning of "bonafide" in the context appeared to be in two folds. (a) the need of the landlord must be a genuine one and not a frivolous one (b) landlord is not motivated by extraneous considerations in trying to recover the possession from the tenant with a view to let it out again to another tenant at a higher rent.
Ownership as well as existence of landlord-tenant relationship:-
11 In the present case the respondents have not disputed the ownership of the petitioners over the premises in question. In the affidavit filed alongwith the application for leave to defend, it has been admitted that the premises in question were let out by owner / landlord Kaushal Soni to the respondent / tenant. The averment of the petitioner that the respondent is paying the rent of the premises after the death of Smt. Laxmi Kothari, widow of late Sh. N K Kothari is not denied. As such, this issue does not require any deliberation and the petitioner is the landlord / owner for the purpose present petition.
Bonafide requirement & Alternative accommodation 12 It is averred by the petitioner that the tenanted premises is Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 16 of 21 bonafidely required by the petitioner no. 2 for setting up his office of business of event management. As per him, his clientage includes British council, German Academic Exchange Service etc and having business at the premises in question which is stated to be in a posh locality, will fetch more clients to him. As per him the said business having been run from the Hailey road premises has not found suitability with his clients as the said premises ie of Hailey lane suffers from huge parking problem and has a fuel depot in the vicinity. Moreover, the premises also required for the son of petitioner no. 2 who is stated to be on the verge of completion of his PG and is to join his business. In their reply to leave to defend the respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 have denied their being any such bonafide requirement and it is stated that the petition has been filed with ill motive and with malafide intention as the petitioner is having more than sufficient accommodation available with him for satisfying his purpose. Apart from such evasive contents in the reply to leave to defend, the factum of bonafide requirement as raised by the petitioner has not been denied.
13 In their reply to leave to defendant respondent no.1, 2 and 4 have not detailed about the other suitable properties as available with the petitioner for meeting their requirement. It is the petitioners only who have mentioned the properties available with them. The said properties have been stated to be not suitable for the purpose the premises in question is being sought. Details of the non suitability of Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 17 of 21 those properties has been mentioned in the petition citing lack of parking space, lack of security (their being scrap/ junk dealers and mechanics), being in an unhygienic condition, having residential character, having improper entries, smaller in size etc. The said averments have not been denied by the respondent no. 1, 2 and 4 in their reply to leave to defend, who have chosen to give a stereotype reply just by challenging the bonafide of the petitioners in a casual manner.
14 Although during arguments, Ld counsel for respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 has challenged the genuineness of the letter dt. 16.11.2018 issued by Director (Marketing ) German Academic Exchange Service and the email dt. 10.12.2018 of technical Manager British Council Division 17 Kasturba Gandhi Marg, but no such averments have been made in reply to leave to defend. It has been argued by Ld counsel for respondent no. 1,2 and 4 that such kind of clients do not visit their service provider but it is the other way round and that no one write such kind of emails/ letters to the service provider citing safety / hygienic issues.
15 The business dealings of the petitioner no. 2 with such clients ie British Council and German Academic Exchange Service has not been denied by Ld counsel for the respondents who is otherwise precluded from raising the genuineness of such documents only at the Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 18 of 21 time of arguments and not in the reply to leave to defend. Even if, the said email/ letter is not considered, the same has no effect as in the reply to leave to defend, the averments of the petitioners citing non suitability of the Hailey road premises and the tenanted premises being more suitable has been averred.
16 The grounds for suitability are not dependent on the email letter only but other factors as well. It is not the case of the respondent that the tenanted premises are not in a better position in terms of location, availability and parking etc. If at all the said email / letter is found to be a forged / fabricated one, the petitioners are always at risk of entailing not only criminal proceedings against them but making the present proceedings a nullity for misleading. The said fact could have been be ascertained by the respondents till date, if not within the time frame within which the reply to leave to defend had to be filed. As observed above, the said email/ letter as such are not the only basis of adjudicating bonafide requirement of the petitioners.
17 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Naseer (Mohd) Vs Mohd. Zaheer and Anr 2016 X AD (Delhi) 58 observed " 19............. Mere raising of baseless contentions against the landlord cannot be a ground for being granted leave to defend to the petitioners. It cannot be said that the petitioners have given facts or particulars which require to be established by way of evidence. The petitioners has merely made allegations for the sake of making Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 19 of 21 allegation. There is no merit in the said plea of the petitioner."
18 It is now well settled that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got compete freedom in the matter. Petitioners are always having right to move to a better option available to them.
19 In the present case, no suitable alternative accommodation has been averred by the respondent to be present with the petitioner which is found suitable for his projected needs. Ld counsel for the respondent has only orally during arguments has raised doubts on the bonafide of the petitioners and no affidavit to this effect has been filed. The list of properties available with the petitioners has been given in the petition only and no such details have been given in leave to defend. No other properties is stated to be available with the petitioners. The property in question is also required for the purpose of establishing the son of petitioner who is stated to be on the verge of completing his graduation. The said fact is also not denied by the respondent either in leave to defend or in the arguments. The judgment titled as Jawaharlal Vs. Ravinder Kr Khanna (Supra) relied upon b y the respondent is not applicable to the facts in hand as in that case issue was limited to establishing the son of petitioner in business whereas here it is an additional requirement.
Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 20 of 21 20 Further, if the property in question is not used for the purpose for which it is being sought, the respondents have right to re- entry as per provisions of Section 19 of DRC Act.
21 Hence, the application for leave to defend filed by the respondent is dismissed and consequently, eviction order is passed against the respondents under section 25 B (4) of the Act. The petitioners are held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises ie. one shop bearing no. A-24/32, Municipal No. I-P/A-74 at A-Block, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi 110001 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 possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of the provisions given in section 14(7) of DRC Act.
Announced in the open (BHUPINDER SINGH) court on 15.10.2019 SCJ-CUM-RC:PHC:NEW DELHI Kaushal Soni & Anr. vs. Anoop Kothari & Ors. Page No. 21 of 21