Delhi District Court
Pawan Kishore vs Subhash Nagpal Ans on 30 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI SINGH
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SOUTH
DISTRICT COURTS COMPLEX, SAKET, NEW DELHI
RC ARC No. 18/2016 & 6285/2016
CNR No. DLST03-000364-2016
Shri Pawan Kishore
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh
R/o Flat no.2, Satguru Apartment,
29E/D, Ward no.1,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030
..............Petitioner
Versus
1. Subhash Nagpal
Deceased Through LRs
a) Smt. Lalita Nagpal (wife)
W/o Late Subhash Nagpal
b) Ms. Geeta Nagpal (Daughter)
D/o Late Subhash Nagpal
c) Ms. Kavita Nagpal
W/o Late Subhash Nagpal
2. Joginder Nagpal S/o Late Sh. Nanak Chand
Deceased Through LRs
a) Smt. Kiran Nagpal (wife)
W/o Late Joginder Nagpal
b) Mr. Geetansh Nagpal (Son)
S/o Late Joginder Nagpal
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 1 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:12:23
+0530
c) Mr. Amit Nagpal
S/o Late Joginder Nagpal
All Residents of:
Private shop no.9,
Prop no.514, ward no.5,
Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030
Also at:
450 B/3, Ward no.3,
Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030.
....Respondents
Date of Institution : 04.05.2016
Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026
Decision : Petition Allowed.
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 2 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:12:29
+0530
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (e)
OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Succinctly, the case of the petitioner is that he became the owner of premises bearing private no. 9 in property no. 514, Ward No.5, Mehrauli, New Delhii-110030 (hereinafter called the tenanted premises) by virtue of a relinquishment deed registered vide registration number 7858 in Book No.1, Volume No. 3543, Page 50 to 57, dated 06.09.2003 (hereinafter called the relinquishment deed). The Petitioner submits that the father of the respondent, Sh. Nanak Chand (hereinafter called the original tenant) was inducted as a tenant at rent of Rs. 50/- per month on oral tenancy and rent receipts were also issued under his name. As per the petitioner, no fitting was provided by him and electricity charges were not paid by him and neither any amenity like light, water sanitation etc. was provided by him. The Petitioner further submits that after the death of the original tenant, both the respondents, being in possession and occupation of tenanted premises became his tenants and they also tendered the rent in his favour, thereby acknowledging the petitioner as their Landlord. He has also said that the tenanted premises is used by the respondents for selling Milk products and vegetables. The petitioner has explained that his family consists of his 54 year old wife, who is gainfully employed as a government servant and he is himself working at a bank; one son, Sh. Pankaj Kishore, aged about 31 years who is married and has a 2 year old RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 3 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:12:33 +0530 child and has studied computer hardware, store management and graphic designing, is earning his livelihood from another shop of the petitioner bearing no.10, in property no. 514, Ward No.5, Mehrauli, New Delhi- 110030. The Petitioner submits that previously, shop no.10 was in illegal occupation of one Sh. Darshan Lal Malik for which he had filed a suit bearing no.569/2012 before the Ld. Civil Judge for possession, recovery of damages and injunction and, the same was decreed in his favour on 24.08.2013 and, the appeal of the said suit was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (c) bearing no. 1461/2015. The petitioner has said that possession of shop no.10 was handed over to him on 10.02.2015 in execution petition no. 79/2013. He has further submits that his younger son, namely Sh Pulkit Kishore Gupta (hereinafter called the younger son) completed his diploma in Architectural Assistantship and the petitioner now requires the tenanted premises for his younger son who intends to start his business. As per the petitioner, the tenanted premises is the suitable accommodation for his younger son as it is situated adjacent to the shop of his elder son and is in main commercial market of Mehrauli. He has further said that the tenanted premises is also suitable as it is situated 5 minutes away from the residence of his younger son and he has no other reasonable alternate accommodation in Delhi for the said purpose. As per the petitioner, legal notice dated 30.09.2015 was also sent to the respondents, asking them to pay the arrears and vacate the tenanted premises but they have not vacated the same. The petitioner prays that the petition be allowed and the respondents be evicted from the tenanted premises as per the provision under section 14 (1) (e) read with 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called DRC).RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 4 of 50
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:12:38 +0530
2. Respondent no.1 and 2 filed their leave to defend submitting that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as all the heirs of the original tenant and of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner have not been added. They have further alleged that the petitioner did not supply legible copies of the relinquishment deed, which recites release of a property shown in the plan in orange colour but the said plan itself has not been provided, making it impossible for the respondents to file a conclusive reply. It is further alleged that the petitioner has not filed the title deeds of his predecessor in interest, Sh. Din Dayal and the relinquishment deed being a self serving document is inadmissible. The respondents have alleged that the petitioner has also suppressed material facts as he has not disclosed about the other premises in his possession and as per them, the petition is filed with the modus to evict the respondents and later, sell the premises/generate higher rentals from it. The respondents have further alleged that by way of usual practice, the tenanted premises were let out to their predecessor in interest through pagri system. They further alleged that apart the tenanted premises, the petitioner has 16 other shop which he has not disclosed about. They also alleged that the tenanted premises is not owned by the petitioner but was rather the property of Late Sh. Din Dayal, however all his legal heirs are not added as a party even though they are claiming rights over the tenanted premises. It is also said that the first floor and second floor of the tenanted premises are also commercial space and in possession of the petitioner but he has not disclosed the same. It is further alleged that the respondents RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 5 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:12:44 +0530 never acknowledged the petitioner as the landlord or paid any rent to him and as per them, after the death of Sh. Din Dayal on 11.05.1975, no one ever realized rent from them due to which they did not pay rent to anyone. The respondents denied having paid rent to Sh. Sher Singh or to the petitioner or that the same was claimed from them. The respondents have also alleged that Sh Din Dayal's title documents have not been filed and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be the owner of the tenanted premises. They also alleged that no partition could have taken place for the tenanted premises as the heirs of Sh. Din Dayal were co-owner. As per the respondents, the alleged relinquishment deed is inadmissible as it is neither related to the tenanted premises nor the releasor had any right, title or interest in the tenanted premises in order to relinquish their alleged share. The respondents said that Late Sh. Din Dayal and after him, the members of his family used to collect rent from the respondents but they never issued any rent receipt to the original tenant or to them and out of good faith, they did did not object. The respondents have explained that no such alleged legal notice dated 09.11.2015 was served upon them nor did they send any reply through advocate, Sh. Joginder Singh Garkal, as relied by the petitioner. As per them, once the petitioner, who is also the neighbor of the respondents, approached them for some financial help and the respondents signed certain documents but since they are not that literate, they were not aware what exactly these documents were. The respondents have alleged that they were informed that signatures are required for issuance of a Bank Draft from the bank and in furtherance of the same, the petitioner got a Demand Draft issued from the respondents for a sum of Rs. 1,900/- and out of a friendly gesture, they signed it. The RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 6 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:12:56 +0530 respondents however denied that the said draft was issued as payment of rent by them. The respondents further submit that the alleged bona fide need is not genuine as the relevant information for education, salary and job of the younger son is deliberately concealed by the petitioner. It is also alleged that the said younger son is already gainfully employed and therefore, there is no such alleged need in existence. The respondents have denied the rent receipts relied by the petitioner with his petition and they have also alleged that shop no.10 along with Balakhkhana above it and second floor above it, are all in the possession of the petitioner but the same is also concealed. The respondents relied on the judgments in Prakash Chand Gupta vs K.S Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2241; Santosh Devi Soni vs Chand Kiran, 2001 (1) SCC 255; Ahmed vs Habeeb ur rehman, AIR 2000 SC 2470 and Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal vs Rani Ravindran, AIR 2009 SC 2462 to show that triable issues have arise and therefore, leave to defend should be allowed.
3. The petitioner filed the reply to the leave to defend application wherein he denied the allegations made and reiterated his need for the tenanted premises as a bona fide requirement, in consonance with what is explained in the petition. He further said that the leave to defend should be dismissed as the respondents failed to make complete denial and no triable issue has been raised. As per the petitioner, complete legible copies were given to the respondents and all the properties in his possession have been disclosed by him. He further said that the respondents have admitted that they are the tenants and therefore, their leave to defend application should RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 7 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:13:01 +0530 be dismissed. He also denied that all the legal heirs of his predecessor in interest are necessary parties as by virtue of relinquishment deed, he became the absolute owner of tenanted premises and the said fact is also corroborated by the respondents as they admittedly paid rent to him. The petitioner clarified that he is the owner of shop no. 9 and 10 only and neither him nor his family own any other commercial premises in Delhi or elsewhere. The petitioner alleged that all the allegations made in the leave to defend are unsupported and the reason behind it is that the allegations are false and baseless. He further said that the respondents have not filed any site plan and thus, the site plan filed by him is to be taken as the correct site plan. The petitioner admitted that the tenanted premises was owned by Late Sh Din Dayal but he denied there being any dispute among the heirs for the tenanted premises after his death. The Petitioner said that the father of the respondents was paying rent to his father and the rent receipts filed are not denied by the respondents thus proving his submission that he is the landlord. The petitioner submits that by virtue of payment of rent to him and his father by the respondents and their father till November 2015, principle of estoppel is applicable on the respondents and they can't question the title of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises. The petitioner reiterated that the legal notice was sent to the respondents and they replied to the same through their advocate and he also denied the allegation of financial help advanced to him, as alleged by the respondents. He further said that the demand draft was issued by the respondents to pay the rent and now a false submission is being made by them qua the Demand draft only to escape liability. The petitioner submits RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 8 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:13:06 +0530 that the judgments relied by the respondents are not applicable to the facts of the case and therefore, the application should be dismissed.
4. Vide order dated 15.11.2018, the leave to defend application was allowed on the ground of landlord tenant relationship, availability of alternate suitable accommodation and the bona fide need of the petitioner. During the course of proceedings, respondent no.1 and 2 passed away and their LR's were also impleaded.
5. On 15.12.2018, Written statement was filed by the respondent no.1 & LR's of respondent no. 2 submitting that the petition is bad in law for non joinder of necessary and proper parties I.e LR's of Lat Sh Din Dayal, Late Sh Ishwar Dass and Late Sh Sher Singh; for non supply of requisite documents I.e title documents of the heir who have allegedly relinquished their share in the tenanted premises and the site plan of the area relinquished has not been filed; for non disclosure on the part of petitioner qua the other alternate accommodation available with him I.e Shop no. 1 to 16 in Property No. 514/12, Ward no.3, Mehrauli Main Market, Delhi. The respondents reiterated the submissions made in the leave to defend application and for the sake of brevity, they are not repeated herein. The respondents further alleged that the petitioner, his wife and both his sons and daughter are gainfully employed and the sons are also income tax assesses. They have further alleged that the elder son of the petitioner is married and stays with his family separately and none of the children of the petitioner are dependent on him and thus, there is no such alleged bona RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 9 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:13:12 +0530 fide need. As per the respondents, the tenanted premises is being used by them as their only means of livelihood and the intention of the petitioner behind filing this petition is to get the premises vacated and sell it off at a hefty price with the adjoining premises, which is also in his possession. The respondents denied all the allegations made in the petition and prayed that the petition be dismissed.
6. Reply was filed by the petitioner to the WS wherein he denied the allegations made against him and reiterated the submissions made by him in reply to the leave to defend application filed by him. The same is not repeated herein for sake of brevity. The petitioner further said that his younger son left his job in the year 2016 and if the respondents fear that the need alleged is not bona fide, they always have the option to exercise the benefit given to the tenant under 19 (2) DRC. He also said that the ITR's are irrelevant to the facts of the case and therefore not filed. The petitioner said that it is not a pre requisite for someone to leave the job and then file the petition u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC and therefore, alleged that the reply filed is inadmissible and irrelevant.
7. During evidence, 9 witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner. PW-1 is the petitioner himself who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit I.e Ex PW-1/A wherein he reaffirmed the allegations made in the petition; that he has no other suitable accommodation and the bona fide need for which he requires the tenanted premises. He further relied on the following documents:
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 10 of 50Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:13:23 +0530 i. Ex PW-1/1 (OSR) I.e copy of sale deed with translated copy dated 05.04.1950. (objected on the mode of proof) ii. Ex PW-1/2 (OSR) I.e copy of registered partition deed with translated copy dated 05.05.1960. (objected on the mode of proof) iii. Ex PW-1/3 (OSR) I.e copy of relinquishment deed dated 06.09.2003.
iv. Ex PW-1/4 I.e Original site plan v. Ex PW-1/5 (Colly-OSR) I.e copy of relinquishment deeds dated 06.09.2003.
vi. Ex PW-1/6 (OSR) I.e Copy of rent receipts dated 08.01.1992, 03.04.1991, 02.10.1990. (objected on the mode of proof) vii. Ex PW-1/7 I.e Original Legal notice dated 30.09.2015. viii. Ex PW-1/8 I.e Original reply of legal notice dated 09.11.2015. (objected) ix. Ex PW-1/9 I.e certified copy of judgment dated 24.08.2013 passed by Ld. CJ, Tis Hazari Court.
x. Ex PW-1/10 I.e certified copy of order dated 15.10.2014 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
xi. Ex PW-1/11 I.e certified copy of order dated 09.02.2014 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
8. During cross examination, PW-1 said that he graduated in science from Delhi university but he cannot read and write Urdu language. He admitted that he cannot read contents of Ex PW-1/1 and Ex PW-1/2 as they are in Urdu language but he explained that Ex PW-1/2 was executed during the RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 11 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:13:34 +0530 lifetime of his father, when he was 3 years old and the property in question was partitioned between his father and uncle. He further explained that his grandfather, Late Sh Din Dayal was owner of two properties I.e property bearing no. 514, ward no.5, Mehrauli, constructed on a plot measuring approx 350 sq. Yds with a double storey building and, property bearing number 29E, ward no.1, Mehrauli, Delhi, constructed on a plot measuring approx 11,000 sq yds with a four storey building. He said that his grand father had two sons I.e his father and uncle and both the properties were divided equally among them. He further said that his father had five sons and six daughters and out of the said property, two shops bearing private number 9 and 10 in property bearing no. 514, ward no.5, Mehrauli came into his possession. He further said that he also got a 764 sq yds residential property in property bearing number 29E, ward no.1, Mehrauli, Delhi. PW-1 said that property bearing private no. 9 and 10 are double storey building I.e shop on the ground floor, first floor, second floor and one semi pucca small room on the terrace and except the tenanted premises, all the other floors in both these properties are in his possession. He explained that his elder son is doing his business from shop no.10 and that, there may be shops in property no. 29E, Ward No.1, Mehrauli but he denied that any of these alleged shops are in his possession. He denied the suggestion that his elder son is not using property no.10 and first floor of tenanted premises and property bearing no. 10 for his business or that second floor of both these shops is lying vacant. PW-1 explained that his old household articles are kept by him there. He also denied the suggestion that second floor at property no. 9 and 10 can be used for commercial purpose and explained that first floor of both these properties are commercial space. He RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 12 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:13:40 +0530 admitted that he did not mention about property no. 29E in the petition but his counsel objected the same saying that it is a matter of record. PW-1 said that tenanted premises was let out to Sh Nanak Chand before his birth due to which he did not know who let it out and when. He further said that the rent was @ Rs. 50/- per month and he saw Sh Nanak Chand pay the rent to his father in the year 1991 and twice in the year 1992 but he did not know how much amount or what period the rent was paid. He denied the suggestion that Sh Nanak Chand never paid any rent to his father or Ex PW-1/6 was forged and fabricated. The witness was confronted with rent receipts and he said that he can read it and as per him, receipt dated 03.04.1991 and 08.01.1992 mentions property bearing no. 514, Ward No. 5 but he admitted that the same does not mentions property no.9. PW-1 said that the Hindi translation of Ex PW-1/6 was filed by him and name of Sh Nanak Chand can be seen but he later said that the translation. PW-1 further denied that relinquishment deed I.e Ex PW-1/3 and Ex PW-1/5 (colly) were only created to get shop no.10 vacated. PW-1 admitted that he did not show second floor in Ex PW-1/4 to be in his possession but he explained that the same was not done as the said floor is not required and the same is residential. PW-1 reiterated that legal notice was sent to both the respondents but he admitted that postal receipt and tracking report is not filed by him with the explanation that since reply was sent by the respondents, he did not file it. PW-1 however denied the suggestion that the said reply I.e Ex PW-1/8 was prepared by Adv Joginder Singh Garkal on his instructions and the respondents never sent it. For bona fide need, PW-1 explained that his younger son is doing petty work like service provider and since he graduated in mechanical engineering and has a RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 13 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:13:46 +0530 diploma in architecture, he requires the tenanted premises for his use. He denied the suggestion that his younger son is earning handsomely. PW-1 also admitted that no site plan is annexed with partition deed I.e Ex PW- 1/2. PW-1 denied the suggestion that Manager's cheque dated 04.11.2015 along with reply dated 09.11.2015 was not sent by the respondents or that the respondents are occupying the tenanted premises in their own right. PW-1 denied the remaining suggestions put to him along with the suggestion that he did not disclose about the property that his grandfather kept for himself with an ill motive.
9. PW-2 is the younger son of the petitioner whose bona fide need is alleged by the petitioner. PW-2 said that he he has done diploma in Architectural Assistantship and is interested in doing business, therefore requires the tenanted premises. He further said that due to non availability of commercial space, he is constrained to do service providing work. PW-2 said that his elder brother is doing business under the name and style of Child Care from the shop adjacent to the tenanted premises. His evidence by way of affidavit was exhibited as Ex PW-2/A.
10. During his cross examination, PW-2 explained that he completed his Architectural Assistantship from Rao Tularam college in the year 2010 but he did not get campus placement. He further said that he joined service with K2 in India in 2011 as a project co-ordinator but he could not remember the year of tenure. PW-2 said that he then started with some petty jobs and he was also working from home but he is interested in starting his own business as per market demand. PW-2 agreed that he RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 14 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:13:52 +0530 signed the affidavit in the office of his counsel after it was prepared but he said that he read the contents of the affidavit before signing it. PW-2 denied the suggestions put to him including that there is alternate accommodation available to start the alleged business.
11. PW-3 was a witness called to produce the soft copy of Judicial File in RSA bearing no. 215/2014, titled Sh Darshan Lal vs Sh Pawan Kishore, along with requisite certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act. CD and affidavit was exhibited as Ex PW-3/1. During his cross examination, PW-3 said that the CD was prepared by him.
12. PW-4 was summoned to get the record of judgment and decree in civil suit bearing no. 569/2012, titled Pawan Kishore vs Darshan Lal Malik. The same was exhibited as Ex PW-1/9. Nothing material was extracted in his cross examination.
13. PW-5 was summoned to get the record of Sale Deed dated 05.04.1950 registered vide registration no. 786, Book No.1, Volume no. 150, Page no. 268-273 and, partition deed dated 05.05.1960 registered vide registration no. 946, book no.1, volume no. 436, page no. 271-281. The documents were exhibited as Ex PW-5/1 (OSR) and Ex PW-5/2 (OSR). Nothing material was extracted in his cross examination.
14. PW-6 was summoned to prove the site plan. The witness said that Ex PW- 1/4 was prepared by him after he visited the tenanted premises and measured it. During his cross examination, the witness explained that he RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 15 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:13:57 +0530 completed his bachelor in Architecture in the year 2019. He could however not remember how many stories existed in the tenanted premises but he denied the suggestion that Ex PW-1/4 was prepared by him while he was sitting in his office or that he never visited the tenanted premises.
15. PW-7 was summoned to get the record of relinquishment deed dated 06.09.2003 registered vide registration no. 7858, 7859, 7860 and 7862. The documents were exhibited as Ex PW-7/A (colly). Nothing material was extracted in his cross examination.
16. PW-8 appeared on behalf of HDFC bank, Mehrauli and he brought the record of DD dated 04.11.2015, drawn for a sum of Rs. 1,900/- bearing no. 006940 issued in the name of Petitioner. PW-8 said that the document had original acknowledgment receipt of Sh Joginder Nagpal/ Respondent no. 2 and the date of liquidation of the said DD was 30.11.2015. He further said that the DD was issued from account bearing no. 501000053862542. The document was exhibited as Ex PW-8/A and copy of his ID was exhibited as Ex PW-8/B (OSR). During his cross examination, the witness admitted that the document is not certified as per Banker's Book Evidence act and he wasn't in the bank at the time of issuance of the DD and neither does it shows the purposed of issuance.
17. PW-9 is the witness who translated Ex PW-5/1 dated 05.04.1950 and Ex PW-5/2 (OSR) dated 05.05.1960. The true certified copy was exhibited as Ex PW-9/1 and Ex PW-9/2. During his cross examination, PW-9 explained that he completed his graduation in Urdu from Jamia Milia RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 16 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:14:03 +0530 Islamia but he said that he does not have any certificate for doing translation of documents.
18. RW-1 is the wife of Respondent no. 2 who submitted her evidence by way of affidavit and the same was exhibited as Ex RW-1/1. She alleged that she is the legal heir of respondent no.2 and fully conversant with facts and circumstances of the case. She alleged that Late Sh Nanak Chand was never a tenant in the tenanted premises, rather occupied the premises in his own capacity and the petitioner is neither the owner nor does he share the relationship of landlord-tenant with the respondents. She also alleged that the respondents never paid rent to Sh Sher singh or the petitioner at any point of time. She also said that the respondents never engaged the service of Sh Joginder Singh Garkal or gave any instruction to send reply dated 09.11.2015 to legal notice dated 30.09.2015. RW-2 said that the alleged DD was never issued for payment of rent and rather, the petitioner, who is the neighbor of the respondents, approached him for financial assistance and as a friendly gesture, Respondent no.2, who was not that literate, signed on certain documents and the petitioner informed him that he has got a DD issued for a sum of Rs. 1,900/- from the bank account of the respondent no.2. Apart this, RW-1 made the same allegations as are made in the leave to defend.
19. During her cross examination, RW-1 said that she got marries to Respondent no.2 on 24.09.1993 and he expired on 18.12.2016. She further said that respondent no.2 was working in the tenanted premises even before her marriage. RW-2 did not know if Sh Nanak Chand was the RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 17 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:14:09 +0530 owner of the tenanted premises and she said she can't place any document on record to show that Sh Nanank Chand or her husband were the owner of the tenanted premises and she also admitted that she made no effort to inquire from her husband who is the owner of the premises. RW-1 did not know if Sh Nanank Chand or her husband executed any document prior to their death qua the tenanted premises and they neither showed her any document qua their ownership towards the tenanted premises. RW-1 did not know if Ex PW-1/6 bears the signature of Sh Nanak Chand and she couldn't explain on what basis she alleged in Ex RW-1/1 that rent receipts are forged. She also admitted that she isn't aware of any such rent receipts but she said that some were in Urdu language. She did not even know if the rent receipts were issued by the petitioner or his predecessor in interest in respect of the tenanted premises. RW-1 admitted that Ex PW-1/7 was received by her husband and his brother/ Respondent no.1 but she did not know if they replied to the notice. RW-1 could not say if any reply was sent by the respondents through Sh Joginder SIngh Garkal or if PW-1/8 was issued towards rent by them. RW-1 wasn't aware if her husband gave any complaint against Sh Joginder SIngh Garkal and she said that in Ex RW-1/1 she made the allegation that his services were never engaged by her late husband as her late husband never discussed any such fact with her. She admitted that there was no financial transaction between the petitioner and the respondents but she did not know if financial assistance was offered by the respondents to the petitioner. RW-1 admitted that property bearing no 514, Ward No.5 is a big property having several shops but she wasn't aware if the same was owned by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and later, a part of it fell in the share of the petitioner.RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 18 of 50
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:14:16 +0530 RW-1 also admitted that no site plan is filed by the respondents and that Ex PW-1/4 is correct site plan. RW-1 further admitted that possession of tenanted premises after the death of Sh Nanak Chand came with the respondents but she denied that Sh Nanak Chand or the respondents occupied the premises as tenants. RW-1 also admitted that she has not placed any proof on record to show that shop no. 4 and 13 are also in the possession of the petitioner or are lying unoccupied and vacant. She further admitted that the elder son of the petitioner is carrying on his business of child care from shop no. 10 and the first floor of shop no.9 and 10 is also used by him. RW-1 was specifically questioned on the alleged fact that the petitioner is only the owner of tenanted premises and shop no.10 but she answered that she is possession of tenanted premises and elder son of the petitioner is in possession of shop no.10 and she did not say anything beyond it. RW-1 denied the suggestions put to her.
20. RW-2 appeared as a witness to support the case of the respondents. His evidence by way of affidavit was exhibited as Ex RW-2/1 wherein he alleged that he is the president of Mehrauli Residents Welfare Association and he has visited the tenanted premises several times. He further said that during one of such visit, Respondent no.2 informed him that he is the owner of the tenanted premises. He further said that the elder son of the petitioner is doing his business from shop no.10, which the petitioner got vacated from Sh Darshan Lal Malik but the younger son of the petitioner is alleged by the witness to be gainfully employed and not in need of the tenanted premises. RW-2 said that apart the tenanted premises, the petitioner is also the owner of several other shops, including first floor of RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 19 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:14:29 +0530 tenanted premises and shop no.10, which is alleged to be lying vacant and shop no. 4 and 13.
21. During his cross examination, RW-2 admitted that he has not placed on record any document to show that he is the President of Mehrauli Residents Welfare Association. He admitted that his knowledge about the alleged ownership of Respondent no.2 for the tenanted premises came from the verbal communication which he had with him and he did not ascertain this fact in any other way or see any document towards ownership of respondent no.2. RW-2 did not know where the younger son of the petitioner is employed or his salary and he said that the fact of his employment came into his knowledge as informed by common friends and relatives. He further explained that he is also a member of Federation of Market Association and that's how he got to know about the ownership of petitioner for other shops. He clarified that the tenanted premises fall under Mehrauli RWA but he admitted that he is not filed any document to prove the same. RW-2 said that donation and subscription charges are taken from shops and since the petitioner also paid these charges therefore it shows that the tenanted premises falls under Mehrauli RWA. He further said that whenever any subscription/ contribution is made by anyone in the area, it is within the knowledge of people who is the owner and on the said basis he has alleged that petitioner is owner of several other shops in the said area. RW-2 admitted that no record is maintained for ownership of such shops but he said that whoever registers himself as member of the shop, gets lifetime membership. RW-2 also admitted that there are 13-14 shops in building no.514 but none of them are registered under the name RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 20 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:14:35 +0530 of the petitioner as the owner. RW-2 said that since subscription charges were not taken from these shops, they were not made members. He also admitted that Market association takes charges from these 13-14 shops and he is not the member of the said association. RW-2 further admitted that Mehrauli RWA makes its members only on the basis of Aadhar Card and I card. RW-2 denied the suggestions put to him.
22. RW-3 also appeared as a witness to support the case of the respondents. His evidence by way of affidavit was exhibited as Ex RW-3/1 wherein he alleged that he knows the party to the petition as he has visited the tenanted premises on several occasions. He further said that both the sons of the petitioner are gainfully employed and are not dependent on the petitioner and tenanted premises is not required by the younger son of the petitioner. RW-3 said that apart the tenanted premises, the petitioner is also the owner of several other shops, including first floor of tenanted premises and shop no.10, which is alleged to be lying vacant and shop no. 4 and 13.
23. During his cross examination, RW-3 admitted that he does not have personal knowledge about the facts alleged in para 3 of his affidavit and his knowledge is based on information gathered from people of the locality. He admitted that he is not seen the ownership documents of any shop alleged by him to be owned by the petitioner. RW-3 however said that he has seen himself that petitioner is the owner of shop no.4 and 13 and several other shops in the locality but he admitted that he never saw RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 21 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:14:42 +0530 any document which could prove that RW-3 is the owner. RW-3 denied the suggestions put to him.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
24. During final arguments, the Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petition was filed u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w 25B of DRC Act, 1958, the petitioner, who is the landlord was required to prove three things:
i) Landlord Tenant relationship between the parties.
ii) Bonafide requirement of his younger son.
iii) No other suitable alternate accommodation.
25. As per the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, the title of the petitioner as the landlord is not in dispute as in the Written statement, it is admitted by the respondents that after the death of Sh Din Dayal, who is the predecessor in interest of the petitioner, they never paid rent to anyone due to inter se disputes among the heirs. The Ld. Counsel submits that the respondents admit their status as tenants and since no proof has been filed by the respondents to show that the petitioner is not the successor of Sh Din Dayal, which on the other hand is proved by the petitioner, therefore, the relationship stands established. For Ex PW-8/A, the Ld. Counsel said that the document is proved by PW-8 and if the explanation given by the respondents for the said document is seen, it would show that the explanation is meritless as no prudent man would give financial assistance of rs. 1,900/- in the year 2015 by way of Bank Draft. He further said that Ex PW-1/8 is sent by a counsel with Ex PW-8/A on behalf of the RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 22 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:14:48 +0530 respondents, yet, the respondents never filed any complaint against the Counsel to show that the submission of counsel not being authorized by them has merit to it. The Ld. counsel also pointed out the cross examination of RW-1 and RW-2 to show that contradictory averments are made with respect to Sh Nanak Chand and it is admitted that there was no financial transaction between the petitioner and the respondents therefore, Ex PW-8/A can logically been issued for payment of rent. Evidence of RW-1 was also pointed out to show that RW-1 never denied specifically that the said reply was not sent on behalf of the respondents but rather, she said that she cannot say if the respondents sent the said reply. As per the Ld. Counsel, the said answer amounts to admission as it is not specific denial. The Ld. Counsel said that since the status of respondents as tenant is not disputed and it is also not disputed that predecessor in interest of petitioner was the owner of tenanted premises, the alleged inter se dispute between the heirs also has no merit to it as an eviction petition can be filed by one co-owner if the other co-owners do not object to it. The ld. Counsel further said that Ex PW-1/6 is more than 30 year old and therefore, presumption u/s 90 Evidence act is applicable to these receipts and since the respondents gave the suggestion that Ex PW-1/6 is forged, the onus was on them to prove that the receipts were actually proved. The Ld. Counsel said that in the absence of any proof, Ex PW-1/6 stands proved. The Ld. Counsel was questioned by the Court during final arguments on the answer of PW-1 for Ex PW-1/6 wherein he said that translation of the said document filed by him is incorrect and the Ld. Counsel said that if the entire evidence is seen, it would show that Ex PW-1/6 is proved. For the alleged ownership of the petitioner, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner said RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 23 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:14:54 +0530 that Ex PW-1/1, Ex PW-1/2 and Ex PW-1/3 proves the ownership of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises. He further said that the adjacent property I.e shop no.10 is also owned by the petitioner which also got vacated from the tenant by the petitioner and the relinquishment deed relied herein is also considered by the Court in the said case. The Ld. Counsel said that the appeal of the said suit went upto Hon'ble Supreme Court but the same was decided in the favour of petitioner and therefore, relinquishment deed also stands proved. The Ld. Counsel also said that though the respondents objected to the site plan filed by the petitioner but they themselves never filed any site plan and thus, site plan of petitioner has to be relied. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors vs Ranjit Singh, RC Rev 95/2014 and 112/2014 and, Indermal Gupta and Anr vs Sunder Singh & Ors, RC Rev 394/2012.
26. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents said that the relationship of landlord and tenant is not proved and even the rent receipts relied do not depict the property number, as admitted by PW-1, therefore, it cannot be said that petitioner has any right, title or interest in the tenanted premises. He further said that apart the unproved rent receipts, there is no document to suggest that respondents are the tenants of the petitioner and even the alleged legal notice relied is not supported with any tracking report or postal receipt to show that legal notice was actually served by the Landlord. He further said that it is admitted by PW-1 in his cross examination that there are other properties in his possession but since he did not disclose them, there is concealment. The Ld. Counsel was RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 24 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:15:01 +0530 questioned on WS filed by respondents where they have admitted the relationship of landlord tenant but the Ld. Counsel said that if the whole WS is read, it would show that there is no such admission. The Ld. Counsel alleged that the bona fide requirement reflected is artificial and therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
27. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. I shall now proceed to give issue wise finding in this case. The three main issues of the present petition are:
a) Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
b) Bona fide need of the petitioner.
c) Availability of suitable alternate accommodation.
28. 1st issue- Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties:
a) The foremost requirement of a petition under DRC is to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Vide order dated 15.11.2018, the Ld. Predecessor observed that the said relationship between the parties is a triable issue and accordingly, leave to defend was permitted on this ground. Now if the leave to defend and written statement of the respondent no.1 and 2 is seen, the ground raised is that the tenanted premises was owned by Sh Din Dayal and after he died on 11.05.1975, there's been dispute RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 25 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:15:07 +0530 among his legal heirs and thus, no one realized rent from the predecessor of the respondents. It is alleged that the respondents never paid rent to Sh Sher singh or the petitioner and there is no proof that the petitioner is the legal heir of Sh Din Dayal. As per the respondents, one Smt Raj Wati, claiming to be widow of Sh Ishwar Das, who claimed himself to be the son of Sh Din Dayal is alleging herself to be the owner and therefore, the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the tenanted premises. It is also alleged that the relinquishment deed relied by the petitioner nowhere shows that how Sh Din Dayal acquired the property and therefore, he cannot claim himself to be the owner. It is also alleged that the partition deed relied does not prove the alleged right of the petitioner as the partition deed can only be between co-sharer/ co- owner and at best, Sh Din Dayal could have gifted the tenanted premises to anyone but not partitioned it. It is further alleged that the Key Plan and Existing Layout plan of the tenanted premises is not annexed with the relinquishment deed and therefore, it cannot be said to be related to the tenanted premises. It is also alleged that Late Sh Din Dayal and his various other family members were collecting rent from the respondents and his pre decessor but no rent receipt was issued and on account of good faith, the respondents never asked for it. The respondents also questioned PW-1/7 and PW-1/8 and rather said that the petitioner, being the neighbor of the respondents, approached him for financial assistance and respondent no.2, who was not that literate, signed some papers meant for issuance of bank draft for financial help RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 26 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:15:13 +0530 which is projected by the petitioner to be issued for the alleged rent. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent also said that if the entire WS is read, it would show that there is no such admission qua the relationship of landlord tenant between the parties. However, when the pleadings and evidence is appreciated, it would show that the respondents have approbated and reprobated at the same time. At one place in the WS, the respondents have alleged that they never paid rent to the petitioner or his predecessor, Sh Sher Singh but later, they admitted that Sh Din Dayal and after him various members of his family have been collecting rent from the respondents and their predecessor I.e Sh Nanak Chand but they never issued any rent receipt. The respondents have said that they never asked for any rent receipt in good faith, which amounts to admission by the respondents that they came into the possession of the tenanted premises by way of tenancy created by Sh Din Dayal. Further, it is the allegation of the respondents that apart the tenanted premises, the petitioner is also the owner of various other shops in Property no. 514, where the tenanted premises is situated. The said suggestion was also given by the respondents to PW-1 during his cross examination, however, it is also alleged by the respondents that the petitioner is not the heir of Sh Din Dayal. Suggestions were given to PW-1 that he is not the owner of the suit premises but the respondents have not filed any proof to show that the petitioner is not the heir of Sh Din Dayal. The petitioner/ PW-1 has alleged on an affidavit that he is the grand son of Sh Din Dayal but a vague denial is made by the respondents that the petitioner RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 27 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:15:17 +0530 has no relation to the tenanted premises. The respondents, as can be seen from the facts extracted above, admitted that Sh Din Dayal and his family members used to collect rent from them but they have not specified who these family members were. Moreover, if the suggestions given to PW-1 are seen during his cross examination, it would show that there are suggestions given to the effect that he is not the owner of suit property but there is no such suggestion that he is no the heir of Sh Din Dayal. As the said fact is alleged by the respondents, the onus was on them to show that the petitioner had no relation with Sh. Din Dayal and has no locus to file the present petition.
b) Now, if all these submissions and suggestions are read along with the pleadings, it would show that there is an admission by the respondents that Sh Din Dayal kept the predecessor in interest of the respondents as tenant and was collecting rent from him and the respondents, thereby, proving the relationship of landlord and tenant. The respondents themselves suggested on one hand that PW-1 is the owner of other shops in the property where tenanted premises are situated and for these properties also, the alleged owner is Sh Din Dayal. The respondents have not explained how the petitioner, as per their version can be called owner of the other properties of Sh Din Dayal, and not the tenanted premises when the rights are falling from the same chain. In the absence of any cogent explanation/ RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 28 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:15:23 +0530 admissible proof, the allegation of the respondents that the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the tenanted premises remains unsubstantiated.
c) Next, if the testimony of respondent's witnesses is seen, RW-1 admitted that she has not filed any document on record to show that the respondents or Sh Nanak Chand were in the possession of the tenanted premises as owners. RW-2 and RW-3 said that their allegation in affidavit that respondents are the owner of the tenanted premises is based on the verbal conversation that they had with the respondents. The bare reading of the deposition of the respondents would show that the testimony of RW-2 and RW-3 on the said aspect is hearsay and testimony of RW-1 does not prove the better title of the respondents or their predecessor to the tenanted premises as compared to the petitioner. The law on hearsay evidence was explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri and Another (2011) 2 SCC 532, wherein it was held:
"33. The word "evidence" is used in common parlance in three different senses: (a) as equivalent to relevant, (b) as equivalent to proof, and (c) as equivalent to the material, on the basis of which courts come to a conclusion about the existence or non- existence of disputed facts. Though, in the definition of the word "evidence" given in Section 3 of the Evidence Act one finds only oral and documentary evidence, this word is also used in phrases such as best evidence, circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence, hearsay evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original evidence, presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real evidence, secondary evidence, substantive evidence, testimonial evidence, etc.The idea of best evidence is implicit RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 29 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:15:28 +0530 in the Evidence Act. Evidence under the Act, consists of statements made by a witness or contained in a document. If it is a case of oral evidence, the Act requires that only that person who has actually perceived something by that sense, by which it is capable of perception, should make the statement about it and no one else. If it is documentary evidence, the Evidence Act requires that ordinarily the original should be produced, because a copy may contain omissions or mistakes of a deliberate or accidental nature. These principles are expressed in Sections 60 and 64 of the Evidence Act. The term "hearsay" is used with reference to what is done or written as well as to what is spoken and in its legal sense, it denotes that kind of evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit given to the witness himself, but which rests also, in part, on the veracity and competence of some other person. Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that is is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the person, whose statement is relied upon, into court for his examination in the regular way, in order that many possible sources of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be brought to light and exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross- examination. The phrase "hearsay evidence" is not used in the Evidence Act because it is inaccurate and vague. It is a fundamental rule of evidence under the Indian law that hearsay evidence is inadmissible. A statement, oral or written, made otherwise than by a witness in giving evidence and a statement contained or recorded in any book, document or record whatsoever, proof of which is not admitted on other grounds, are deemed to be irrelevant for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated. An assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted. That this species of evidence cannot be tested by cross- examination and that, in many cases, it supposes some better testimony which ought to be offered in a particular case, are not the sole grounds for its exclusion. The reasons why hearsay evidence is not received as relevant evidence are :
a) The person giving such evidence does not feel any responsibility. The law requires all evidence to be given under personal responsibility i.e. every witness must give his testimony, under such circumstance, as expose him to all the penalties of falsehood. If the person giving hearsay evidence is RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 30 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:15:34 +0530 cornered, he has a line of escape by saying "I do not know, but so and so told me",
b) Truth is diluted and diminished with each repetition, and if permitted, gives ample scope for playing fraud by saying "someone told me that.....". It would be attaching importance to false rumour flying from one foul lip to another.
d) The above law clearly explains that hearsay evidence is inadmissible and thus, the version of RW-2 and RW-3 qua the alleged ownership of respondents to the tenanted premises is inadmissible. Coming to the remaining deposition of RW-1 to RW-
3, they have alleged that petitioner owns other shops in property no. 514 but surprisingly, they have denied the petitioner to have any right with respect to the tenanted premises. When these witnesses were cross examined on this point, they failed to explain on what premise this submission is made in their affidavit. In fact, RW-2 and RW-3 eventually admitted in their cross examination that even these allegations were based on the verbal information gathered by them from the market and from the respondents and thus, even the said part of their evidence falls within the ambit of hearsay evidence, thereby becoming inadmissible.
e) In the judgment titled as Rajender Kumar Sharma vs. Smt. Leela Wati reported as 155 (2008) DLT 383, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held the following:
"It is settled law that for the purpose of section 14 (1)
(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 31 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:15:40 +0530 a tenant. In this case, the landlady had placed on record the documents by which she became owner. The attornment given by the erstwhile landlord in her favour as well as an admission made by the tenant by filing petition under section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act acknowledgement the landlordship of landlady.... The principle is very clear that once a tenant always a tenant. The tenant cannot dispute the title of his landlord or his successor-in-interest. Accordingly, in view of the provisions of section 116 of the Evidence Act, he is estopped from challenging the title of the petitioner..... If the transfer of the landlord's title is valid, and even if the tenancy is not attorned in favour of the transferee, the lease continues. Thus, a transferee of the landlord's rights, steps into the shoes of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. Even though it has been admitted by the respondent that rent for the tenanted premises had been paid to the petitioner, attornment in favour of the new landlord is unnecessary to confer validity to the transfer of the landlord's rights and there is no such statutory requirement. Reference may be made to the case of Hajee K. Assainar vs. Chacku Joseph AIR 1984 Ker 113. In the case of Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta vs. Vishvanath Bhikaji MogulAIR 1997 SC 2437, it was held that attornment by tenant is not necessary though it is desirable. Mere non- payment of rent by tenant even for a considerably long period does not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship. The possession of a tenant cannot be adverse to his landlord. The petitioner is therefore, the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises.
f) Perusal of the ratio in the above judgment would show that once a tenant admits his status as that of a tenant, he can never get a better title than the landlord and he is estopped from questioning the rights of the landlord qua the tenanted premises. As per the proved facts of the case, admission is made by the respondents that they used to pay rent to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner. No admissible evidence is filed to show that petitioner is not the heir of Sh Din Dayal and no objection has been filed by any other heir, RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 32 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:15:47 +0530 to the petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents for the tenanted premises. In such circumstance, the better right of the petitioner to the tenanted premises vis a vis the respondents cannot be doubted upon. In addition to this, the petitioner also relied on rent receipts allegedly issued to the respondents towards payment of rent for the tenanted premises. The respondents questioned the admissibility of rent receipts. Eventually, in the cross examination of PW-1, he admitted that the translation of rent receipt is not correct, yet, it would not grant any benefit to the respondents. Rent receipts are not the only proof to establish relationship of landlord tenant between the parties and particularly in this case, since the payment of rent to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and, the status of the respondents as tenants is admitted by the respondents themselves, the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties stands proved.
g) The petitioner, in addition to the above evidence has also relied on Ex PW-8/A I.e the DD dated 04.11.2015 to prove that he is the landlord of the tenanted premises. To elaborate, PW-8 proved through his evidence that Ex PW-8/A was issued by respondent no.2 for a sum of Rs. 1,900/- in the favour of petitioner. The submission of the petitioner has been that the same was issued towards payment of rent of the tenanted premises but the respondents said that the same was mala fide taken by the petitioner from respondent no.2 who wasn't that literate on the pretext of financial assistance. When RW-1 was questioned during RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 33 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:15:54 +0530 cross examination, she admitted that there was no financial transaction between the petitioner and the respondents and she also said that she wasn't aware if any loan or financial assistance was given by any of the respondent no.2 to the petitioner. The submission of RW-1 on the said aspect shows that she has not said with certainty that any such alleged financial assistance was given by the respondents to the petitioner and thus, it cannot be said that the burden on the respondents to prove the allegation of financial assistance given through Ex PW-8/A has been proved. Moreover, for Ex PW-8/A, the petitioner has alleged that the same was sent through Ex PW-1/8 when PW-1/7 was issued to the respondents. The respondents in the written statement said that neither Ex PW- 1/7 was served on them nor Ex PW-1/8 was sent by them but when RW-1 was examined on this aspect, she admitted that Ex PW-1/7 was served upon both the respondents thereby contradicting the submission of the respondents in the written statement. For Ex PW-1/8, RW-1 said that she wasn't aware if the reply along with Ex PW-8/A was sent by the respondents. Now the said answer would show that it is not complete denial. It is a settled principle that if the respondents fail to make a specific denial, the implication is that the fact is to be admitted. In the facts of this case, the submission of RW-1 of not being aware if any reply was sent to the legal notice by the respondents, results in tilting the presumption in the favour of petitioner and proving on the scale of preponderance of probability that Ex PW-8/A was sent with Ex PW-1/8 by the respondents.RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 34 of 50
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:16:01 +0530
h) Furthermore, if on face value, the reply of the respondents in the written statement is considered qua allegation of sending DD with reply to legal notice, their WS would still not prove that the reply was not sent by them through Sh Joginder Singh Garkal. To elucidate, the respondents have just made a bare allegation that the DD was never handed over to Sh Joginder Singh Garkal and he was not their counsel but, they have failed to get any admissible evidence/ document on record to prove the said averment. Let alone the proof, the respondents never made any effort to initiate any complaint with Bar Council or file any complaint before any competent Court against the said lawyer for replying to the alleged legal notice without their authority and sending the DD on pretext of payment of rent. The respondents did not even make an effort to call this person as a witness in order for this Court to ascertain the veracity of their submission and therefore, a mere conjecture cannot come to the rescue of respondents to discharge the burden imposed on them. That being said, the last question raised on the legal notice by the respondents is that no tracking report or postal receipt is filed, however, the necessity of filing a postal receipt and tracking report is to show that a notice/ document was sent by the sender on the correct address. When the reply to the notice is filed and as the petitioner proved during the cross examination of RW-1 that the notice was received by the respondents, the question of raising presumption to the letters sent through post does not arise RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 35 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:16:07 +0530 in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Shri Hari Prakash vs Delhi Development Authority, decided on 15.02.2017, wherein it was held:
"Despite the fact that DDA has not filed any postal receipt, AD Card in respect of above communications, these have admittedly been received by the appellant/plaintiff and duly responded. Exhibit PW-1/4, the relinquishment deed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff has been executed in the year 2005 i.e. after about 17 years of death of recommendee Sh.Udai Singh....The documentary evidence placed on record by the parties clearly established that it was not a case of 'no communication' to the recommendee or his legal heirs about the allotments made by the DDA under the policy....In view of deposition of PW-1 in para No.5 of the affidavit wherein all the allotments have been duly mentioned and his cross examination that the notice Ex.PW1/10 was received by elder member of the family, presumption of service of the communications can be drawn under Section 114(f) of Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It may also be noted that the appellant/plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption by leading any evidence to the contrary."
i) The ratio of above judgment shows that presumption under section 114 of Evidence act for service of communication is done through postal receipts/ AD card but where the reply to the communication is filed and proved, the question of raising such presumption does not arise.
j) Moving on to the remaining documents filed by the petitioner, he has relied upon sale deed, relinquishment deed and partition deed to show that he is the owner of the tenanted premises. Though the factum of landlord tenant relationship is proved as explained RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 36 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:16:13 +0530 above, yet, since the respondents have raised question on the mode of proof and admissibility of these documents, the said aspect is also being appreciated. Ex PW-1/1, Ex PW-1/2 and Ex PW-1/3 were all filed after producing original and they also have stamp of the requisite department. The question on mode of proof is related to an evidence being primary or secondary. Primary evidence, secondary evidence, circumstances in which secondary evidence can be filed, public document and certified copy of public documents, are all concepts which have been described in Evidence act. The requisite sections are explained herein below:
i. Section 61 of the evidence act says how the proof of contents of documents can be given- "The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence."
ii. Section 63 of Evidence act has described what all are secondary evidence-"Secondary evidence means and includes-
1. certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter contained;
2. copies made from the original by mechanical processes which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and copies compared with such copies;
3. copies made from or compared with the original;RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 37 of 50
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:16:19 +0530
4. counterparts of documents as against the parties who did not execute them;
5. oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some person who has himself seen it."
iii. Section 65 of the Evidence act lays down the cases in which secondary evidence relating to documents may be given-
"Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition, or contents of a document in the following cases-
1. When the original is shown or appears to be in the possession or power of the person against whom the document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the notice mentioned in Section 66, such a person does not produce it;
2. When the existence, condition or contents of the original have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person against whom it is proved or by his representative in interest;
3. When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any other reason not arising from his own default or neglect, produce it in reasonable time;RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 38 of 50
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:16:24 +0530
4. When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily movable;
5. When the original is a public document within the meaning of Section 74.
6. When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in, to be given in evidence;
7. When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other documents which cannot conveniently be examined in Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the whole collection.
iv. Section 74 defines Public documents. The following documents are public documents as mentioned in the act :-
1. Documents forming the acts or records of the acts:
a) of the sovereign authority;
b) of official bodies and tribunals; and
c) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of private documents v. Section 76 defines what are Certified copies of public documents:
1. Every [public officer] [A Village-officer in the Punjab has been declared for the purposes of this Act to be a public officer having the custody of a public document-see the RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 39 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:16:29 +0530 Punjab Land-Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), Section 151(2).] having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor, together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and subscribed by such officer with his name and his official title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies so certified shall be called certified copies.
2. Explanation: Any officer who, by the ordinary course of official duty is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be deemed to have the custody of such documents within the meaning of this section.
vi. Section 77 explains when proof of documents can be given by production of certified copies: "Such certified copies may be produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or part of the public documents of which they purport to be copies."
vii. Section 79 lays down the Presumption as to genuineness of certified copies: "The Court shall presume [to be genuine] every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 40 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:16:34 +0530 or other document, which is by Law declared to be admissible as evidence of any particular fact, and which purports to be duly certified by any officer [of the Central Government or of a State Government, or by any officer [in the State of Jammu and Kashmir] who is duly authorized thereto by the Central Government]"
k) In addition to these sections, the law on primary and secondary evidence has also been explained by their lordships in Vijay vs Union of India & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4910 of 2023. The judgment passed by the constitution bench of the Hon'ble Court was also quoted in the case of Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v.
Purya,14 (5-Judge Bench) wherein it was held:
"law requires Primary evidence to be given first, and secondary evidence may be given in the absence of primary/original evidence when a proper explanation of its absence has been given. The terms "primary and secondary evidence" apply to the kinds of proof that may be given to the contents of a document, irrespective of the purpose for which such contents, when proved, may be received." It was further held that, "Section 63 of the Evidence Act gives an exhaustive definition declaring that secondary evidence "means and includes" the five kinds of evidence mentioned therein and Section 65 of the Evidence Act allows secondary evidence to be given of the existence, condition, or contents of documents under the circumstances therein mentioned. It provides for the circumstances in which secondary evidence can be used when the original document is unavailable or inaccessible. It is imperative to adhere to the principles outlined in these sections, including the proper documentation and authentication, to successfully produce secondary evidence in legal proceedings."RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 41 of 50
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:16:48 +0530
l) The above sections and the law settled on this point would show that Ex PW-1/1 to Ex PW-1/3 were since all produced in original when they were exhibited and they have the stamp of the concerned department wherein the were executed, they fall within the category of primary evidence. Coming to the relevance of these documents, Ex PW-1/3 is the relinquishment deed for the tenanted premises executed in the favour of petitioner but the same is executed on a 100 Rs Stamp paper with 25 Rs registration.
Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ramesh Sharma vs Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors on 8 October, 2025 held:
"It is to be noted that the Relinquishment Deed has not been referred to in Schedule 1-A (for Delhi) of the Stamp Act, however, Article 55 prescribes stamp duty payable on the release deed, which reads as under: "55. RELEASE, that is to say, any instrument (not being such a release as is provided for by section 23(a) whereby a person renounces a claim upon another person or against any specified property: (a) if the amount or value of the claim The same duty as does not exceed Rs. 1,000 Bond (No. 15) for such amount or value as set forth in the Release, (b) in any other case One hundred rupees. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Chella Subbanna & Anr. v. Chella Balasubbareddi & Ors.14, where the question arose whether a coparcener, irrespective of the partition of the family property, can relinquish his own interest in favour of the other coparceners. In this regard, the Full Bench has observed as:
"The relinquishment by one coparcener of his interest in the family estate in favour of the members of the coparcenary does not amount to an alienation; it merely amounts to an extinction of his interest in favour of the others." 18. Further reliance is placed upon the decision of the Full Bench in Reference under Stamp Act Sec. 4615, wherein the Full Bench held as follows: Therefore, upon perusal of the abovementioned judgments, it is reiterated that Relinquishment does not tantamount to an alienation of rights, and an RD between the co-owners holds equal force as an RD between the coparceners.
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 42 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:16:54
+0530
m) Further, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kuppuswami Chettiar v. Arumuga Chettiar, AIR 1967 SC 1395, held: "A release deed could only feed title, but could not transfer title and that renouncement must be in favour of a person who had already title to an estate, the effect of which was only to enlarge the right."
n) The above judgments would thus make it clear that Ex PW-1/3 can at max only prove that the right of the petitioner in the tenanted premises has been enlarged on account of the relinquishment of shares by the other co-sharers but it cannot confer transfer of title. The respondents have raised an objection that the other heirs have not been made a party and there is allegedly a dispute among the heirs qua the tenanted premises and therefore, the petitioner cannot call himself the landlord. The petitioner has explained that in light of Ex PW-1/3 and because no other heir has raised any objection, the tenant cannot question the non impleadment of other heirs. To prove the same, PW-7 was examined who proved the relinquishment deeds placed on record and accordingly, they were re exhibited as Ex PW-7/A (colly). Now in light of Ex PW-7/A and the law as mentioned above, it can be said without doubt that Petitioner is one of the heir of Late Sh Din Dayal and since no objection has been raised by any other heir/ co-sharer and they in fact relinquished their share in the tenanted premises in the favour of petitioner, the submission of the respondents of non RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 43 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:17:00 +0530 impleadment also has no bearing to this case. The said law was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pal Singh vs Sunder Singh (Dead) by LR's & Ors, 1989 AIR 758, wherein the Hon'ble Court held "when the other co-owner did not object to the eviction one co-owner could maintain an action for eviction even in the absence of other co-owner."
o) Coming to the the sale deed filed by the petitioner, the deed was filed in Urdu Language along with its translation which was done by PW-9. Witness from Delhi Archives came to prove the existence of the document and the document was re-exhibited as Ex PW-5/1 and Ex PW-5/2. For proof of translation, PW-9 was examined and he said that translation was done by him.
Accordingly, the translated copies of the deed were re exhibited as Ex PW-9/1 and Ex PW-9/2. Now when PW-9 was cross examined, he admitted that he does not possess a certificate for doing translation but he said that he graduated in Urdu. Though the petitioner also relied on Ex PW-1/9 to show that the Ld. CJ-06 also relied on the translated deeds to observe in Suit No. 569/12 that the petitioner is the owner of another shop in the same property but that alone cannot mean that without the said document being appreciated by the Court in the language which the Court can comprehend, supported with admissible translation, the document can be said to be proved. The issue of fact in Suit No. 569/12 was whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession for another shop but here, an eviction petition is filed for another shop and as RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 44 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:17:05 +0530 there is a dispute regarding the admissibility of the translated document, this Court cannot give a conclusive finding on the alleged ownership of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises. All that has been proved is that the respondents, in comparison to petitioner have a lesser right to the tenanted premises. In any case, the question of ownership is not sine qua non in rent petitions and question of title is not required to be decided. Recently, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Mohammad Aamir through SPA vs Mohd Arif Ansari, RC Rev 75/2021, dated 06.10.2025, reiterated the said principle, as laid down in Shanti Sharma and Ors vs Ved Prabha & Ors (1987) 4 SCC193 that landlord has to only establish a better title and not ownership to the tenanted premises. Thus, even if Ex PW-9/1 and Ex PW-9/2 is not considered, yet the issue of fact in this case has been proved by the petitioner on the scale of preponderance of probability. Accordingly, issue no.1 is decided in the favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
29. 2nd & 3rd Issue: The issue of Bona fide need of the petitioner and availability of suitable alternate accommodation are being appreciated together as the facts and evidence are interconnected.
a) First, coming to the question of bona fide need of the petitioner, PW-1 has asserted in his pleadings and the evidence that the tenanted premises is required for his younger son as he intends to start his business. PW-2 also came as a witness to explain his need RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 45 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:17:11 +0530 and submitted that the tenanted premises is the only commercial premises available with his father and he has been working on odd jobs but now he wants to start his own business. The respondents have throughout alleged that the younger son of the petitioner is well settled and earning well and therefore, the need alleged is illusory. RW-2 and RW-3 were called to prove that the younger son of the petitioner is gainfully employed but they both admitted in their cross examination that they have no personal knowledge about this fact and they alleged so in their affidavits on the basis of information gathered from locality. The said submission of RW-2 and RW-3, as explained above falls under the category of hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible and thus, the respondents, despite going through the process of Trial couldn't produce a single piece of evidence to prove this allegation. The respondents have also alleged that both the sons are adults and not dependent on the petitioner but again, the age of the younger son does not defeat his right to use the premises if he sees any prospect of earning better. In the judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Manika Rani Ghosh & Anr vs Dharwinder Kaur, RC Rev 512/2012 and Manmohan Singh vs Arjun Uppal, RC Rev 117/2016, the Hon'ble Court held:
"It is often contended by the tenants that the landlord has no prior business experience, capacity or that the suit premises are not suitable for the business proposed by the landlord. For instance, similar contentions were raised by the tenants before this Court in the case of Shashi Kant Jain v. Tilak Raj Salooja & Anr., R. C. Rev. 167/2010 and have been refuted. Such allegations whereby the tenant tries to raise questions regarding the age of the landlord or lack of business experience RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 46 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:17:17 +0530 or suitability of the suit shop for the business proposed by the landlord and which are invariably vague do not consist a triable issue. The tenants/petitioners made assertions before the Ld. RC regarding the landlady possessing alternative properties, but were unable to furnish sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate the allegations. There is no dispute that the business cannot be profitably carried from the residential premises and thus, the plea that the landlady could start the business form her residence is untenable. Moreover, it is not for this Court to examine the viability of the business at the suit premises or assess if it may be a profitable venture for the landlady."
"Landlords are not required to possess or to show any prior experience to start a new business and additionally they are also not bound to start the same business. No prior business experience is required by the landlord."
b) A bare reading of the above mentioned judgments along with the facts of the case would show that it is not for the landlord to show his expertise or experience in the field in which he/ his heirs intend to setup their business and it is not even mandatory for him to have a professional qualification. In fact, the law prohibits the assessment by the tenant or the Court about the qualification, profitability and manner in which the landlord should use his premises. The only onus on the landlord is to show that tenanted premises are required for bona fide use and the Rent controller cannot presume that the landlord does not require the premises for bona fide need. In fact as per law, the Controller has to proceed with the presumption that requirement alleged is genuine, unless proved otherwise. Reliance is being placed on the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Ahuja vs United India Insurance Company Ltd dated 27 October, 1998:
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 47 of 50Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:17:23 +0530 "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 fide of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
c) Coming to the question of alternate accommodation, the respondents have alleged that the petitioner is possession of other shops which can be used by him. To substantiate the same, the respondents questioned PW-1 and PW-2 on the said fact and both of them explained that apart the tenanted premises, there is no other suitable commercial shop which can be used. Additionally, PW-1 has also said that the tenanted premises is close to the residential premises of his younger son, making it more suitable for him and it is also adjacent to the shop of his elder son. No contrary evidence has been produced by the respondents to show that the petitioner has any other alternate accommodation which can be used by his younger son. In fact, RW-1 admitted the site plan filed by the petitioner and she also admitted that the elder son of the petitioner is carrying on his business from the adjacent shop to the tenanted premises, thereby proving the submission of the petitioner on viability of the tenanted premises. RW-2 and 3 on the other RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 48 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:17:30 +0530 hand, though alleged in their affidavit that petitioner has other shops but they failed to prove so in the cross examination. They both admitted that there is no proof to say that petitioner has any other premises in his possession as alleged and the record maintained by them is on the basis of market charges, which is prepared by taking ID card of people. The said statement of RW-2 and RW-3 shows that they have no admissible document to show that petitioner is in possession of any other commercial shop which can be called as suitable alternate accommodation for the bona fide need alleged. RW-2 and 3 also admitted in their cross examination that they never saw any ownership documents of the alleged shops described by them to be owned by the petitioner or, the ownership documents of respondents for the tenanted premises and therefore, the allegation of availability of suitable alternate accommodation with the petitioner cannot be said to be proved by the respondents on the scale of preponderance of probability.
RELIEF:
30. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has successfully proved the relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondents, along with the bona fide need for the tenanted premises. The respondents, on the other hand, failed to prove that the petitioner has any alternate suitable accommodation and accordingly, the respondents are directed to vacate the tenanted premises I.e premises RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 49 of 50 Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:17:35 +0530 bearing private number 9 in property no. 514, Ward No.5, Mehrauli, New Delhii-110030.
31. The above said order shall however not be executed before expiry of six months from the date of the order.
32. Parties to bear their respective cost.
33. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by SHILPI SHILPI SINGH SINGH Date:
2026.01.30 17:17:44 +0530 Announced in the open Court (SHILPI SINGH) on 30.01.2026 ACJ-CCJ-ARC/South, Saket Court/Delhi RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 50 of 50