Delhi District Court
Uma Yadav vs Navneet Arora on 18 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-
CUM-CCJ-CUM-ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER,
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided over by- Sh. Dev Chaudhary, DJS
RC ARC No. -: 43/2022
Unique Case ID -: DLWT030016802022
In the matter of -
1. UMA YADAV
W/o Late Sh. Dharampal Yadav
R/o WZ-56, Sarbati Niwas, Jawalaheri,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063
(Since deceased and substituted through petitioner no. 2)
2. SATINDER YADAV
S/o Late Sh. Dharampal Yadav
R/o WZ-56, Sarbati Niwas, Jawalaheri,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063
......... Petitioners
VS.
1. NAVNEET ARORA
W/o Late Sh. Gurpreet Arora
R/o B-44, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
Also at, Shop No. 1, Property No. WZ-56,
Ground Floor, Main Jwalaheri Market, New Delhi.
2. RAMAN PAL ARORA
S/o Late Sh. Harpal Singh Arora
R/o B-44, Vishal Enclave, Rajouri Garden,
New Delhi
.......... Respondents
1. Date of Institution : 01.07.2022
2. Date of Reserving Order : 05.08.2025
3. Date of Decision : 18.08.2025
Leave to defend dismissed,
4. Decision :
petition allowed
Argued by -: Sh. Manish Gandhi, Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
Sh. Chetan Lokur, Ld. counsel for the respondent.
Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 1 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:11 +0530 ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND -
Heading Para No.
1. Petition 2-2.4
2. Leave to defend application 3-4.4
3. Reply 5-6
4. Arguments 7-9.1
5. Analysis 10-17
- Landlord-Tenant Relationship 12-12.2
- Bonafide Requirement 13-13.8
- Alternate Accommodation 14-14.11
6. Other Objections 15-17
7. Conclusion 18-23
1. This order adjudicates the application for leave to defend filed by the respondent no. 1 Navneet Arora (hereinafter, "respondent") under Section 25B(4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, "the Act").
PETITION -
2. Briefly stated, the present eviction petition has been filed by petitioners Smt. Uma Yadav (who has subsequently expired) and Sh. Satinder Yadav (hereinafter only he is referred to as, "petitioner") under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground of bonafide requirement. It is averred in the petition that the premises (as highlighted in the site plan in red colour) comprised in Shop No. 1, property no. WZ-56, Ground Floor, Main Jwala Heri Market, New Delhi- 110063 admeasuring 12.4' (dehors staircase leading to upper floor) x 40' (though it is 16.7' on the rear side) (hereinafter, "premises in question") was given on rent to the respondents on 11.05.2013 at a monthly rent of ₹2,500/-, exclusive of electricity charges.
2.1. It is averred in the petition that the rent agreement Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 2 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:12 +0530 was initially executed in favour of the husband of respondent no. 1, who was also the brother of the respondent no. 2. However, after his demise in the year 2013, a fresh rent agreement was executed on 11.05.2013. The property is stated to be a commercial property, and it is alleged that the respondents have also sub-let the property to a brand, Sabhyata.
2.2. The claim of the petitioners in the petition is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the premises in question, which was initially owned by Sh. Dharampal Yadav. After the death of Sh. Dharampal Yadav, his estate devolved upon his heirs vide an oral settlement dated 20.11.2006. The settlement was reduced into writing vide a memorandum dated 23.07.2007. The petitioner has claimed that by virtue of this settlement, the premises in question devolved upon him. However, for emotional reasons, the petitioner has always kept the name of his mother, the petitioner no. 1, alongwith him with respect to the premises in question. 2.3. It is claimed that the respondents are joint tenants with respect to the premises in question, and the petitioner has been issuing rent receipts to the respondents for the rent being paid by them. It is claimed that the petitioner has two sons, out of which one son is a public servant in the state of Uttar Pradesh, and the younger son namely Divyanshu Yadav is an Advocate, enrolled in Delhi. It is the case of the petitioner that his younger son does not have any office or chamber in Delhi in order to meet his clients, prepare his briefs etc. It is averred that the premises in question is the most suitable space for opening office of the younger son of the petitioner as it is located on the main road, and has ample parking of 40-45 cars in front of the shop for staff, associates and clients etc. Since the premises in question is surrounded by other traders/businesses, it is claimed that the prospective clients will be Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 3 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:13 +0530 located nearby for the Advocate son of the petitioner to represent. The petition also highlights the locational advantage of the premises being on the ground floor.
2.4. The petition further avers that the son of the petitioner is dependent upon the petitioner for his needs as he has recently graduated, and it is claimed that there is no suitable and alternate accommodation available to the petitioner. The petition also highlights the situation with respect to the other shops as shown in the site plans. Three site plans have been filed by the petitioner in this case. The petition further mentions about the efforts of the petitioners to get the premises vacated and the police complaints made by the parties. As such, it is prayed that the petition be allowed, and the respondents be evicted from the premises in question.
LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION -
3. Prior to filing of the present application, vide order dated 01.07.2022, notice was issued to the respondent as per the form specified in Third Schedule of the Act, made returnable for 18.10.2022. As per record, the application for leave to defend was filed on 09.09.2022 by the respondent no. 1, after being firstly served on 27.08.2022, electronically. As per the claim of the respondent no. 1 in the leave to defend application, she was served on 26.08.2022. The respondent no. 2, to whom fresh notice was issued, did not file any leave to defend application within the statutory period and the right of the said respondent to file the application was closed vide order dated 24.07.2023. Thus, the petition is only contested by the respondent no. 1. There is no dispute at Bar that the leave to defend was filed within the prescribed period.
Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 4 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:13 +0530
4. In the application seeking leave to defend, it is stated that the respondent no. 1 is the sole tenant in the premises in question. It is stated that the late husband of the respondent was let out the premises in question initially and after his death, the tenancy devolved upon the respondent as per the family settlement dated 19.01.2016. It is averred in the application that the respondent is also a tenant with respect to first floor office of the property adjoining State Bank of India, and the petitioner demolished the same on the pretext of redevelopment. It is mentioned that the goods kept in the said office were shifted to the premises at WZ-56, 2nd Floor, Sarbati Niwas, Jwala Heri Market, and the petitioners have that premises also available with them. It is claimed that the petitioners have forcibly dispossessed the respondent from the said first floor office and have also caused damage to the premises in question. The claim is that the petitioners prevented the repairs of the damage caused by them, which demonstrates their malafide conduct. It is claimed that the entire rent has been paid to the petitioners, and petitioners have also refused to accept the rent.
4.1. The application further mentions that the bonafide requirement is that of the son of the petitioner, and not of either of the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners have numerous other alternative properties available with them, and the details of these 44 properties have been mentioned in the application. Further, the property adjacent to the premises in question is also stated to be under the ownership and possession of the petitioners and it can be used for the requirement of the petitioners. 4.2. The respondent has claimed that the petitioners are only seeking to mislead the Court, and the petitioners have not placed on record any documents to show that the other properties Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 5 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:13 +0530 are not available to them. With regard to the requirement of the son, it is stated that an Advocate cannot practice without clearing the All India Bar Exam and there is nothing to suggest that the son of the petitioner has qualified the said exam. It is claimed that since many law graduates do not pursue law after graduation, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to establish that he is indeed practicing law.
4.3. It is claimed that the respondent is a widow, who is the solely responsible for raising a daughter. She had disputes with her in-laws after the demise of her husband, and the disputes were resolved vide a settlement, however, there is no support to the respondent from her in-laws. It is stated that the premises in question is the only source of income for the respondent, and in case she is evicted, she will be forced to live in destitution. It is claimed that the petition is malafide, and the petitioners even went to the extent of intentionally damaging the premises in question, which had led to the respondent to approach the Court for relief. 4.4. In the application, it is mentioned that the following triable issues are raised in the petition-
A. Whether the petitioners have come to this Court with clean hands and bonafide intentions?
B. Whether the subject matter petition is an abuse of process of law to force the respondent no. 1 out of the premises in question? C. Whether an actual bonafide requirement of a lawyer's office exists in favour of the petitioners without any evidence that the lawyer in question is even practicing as a lawyer or has obtained certificate of practice?
D. Whether an alleged bonafide requirement of the son of one of the petitioners, and not any of the petitioners themselves, would constitute a bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 6 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:11 +0530 Delhi Rent Control Act?
E. Whether the petitioners already have alternate commercial accommodations available to suit the alleged bonafide requirement?
As such, it is prayed that leave to defend be granted to the respondent in order to contest the matter.
REPLY -
5. The petitioner has filed a reply to the application filed by the respondent. In the same, it is averred that the respondent no.1 has admitted that the rent agreement was with both the respondents and there was no occasion for the respondent no. 2 to surrender tenancy rights, in case he was not a tenant, as alleged by the respondent no. 1. It is denied in the reply that any other portion was leased out to the respondent, and it is mentioned that the respondent was never leased out the shop no. 1A, which is on the first floor of the premises. It is further mentioned that the alternative properties are not suitable for the requirement of the petitioner. It is claimed that most of the properties shown in the site plan have been sold and the rest are rented out. It is mentioned that only few shops fell in the share of the petitioner and not all of them devolved upon the petitioner. It is mentioned that the shop no. 2, adjacent to the shop in question, is owned by the brother of the petitioner.
5.1. In the reply, it is further averred that the son of the petitioner has cleared AIBE on 29.04.2023 and is entitled to practice law. Further, he was qualified to practice law immediately on enrolment and was qualified even on the date of petition. It is mentioned that the son of the petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein he has mentioned that he intends to practice law. It is Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 7 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:12 +0530 mentioned that although the son of the petitioner is not getting regular briefs, however, he is visiting different Courts and has also done internships with many lawyers. The other allegations in the leave to defend application have been denied. It is prayed that the application be dismissed.
6. The respondent has further filed a rejoinder to the reply filed by the petitioner to her leave to defend application, wherein the allegations made by the petitioner have been denied.
ARGUMENTS -
7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both parties at length and have given my thorough consideration to the material on record, which includes written submissions. Learned counsel for the parties have argued in line with the written pleadings.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the application filed by the respondent is liable to be dismissed as the respondent has failed to raise any triable issue in this case. It is argued that the respondent has herself claimed that the shop no. 2 is the most suitable space for the son of the petitioner. However, the said shop is not owned by the petitioner. It is argued that the site plans have remained unchallenged, and the respondent has failed to show as to why a trial is required on the alternate accommodation allegedly available with the petitioner. Learned counsel has argued that onus was upon the respondent, which she has failed to discharge. Further, it is argued that the respondent has raised frivolous defence with respect to the AIB Exam, as it is not denied that the son of the petitioner is an Advocate, who is starting off in the legal profession. It is argued that the respondent has herself resorted to dilatory tactics in the present case. Learned Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 8 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:11 +0530 counsel has relied upon Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Company AIR 1999 SC 100, Dhanna Lal vs. Kalawatibar (2002) 6 SCC 16, Adarsh Electricals vs. Dinesh Dayal RCR No. 195/2010, Raghvender Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534 and Anil Bajaj vs. Vinod Ahuja 2014 (15) SCC 610 in support of his contentions. As such, it is prayed that the application seeking leave to defend the present petition be dismissed.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued the respondent has raised many triable issues and the matter cannot be decided summarily without leading evidence. He has argued that the purpose of enacting Section 14 in the Act was to protect tenants, and the statute is to be read with that lens. He has argued that the supporting affidavits are not proper. Further, it is argued that as per the documents of the petitioner, he has atleast 44 other shops, which devolved upon him in terms of the family settlement. In that case, despite clear objections of the respondent, the petitioner has vaguely claimed that these shops are either sold or under tenancy. It is his contention that the landlord was duty bound to show, by way of producing material, that these shops are infact not available to him. It is argued that no details of tenants, or the sale documents, have been placed on record by the petitioner. 9.1. Further, learned counsel has argued that the conduct of the petitioner indicates that the petition has been filed with a malafide intent, as the petitioner had earlier damaged the premises in question, which had to be rectified after the respondent approached the Court. He has relied upon the other police complaint, NCR, FIR etc. to contend that the conduct of the landlord is an important consideration while dealing with such applications. Lastly, it is contended that there are no documents to show that the son of the petitioner is a practicing advocate. He has Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 9 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:12 +0530 relied upon Precision Steel & Engineering Works vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal AIR 1982 SC 1518, Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh (2001) 1 SCC 706, Krishan Kumar Bhasin vs. M/s Pritam Prakash Dawar & Sons R.C. Rev. No. 223/2013 (DHC) ,Sushma Kahnna vs. Rajwant Kaur R.C. Rev. No. 439/2017 (DHC), Abid- ul-islam vs. Inder Sen Dua 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 353 and W.H. Brady & Co. Ltd. vs. Sarita Jain 2018 SCC OnLine Del 6576 in support of his contentions. Accordingly, it is prayed that application be allowed in the respondent be given an opportunity to contest the petition.
ANALYSIS -
10. The provision under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act is an exception to the regular mode of eviction as prescribed under the Act and the landlord has to prove the twin conditions of bonafide requirement and unavailability of alternate suitable accommodation in order to succeed in such a petition. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abuid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua AIR 2022 SC 1778 has observed in this regard, inter-alia, as under-
"12. Section 14(1)(e) carves out an exception to the regular mode of eviction. Thus, in a case where a landlord makes an application seeking possession of the tenanted premises for his bona fide requirement, the learned Rent Controller may dispense with the protection prescribed under the Act and then grant an order of eviction. Requirement is the existence of bona fide need, when there is no other "reasonably suitable accommodation".
Therefore, there has to be satisfaction on two grounds, namely,
(i) the requirement being bona fide and (ii) the non availability of a reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Such reasonableness along with suitability is to be seen from the perspective of the landlord and not the tenant. When the learned Rent Controller comes to the conclusion that there exists a bona fide need coupled with the satisfaction that there is no reasonably suitable residential accommodation, the twin conditions mandated Under Section 14(1)(e) stand satisfied." What is meant by a bonafide need has been elucidated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Mahesh Chand Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 10 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:11 +0530 Gupta 1999 INSC 364 in the following words -
"A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra-distinction with a 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 landlord and its bonafides would be capable of successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the Court. The Judge of facts should place himself .in the arm chair of the landlord and then ask the question to himself- whether in the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant enabling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the contrary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pretence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objective standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited .for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one. but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life. An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must be guarded against"
11. In order to succeed in the present petition, the landlord is mandated to show that he is owner of the property and that there exists a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Further, the landlord has to show bonafide need of the premises and the fact that there is no other suitable alternate accommodation available to her. Once these essential ingredients are proved, the petition succeeds. The same are discussed in the following paragraphs.
12. Landlord-tenant relationship - This is the first Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 11 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:13 +0530 ingredient required to be established by the petitioner in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act. In the present matter, the petition was initially filed by the two petitioners. In the petition, it is claimed that although petitioner no. 2 is the absolute owner of the premises in question, as it came to his share after the properties of late Sh. Dharampal Yadav (original owner) were divided amongst the family vide a family settlement, the name of the petitioner no. 1 has been added in this petition for emotional reasons. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner no. 1 Smt. Uma Yadav also expired, and an application under Order 22 Rule 2 and 5 CPC filed alongwith affidavit of remaining children of petitioner no.1 was allowed vide order dated 24.04.2024. A challenge was made to this order by the respondent by moving an application under Order 22 Rule 5 CPC, which was dismissed vide order dated 13.06.2025. Thus, the petitioner in this case is only Sh. Satinder Yadav, who is claiming himself to be the sole owner and landlord.
12.1. In the leave to defend application filed by the respondent, there is no denial of the fact that the parties have a landlord-tenant relationship, and the petitioner is the landlord qua the premises in question. The respondent has claimed in the application that she has been paying rent. An objection is raised that the respondent no. 2 is not a tenant, as he has surrendered his tenancy in favour of the respondent no. 1 vide a family settlement dated 19.01.2016. In this regard, the rent agreement is on record, which has been executed between the petitioner and both the respondents. The family settlement referred to above is a subsequent document inter-se between the tenants, which also mentions that the respondent no. 1 shall have the interest in the tenancy after the mutual settlement. Since the said respondent no.
Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 12 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:14 +0530 2 has not contested this petition, there is no requirement to devle further into this matter. There is no dispute at Bar with regard to the relation between the parties.
12.2. Thus, it can be safely held that the landlord-tenant relationship has been established and no triable issue in this regard is raised in this petition by the respondent.
13. Bonafide requirement -The petitioner has sought eviction in this case on the ground that the premises in question is required by his son in order to set up his office. In the petition, the petitioner has duly mentioned about the requirement, by highlighting that the premises in question is required for his younger son, who is an Advocate and who wishes to open his office in order to work and deal with his clients. Detailed assertions have been made with respect to the requirement of the son, and the fact that the premises in question is a perfect space for the son to open his office. The petitioner has duly mentioned the enrollment number of the son, and the fact that since he has graduated only an year prior to filing of the petition, he is dependent upon the petitioner for his requirement to open an office. The petitioner has annexed with the petition, the provisional certificate of enrollment of his son as an Advocate. The certificate is issued by the Bar Council of Delhi, and is dated 30.09.2021, i.e. prior to the filing of the petition.
13.1. The first objection of the respondent in this regard is that the petitioner has not placed on record any material to show that his son is indeed practicing law, or has cleared the mandatory exam of All India Bar (AIBE). In this regard, I find that the petitioner has duly explained both these objections. The fact that the son in an Advocate, duly entitled to practice law (even if provisionally), is borne out from the certificate annexed with the Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 13 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:12 +0530 petition. It is mentioned in the reply to the leave to defend application that the son of the petitioner has also cleared the All India Bar Exam on 29.04.2023, and is fully eligible to practice law. The result of the exam has been placed on record. Even otherwise, the practice of law may have many connotations. Advising of clients, drafting, handling disputes, researching etc. all fall within law practice. The record also reflects that provisionally, the son of the petitioner was entitled to practice law, at the time of the petition, and subsequently, he has passed the mandatory exam, as is evident from the result placed on record with the reply to the leave to defend application. Other experience certificates have also been filed with respect to interships etc, which also include certificate from a Government organisation. It is mentioned that since the son of the petitioner is starting out in the law profession, he does not have regular briefs, and which is why, he requires a regular office. 13.2. Even otherwise, it is settled law that the landlord is not required to give each and every detail and a comprehensive plan regarding the purpose of what he intends to do in the tenanted premises. Infact, that landlord may change her mind and start a different business than that mentioned in the petition. The only requirement is to stipulate with clarity the bonafide requirement of the landlord. Therefore, in view of the above, the objections of the respondent in this regard are liable to be rejected and there is no triable issue on the aspect as to whether the son of the petitioner requires the premises in question or not to start his office. 13.3. Learned counsel for the respondent has further argued, by referring to Precision Steel & Engineering Works Ltd.
supra that not only the requirement of the landlord should be bonafide, the conduct of the landlord is also required to be bonafide. He has referred to the various complaints lodged against Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 14 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:12 +0530 the petitioner by the respondent, apart from the other litigations, to contend that the petitioner's conduct itself makes the alleged bonafide requirement doubtful. However, in my opinion, the circumstances highlighted by the respondent do not demonstrate any triable issues on this aspect.
13.4. The conduct of the landlord may be relevant to decide as to whether the landlord's ground of eviction is indeed a genuine requirement and not a pretext to evict the tenant. As already noted above, the petitioner's son being a new Advocate, starting his own practice in the field of law, is established. On this aspect, the case of the petitioner cannot be faulted. With respect to the NCR No. 17/2022 P.S. Paschim Vihar East for the offence under Section 506 IPC, it is not clear as to whether any investigation has been conducted on those allegations, and whether the accused is facing any trial. With respect to the FIR No. 605/2022 P.S. Paschim Vihar East for the offences under Section 354/506/336/427/34 IPC, it is contented that charges have already been framed against the petitioner. However, even if charges have been framed, I find that these facts by themselves do not give raise to any triable issue.
13.5. Any person accused of an offence has a presumption of innocence until he is proven to be guilty by a Court of law.
Merely because the petitioner is facing trial on an allegation made by the respondent will not ipso facto amount to questionable conduct with respect to the relief of eviction in this case, unless he has been convicted by competent Court of law on those accusations. If such a plea is accepted, it will be easy for an unscrupulous tenant to file allegations against the landlord in anticipation of an eviction petition, and seek leave on the ground of malafide conduct.
Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 15 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:13 +0530 13.6. Further, the complete record pertaining to the proceedings under Section 44 of the Act between the parties has not been placed on record, and it does not emanate from record that it has been held by any comptenent authority that it was the petitioner who has deliberately damaged portion of the premises in question.
It has been informed by the learned counsel for the parties that earlier, permission was granted to the respondent to carry on repairs, however, on appeal, the said order granting permission was set aside. With respect to the other contentions qua shop no. 1A , the same are contrary to the rent agreement as well as the rent receipts, and thus, do not hold any force. As such, on this ground as well, I do not find that leave to defend can be granted to the respondent.
13.7. Another argument of the respondent is that there is no requirement of any of the petitioners, and the requirement is of the son. However, this argument is liable to be outrightly rejected in view of the provision under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act itself, that provides that the petition can be filed for requirement of any dependent family member. A family member dependent for purposes of this provision is a dependent for the requirement of property, and not financially. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument that a triable issue is made out since the petition has been filed for the requirement of a family member and not the petitioners themselves. A petition for benefit of a family member can be maintained under this provision.
13.8. Therefore, on the basis of the above discussion, I find that the petitioner has been able to show bonafide requirement of the premises in question and the tenant/respondent has failed to show any triable issue in this regard.
14. Alternate accommodation - The last ingredient of the Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 16 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:13 +0530 provision is that the landlord does not possess any other suitable accommodation. Detailed arguments have been addressed on this issue by the learned counsel for the respondent. He has claimed that from the documents annexed with the petition, it is clear that the petitioner himself has 44 other shops available with him. It is argued that the respondent has specifically stated in the leave to defend application that these shops are alternative shops available with the petitioner. However, only a vague response has been given by the petitioner, and that too without any corroborative material. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the other shops are not alternate to the shop in question, and the circumstances have been duly explained by the petitioner. 14.1. In this regard, in the petition, the petitioner has duly pleaded as to why the premises in question is a suitable space for his son. It is mentioned that the shop in question has ample parking space for 40-45 cars in its front, which is adequate for parking of vehicles of the son, his staff, associates and clients. It is further mentioned that the shop in question is surrounded by other shops, who can be potential clients for the son. It is stated that since the shop in question is on the ground floor, it is specially conducive for old, physically disabled and women clients. It is claimed that there is better footfall at the shops on the ground floor as compared to those on the upper floors. Thus, the requirement of the petitioner for the shop in question has been stated in detail in the pleadings of the petitioner.
14.2. With respect to the alternate spaces, I find that the petitioner has also highlighted in detail in the petition itself. The petitioner has filed three site plans in this case, and all the three site plans highlight different aspects of the other properties available with the petitioner. The site plans are dicussed in detail below and a Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 17 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:11 +0530 portion of site plan no. 1 is reproduced hereinafter -
In the portion of the Site Plan No. 1 shown above, the premises in question has been shown. A perusal of the same reveals that the shop in question is situated on the road, and a big MCD parking is depicted right outside the shop in question, after a road. There is a footpath after the MCD parking, and then the main road is located. Jwalaheri market surrounds the property in which the shop in question is located. A shop no. 2 is also located right next to the shop in question.
14.3. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that the respondent has claimed that the shop no. 2, which is adjacent to the premises in question, has fallen vacant. This fact has been pleaded by way of an application to bring on record this subsequent event.
In reply, it is claimed that the said shop has been fallen into the share of the brother of the petitioner, Sh. Shivinder. This fact is also emanating from the family settlement of the petitioner on record. However, the respondent has contended that in essence, the property is with the petitioners. In my opinion, after division of the Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 18 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:11 +0530 property amongst family members, and this fact not being disputed, it cannot be said that the said shop no. 2 is an alternate property for the petitioner. The shop is owned by another person, and cannot be termed as an alternate property for the petitioner by any stretch of imagination. The objection qua this shop is liable to be rejected. 14.4. The site plan no. 1 as depicted above highlights the locational advantage of the premises in question, and corrborates the claim that the shop is located on a main road, and has ample parking space in front of it.
14.5. The site plan no. 2 is depicted below -
In the above site plan no. 2, the petitioner has depicted the position with respect to his shops at Sarbati Niwas. The portion in red belongs to the petitioner, and that in green is of his brother. The yellow portion is of his mother, and the portion that has been sold is depicted in blue. In my opinion, the petitioner has highlighted in detail, by visual representation, the status of the other properties Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 19 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:12 +0530 owned by him. The shops belonging to the petitioner located at either the basement, first or second floor cannot be termed as suitable alternate accomodations, as these shops cannot be equated with those located at the ground floor.
14.6. As noted in the petition, a ground floor shop cannot be matched in terms of foot fall, convenience and visibility. With respect to the shops shown in this site plan no. 2 on the ground floor, shop no. 6,7,19 and 21 are available with the petitioner.
However, these shops do not have the locational advantage like the premises in question, as there is no parking space depicted in front of these shops, and the size of these shops are smaller as well. There is another complex in front of shop no. 6 and 7, and the road in front of the shop no. 21 is smaller than that in front of the premises in question. Therefore, the site plan duly explains the position of the petitioner with respect to these shops and even in the eviction petition, the petitioner has explained that these shops are located deep into the market, which is full with hustle-bustle of customers, shopkeepers etc, and are difficult to locate. I am in agreement with the averment of the petitioner that an Advocate's office requires a peaceful enviornment, and an easy approach for the clients. It is also mentioned that the parking is far from these shops. 14.7. A portion of the site plan no. 3 is depicted below -
Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 20 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:12 +0530 A perusal of this portion showing the situation on the ground floor of property bearing no. WZ-68, Village Jwalaheri, depicts that on the ground floor, there are certain shops of the petitioner, that are depicted in red. However, on the front portion of these shops, there is the house of Mahender Yadav. On the other side, there is a passage of 9 feet width. Therefore, these shops are also not a suitable alternate to the premises in question. Another portion of the site plan no. 3 is reproduced below -
The above portion depicts that this property no. WZ-68 is located in the midst of two streets, and adjacent to houses. It is duly mentioned in the petition that this premises is located on the village side i.e. on the back side of the market, and does not have any parking space or easy access. Therefore, this property by its location cannot be compared with the premises in question. 14.8. An overall assessment of the site plans filed by the petitioner reveals that the other properties shown to be owned by the petitioner are not comparable to the premises in question, owing to various circumstances. The difference in location is the Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 21 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:11 +0530 major differentiating factor. The premises in question is located at a prime location, and has ample parking space. The other ground floor shops do not have the access, space and location comparable to the premises in question.
14.9. Notably, the respondent has not challenged the site plan filed by the petitioner in this case. I find that the visual depiction of the status of the other properties owned by the petitioner makes it clear that these shops cannot be said to be a suitable alternative location to the premises in question. These site plans have been corroborated by the pleadings of the petitioner in the petition. No counter site plans have been filed by the respondent to challenge the site plans filed by the petitioner. There is no challenge to the assertions made regarding these shops by the petitioner in the petition. Therefore, even if the other shops as shown in the site plan are vacant, these cannot be said to be an alternate to the shop in question. On account of the above, the non-
placing of sale deeds or rent agreement qua these shops by the petitioner is inconsequential. It is settled that a landlord is the best judge of his requirement and the tenant cannot dictate a landlord to get any other property vacated in order to satisfy his requirement {Refer: Kanahiya Lal Arya vs. Md. Ehsan 2025 INSC 271}. 14.10. From the above discussion, it cannot be said that the petition is only a pretense to oust the tenant from the property as the circumstances of the petitioner clearly demonstrate the need for the premises in question. Further, the tenant shall always have the benefit of Section 19 of the Act, in case the landlord fails to occupy the property in question or re-lets the same. 14.11. The adage that an advocate is known by his dress and address remains relevant, as clients frequently form their initial impressions based on the advocate's professional Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 22 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:13 +0530 appearance and the stature or presentation of their office. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the petitioner to seek eviction of the respondent from the premises in question, which is located on the main road, at the ground floor, and has sufficient parking space. On basis of the above, I find that the tenant/respondent has failed to demostrate any triable issue on this aspect and the landlord has cogently explained that there is no suitable alternate accomodation available to him in order to set up his Advocate son's office.
OTHER OBJECTIONS -
15. There is an objection that the affidavit of the petitioner no. 1 has been signed by her in Hindi, and there is no averment in the affidavit that the petitioner no. 1 was explained the contents in Hindi. However, merely because the petitioner, who has now expired, has signed in Hindi, does not imply that she was not conversant with English, or with the contents of the petition. In fact, since the attention of the Court was drawn towards the affidavits on record, I find that the affidavit of the respondent no. 1 is lacking. Section 25B(4) of the Act requires the tenant to file an affidavit stating the grounds on which the leave to defend is sought. In the present case, even though the application for leave to defend mentions the grounds, the affidavit annexed with the application does not mention any of the grounds. However, in view of the fact that the affidavit mentions that the respondent has understood the contents of the application and states the same to be correct, and in terms of the law laid down in Pawan Kumar Goel vs. Suresh Chander Gupta 2013:DHC:2149, the respondent cannot be non-suited only on this account. At this juncture, it is also pertinent to mention that even the leave to defend application does Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 23 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:14 +0530 not lay down parawise rebuttal of the grounds cited in the petition but only mentions general grounds of the application.
16. I have carefully considered the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondent. While the legal principles set out in these decisions are not in dispute, I am of the view that, even when those standards are applied, the respondent has failed to demonstrate the existence of any triable issue in the present case. Moreover, the cited judgments are distinguishable on facts and do not assist the respondent's case.
17. The last plea of the respondent is regarding the family responsibilities of the respondent. However, this being a mercy plea, cannot be a ground to allow the respondent to contest the petition. The other objections of the respondent have been duly explained by the petitioner in this case and I find that there are no triable issues, that would warrant a full-blown trial.
CONCLUSION -
18. To recapitulate the above discussion, in the present case, the petitioner has prayed for recovery of the premises in question on the ground of bonafide requirement. The respondent has failed to raise any triable issue, which would requiring leading of evidence and adjudication on merits. The objections raised by the respondent are without any cogent basis. A tenant cannot be allowed to contest the petition at the drop of a hat, and without demonstrating even on a prima facie standard that the matter requires further examination on merits. In my opinion, as on the date of petition, the petitioner has been able to prove that he has bonafide requirement of the premises in question, and he has no other reasonably suitable accommodation to cater to such requirement. There are no grounds to allow the respondent to Digitally signed by DEV RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 24 of 25 DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:15:13 +0530 contest the petition any further.
19. Resultantly, the application filed by the respondent seeking leave to defend stands dismissed.
20. Consequently, eviction order in respect of premises (as highlighted in the site plan in red colour) comprised in shop no. 1, property no. WZ-56, Ground Floor, Main Jwala Heri Market, New Delhi- 110063 admeasuring 12.4' (dehors staircase leading to upper floor) x 40' (though it is 16.7' on the rear side) is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, as per Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
21. However, in terms of Section 14(7) of the aforesaid Act, eviction shall not be executable for a period of six months from the date of this order.
22. Parties to bear own costs.
Digitally
23. Ordered accordingly. DEV signed by DEV CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY Date:
2025.08.18 15:18:45 +0530 Announced in Open (DEV CHAUDHARY) Court.
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST)
This order contains 25 TIS HAZARI COURTS
signed pages. DELHI/ 18.08.2025
RC ARC No. 43/2022 Uma Yadav vs. Navneet Arora Page No. 25 of 25