Delhi District Court
Rameshwar Dayal Sharma vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union ... on 31 July, 2025
In the Court of SCJcumRC, (West District)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
CNR No. DLWT03-002750-2020
RC ARC No: 60/20
Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Sharma
(Since Deceased)
Through his legal heirs and representatives
I) Smt. Sudesh Kaushik
W/o Sh. Brahamdutt Kaushik,
R/o A-539, Gali No. 1,
Nathu Colony, Nathu Pura,
Burari, Delhi-110084
II) Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma,
R/o 40/572, 1st Floor, New Moti Nagar, Delhi-110015
III) Sh. Umesh Kumar Sharma,
R/o B-239, Karampura,
Delhi-110015
IV) Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma,
R/o 27/407, New Moti Nagar,
Delhi-110015
V) Sh. Brijesh Kumar Sharma,
R/o B-239, Karampura,
Delhi-110015 ......Petitioners/Applicants
Versus
Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.) Trough it's President,
Sh. Jagjit Singh
B-239, Karampura
Delhi-110015.
Also At:
Sh. Jagjit Singh
President of Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.) Son of Late Sh. Pyare
Lal,
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 1 / 50
Digitally signed
RICHA by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31
16:05:56 +0530
R/o RZ-30, South Extension Part-II,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059. .....Respondent/Tenant
Date of Filing : 22.12.2020
Date of Judgment : 31.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Brief facts of the present case are, that on 21.12.2020 the petitioner filed this petition Under Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") praying to this Court to pass an order for eviction in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondent/Tenant (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent') in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Premises consisting of Portion/Room measuring approx. 12'.6 X 16'.6', forming part of property no. B-239, Karampura, Delhi.
AVERMENTS BY PETITIONERS IN THE PETITION
2. That the Petitioner is a peace loving Senior citizen of India aged about 83 years, and is residing with his family at his above mentioned address. It is submitted, that the Petitioner is a retired person having retired from Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co Ltd., Delhi.
3. That it is further submitted, that the Delhi Administration had got constructed Janta Flats in Karampura, Delhi which were allotted to employees/labours working in the private sector, factories/mills of Delhi Cloth Mill/Swatantra Bharat Mill/Campa Cola etc., and accordingly, the Petitioner was also allotted one Flat bearing no. B-239, Karampura, Delhi 110015 measuring 33.11 sq. Mtrs. consisting of Two rooms, one kitchen, one W.C., front courtyard and an outback, vide Allotment Letter dated 1st Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:06:07 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 2 / 50 October 1963, issued by the office of the Labour Commissioner, Rajpur Road, Delhi. It is further submitted, that in the year 1977, the Delhi Administration had decided to grant the ownership of the said flats to their respective allottees upon payment of nominal amount.
4. Accordingly, the Petitioner vide his application dated 2 nd May, 1979 had also applied for ownership of the said flat, and had paid the requisite amount as was prescribed by the Labour Department, Delhi Administration and subsequently, a Lease and Conveyance Deed dated 21st April, 1982 was executed in favour of the Petitioner by the Delhi Administration, through the President of India, which was duly registered upon the execution of the aforesaid Lease and Conveyance Deed dated 21st April, 1982, and pursuant to that Petitioner became the owner of the said flat.
5. It is further contended, that in the year 1979-80, one of the close friend of the Petitioner namely, Shri Pyare Lal, who was also working in Swatantra Bharat Mills, one of the subsidiary of the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co., was terminated from his employment and his services and since the said Shri Pyare Lal had no other source of income to maintain the family of three sons and one daughter, he desired to run a Labour Union Office from the tenanted premises and requested the Petitioner to allow him to use the space available in the outback of his said flat, for the said purpose. Being a close friend of the Petitioner, the latter out of trust and taking into view the family condition of the said Shri Pyare Lal, had built a kutcha room (wooden room) therein, and allowed his trade union, i.e.. the Respondent to use the said room for running a Union office, purely on compassionate grounds. Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:06:22 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 3 / 50
6. It is further stated, that after some time, the said Shri Pyare Lal, in the capacity of the President of the Respondent, requested the Petitioner to construct a pucca room in place of the wooden room in the said outback of his flat, and agreed to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 40/- (Rupees Forty only) as rent for the said pucca room, to which the Petitioner agreed. Accordingly, the Petitioner with his own funds constructed a pucca room in the outback attached to his said flat , hereinafter referred to as "the tenanted premises", which he thereafter let out to the Respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 40/- (Rupees Forty Only). It is further submitted, that the said Shri Pyare Lal at the time of taking the said room/tenanted premises on rent, assured the Petitioner, that as and when the Petitioner or his family would need/require the said portion/tenanted premises, he would vacate the same and shift his office to some other place.
7. That it is further averred, that the said Shri Pyare Lal passed away sometime in the year 1990, and after the death of Shri Pyare Lal, his son, Shri Jagjit Singh, who was working with his father, took over the presidency/reigns of the Respondent herein, and requested the Petitioner to let him continue to use the tenanted premises and to continue the said Union office therefrom on the same monthly rental which was being paid by the Respondent, to which the Petitioner agreed. The Respondent further assured the Petitioner, that he would vacate the said tenanted premises as and when requested by the Petitioner.
8. It is further averred, that the family of the Petitioner consist's of:-
a. Shri Rameshwar Dayal Sharma, the petitioner himself, aged about 84 years;
b. Smt. Krishan Lata Sharma, the wife Petitioner, aged about 83 years;
RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:06:59 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 4 / 50
c. Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, son of the Petitioner;
d. Smt. Manju Sharma, wife of Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma;
e. Mr. Lakshay Sharma, son of shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 24 years:
f. Ms. Shristi Sharma, daughter of thei Umesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 21 years:
g. Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, son of the Petitioners h. Smt. Vibha Sharma, Sharma: wife of Shri Brijesh Kumar i.Mr. Pranshu Sharma, son of Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 21 years:
j. Mr. Aayush Sharma, son of Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 20 years:
k. Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, son of the Petitioner:
l. Smt. Kiran Sharma, wife of Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma:
m. Mr. Shubham Sharma, son of Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, aged about 23 years;
n. Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, son of the Petitioner:
o. Smt. Shobha Sharma, Sharma; wife of Shri Dinesh Kumar p. Mr. Vaibhav Sharma, son of Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 25 years; and q. Mr. Sagar Sharma, son of Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 21 years;
Besides the above, the Petitioner is also having one daughter, namely Smt. Sudesh Kaushik, wife of Shri Brahamdutt Kaushik, living in Delhi. The said Smt. Sudesh Kaushik is also having one daughter, Ms. Nisha Kaushik, and one RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:07:23 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 5 / 50 son, Shri Summet Kaushik, who is also married and having two small children. The said Smt. Sudesh Kaushik and her family also frequently visit and stay with the Petitioner at the house of the Petitioner, especially on festivals, birthdays, functions and holidays etc. The Petitioner in also having an elder brother, who is living in Barrot, Uttar Pradesh with his family and one sister living in Kithor, Distt. Meerut, Uttar Pradesh and both of them also keep visiting and staying with the Petitioner at his aforesaid house.
9. It is submitted by the petitioner, that over the period of time since the family of the Petitioner has been increasing and his grandchildren were also growing in age, including a grand-daughter, the Petitioner got constructed one more room adjoining the tenanted premises.
10. Since the said rooms still did not suffice for the family of the Petitioner, he also got constructed one room, a small W.C. and a toilet over and above the terrace of tenanted premises, i.e., Room No. 6. It is submitted, that while Room no. 3 is being used as a bedroom by the Petitioner and his wife, Room No. 4 is being used as a drawing-cum-dining room by the family of the Petitioner, Room no. 1 is being used as Baithak by the Petitioner for meeting his neighbours and acquaintances, who generally keep coming to inquire about the health of the Petitioner and well being. Since the said ground floor of the flat of the Petitioner has only one small kitchen, the Petitioner has been compelled to convert some part of Room No. 1 into a small kitchen/pantry, by putting a stone slab. It is further submitted, that the Room no. 2 was initially being used by the son of the Petitioner, Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma and his wife, as their bedroom and his growing-up children also used to sleep with them. However, since the said grandchildren of the Petitioner were growing up, and the Petitioner required more living space for his family members, the Petitioner got constructed a room over and above the tenanted premises, i.e., Room no. 6, and after construction of the said room, the elder son of the Petitioner, Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, shifted Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:07:33 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 6 / 50 to the said Room No. 6, which he has been using as his bedroom, while the said Room No. 2 is now being used by the children of Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, i.e., Mr. Lakshay Sharma, who is aged about 24 years, who besides being employed in a private job with AECOM, is simultaneously also pursuing/completing the course of Master of Business Administration through correspondence, and Ms. Shrishti Sharma, who is pursuing Bachelors of Arts course from Delhi University.
11. It is also submitted, that besides the fact, that the said Mr. Lakhaya Sharma in working and hence requires the said room at night to study for his course, the Petitioner also wishes to see his said grandson married and settled soon during his lifetime, and thus would requires an individual room for him and his wife. The fact of the matter in that the granddaughter of the Petitioner, Ms. Shristhi Sharma, is now also a grown up girl and requires an independent room, but she has to share the room either with her parents or with her brother.
12. That it is further submitted, that the Room no. 5 is being used as bedroom by the other son of the Petitioner, Shri Brjiesh Kumar Sharma and his wife. It is further submitted, that due to severe paucity of space, the said son of the Petitioner, Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, had to purchase roof of the Flat No. B- 240, Karampura, Delhi (i.e., the flat above the flat of the Petitioner) in the name of his wife, Smt. Vibha Sharma and got constructed one room set therein, i.e., the Room no. 7, which room is being used by the two sons of Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, the elder son of Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, Mr. Pranshu Sharma, is pursuing Bachelor of Sciences (B.Sc.) course in Food Nutrition and Dietician from Manav Rachna University, Faridabad, while his younger son, Mr. Aayush Sharma, is pursuing Bachelor of Science (B.Sc) course in Animation and VEX from Sharda University, Noida, and thus, both of them also require an individual RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:07:41 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 7 / 50 room for their respective studies.
13. It is further submitted, that the Petitioner is a retired person, while his sons, Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma, is working in a private publication company in Narela, and Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma as an Under Secretary in the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Govt. Of India, and even collectively don't have the means or the money to buy a bigger house/property, as they have to bear all the household expenses as well as the expenses for the study of their children. Due to lack of space and to avoid constant bickering in the house, the two sons of the Petitioner, namely, Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma and Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, have to live separately from their parents, brothers and family.
14. It is further averred, that since the said two sons of the Petitioner are already living separately, it is not possible for either of his other two sons namely, Shri Umesh Kumar Sharma or Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, to move out or live separately from the Petitioner and his wife, in their old age as both the sons are also required by the Petitioner to look after him and his needs, as the Petitioner is suffering from Chronic Lungs and Pulmonary Disease (COPD)/Bronchitis and other age related ailments, while his wife, Krishan Lata Sharma in suffering from Kidney related issues, fluctuating Blood Pressure, Hypothyroidism and Hypertension, and other age related ailments.
15. It is further submitted, that to live a comfortable life and also to provide a reasonably suitable, comfortable and dignified life to his family, the Petitioner needs room each for his two sons and their wife, and one room each for his four grandchildren staying with him, besides a drawing-cum-dining room to meet and entertain guests, one pooja room, one guest room for when his brother or Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:08:17 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 8 / 50 daughter and their respective families comes and stays with the Petitioner. The portions/rooms in occupation of the Petitioner are not at all sufficient to meet the said needs of his family to live in a comfortable manner, and thus the Petitioner is in need of the tenanted premises to convert the same into a suitable, sufficient, proper and separate rooms for his family members.
16. The Petitioner and his family members, due to paucity of rooms, are facing great hardship on daily basis, which have at times also led to quarrels amongst the family members. Further under such messed up situation, the Petitioner at times have to refuse his brother and/or his daughter/sons and/or their family members from staying overnight at his house, which also leads to the Petitioner facing huge embarrassment in front of his family members. As such the Petitioner urgently requires tenanted premises measuring 12.6" x 16.6" for converting same into a room after taking out a portion of the wall from Room no. 2 and connecting the same with a door, which would at least satisfy the needs of Petitioner to certain extent.
17. It is further averred, that the Petitioner is also the owner of one property bearing no. D-319, Ground Floor, Khasra no. 187, Gali No. 3. Indra Park, Najafgarh, Delhi 110043, which he has rented out to one Shri Baijnath at a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) per month. It is pertinent to mention here, that the petitioner has no other income for his day to day expenses except the rent from above said property. Moreover, the said property is located far from the house of the Petitioner, besides the same also being far from the offices, colleges and universities where the sons of the Petitioner are working and the grandchildren are studying, respectively.
Digitally signed by RICHASHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.31 16:08:26 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 9 / 50
18. It is further averred, that since the Petitioner had been the only bread winner for his family comprising of his wife, his four sons and a daughter, he had been requesting the respondent to increase the rent however, the respondent had been increasing the monthly rent on a nominal basis, and that too not in accordance with the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and the present monthly rent in respect of the said tenanted premises is Rs.200/-, much below the market rent which the tenanted premises may fetch, if rented out today.
19. It is further submitted, that the tenanted premises is being used by the Respondent since 1978 for running it's Trade Union office, which is also affiliated to INTUC (Indian National Congress party), and being the President of the said union, the Respondent and the union leader, have developed good relations with various leaders of the Congress party, and he has been using his said connections/relations to influence Police authorities, and has become the gunda/bad element of the said area. The said Shri Jagjit Singh has also created relations with the muscle-man of the area.
20. It is averred, that as and when the Petitioner has requested the Respondent/Shri Jagjit Singh to vacate the tenanted premises, the respondent had been threatening the Petitioner with dire consequences of harming him and his family members. Shri Jagjit Singh has also been calling various members of the Respondent union and other anti-social elements from Karampura, Nangloi, Uttam Nagar and other nearby areas and creating ruckus in the tenanted premises.
21. It is further submitted, that the Respondent in collusion and connivance with local municipal authorities started paying the House Tax in respect of the Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:08:59 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 10 / 50 tenanted premises, allegedly claiming the same to be it's property in order to prove the ownership of the tenanted premises. The said Shri Jagjit Singh has also got an Election/Voter-I card and passport made in his name from the address of the tenanted premises. When the Petitioner came to know about the same, and inquired about the same from him, the said Shri Jagjit Singh, through his gunda friends, especially one Mr. Ashok Kumar Munna, threatened the Petitioner, and forcefully and under coercion got signed an application for taking a separate electricity connection in the name of the Respondent. Although since the said premises was an outback area, the Respondent has also unauthorizedly obtained a water connection from the Delhi Jal Board line, without any proper sanction/connection from the Delhi Jal Board.
However, due to the political clout of the Respondent, no action had been taken even by the Delhi Jal Board, upon the complaint raised by the Petitioner in this regard. It is further submitted, that the Petitioner has also made complaint with the Election Officer/Election Commission to strike off the name of Shri Jagjit Singh from the list of the Voter's against the address of the Petitioner, but no action has been taken against this complaint due to his political and other connections.
22. It is also submitted, that undoubtedly the said Shri Jagjit Singh is a man of means and is having a property at RZ-30, South Extension, Part-II, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059, entirely in his control and occupation. It is averred, that the Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union (Regd.) is a registered trade union however the Respondent has never conducted any elections thereof and the said Shri Jagjit Singh has elected himself as the President, his younger son as the Treasurer, who is working in a private firm, and the said Ashok Kumar Munna as one of the office bearer thereof, respondent with a view to harass and pressurize the RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:09:18 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 11 / 50 Petitioner, had got installed a CCTV outside the tenanted premises facing the portion in occupation of the Petitioner and when the Petitioner complained about the same with the Police Authorities, the local Police Official favored the Respondent by stating that these camera are necessary for security purposes.
However, when the matter was brought to the notice of the office of DCP (West), the local police authorities had to stop the Respondent from installing cameras facing towards the rooms in occupation of the Petitioner. However, the Respondent has still installed cameras inside the union office. It is further submitted, that the Respondent had also been making false complaints against the younger son of the Petitioner, Shri Brijesh Kumar Sharma, in his office, merely to coerce the Petitioner so that he does not ask the Respondent to vacate the tenanted premises. It is further submitted, that considering the various illegal and unauthorized tactics of the Respondent, the Petitioner has also lodged various complaints against the Respondent with the Police Authorities.
LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION
23. Perusal of the record reveals, that leave to defend was filed by the respondent on 31.03.2021, and leave to defend was granted by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide Order dated 06.12.2021 and the respondent was given opportunity to file his Written Statement.
AVERMENTS BY RESPONDENT IN WRITTEN STATEMENT
24. Written Statement was filed by the respondent on 07.01.2022, in which he stated, that the petitioner has became adamant and is trying to disturb and harass the respondent by causing inconvenience to the respondent. Therefore, a complaint was lodge by the respondent against the petitioner. It is further submitted by the respondent, that he is using the premises since 1976 and the petitioner has got nothing to do with the premise in occupation of the respondent.
Digitally signed byRICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:09:37 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 12 / 50 The only concern is that the premises is just next to the allotted premises of the petitioner office of a trade union and the visitors are the poor labourers and the respondent is dealing in the service matters of the said poor labourers in the competent court of law and that too like a social service for the poor labourers. No objection was ever raised by the petitioner since the year 1976 till 2017, when the CCTV camera was installed by the respondent.
25. It is contented, that the respondent is the owner in respect of the premises in question and thereafter also have repaired, done additions, alterations and even changes in construction by himself, by means of construction of toilet and kitchen in the office and had applied for electricity connection, water connection, telephone connection etc, without obtaining any consent from the petitioner or from anyone else. The land in question had nothing to do with the property of the petitioner i.e. B-239, Ground floor, Karampura, New Delhi. The said property measuring 33.11 sq. Meters i.e. 39.59 Sq. Yards allotted by the DDA to the petitioner is in occupation of land measuring 124 Sq. Yards, in front of the allotted property besides that the property of the respondent is entirely different property, which the respondent came in possession in the year 1976 and the only connection of the property of the respondent is the neighboring property. Therefore, the respondent has no relation of landlord and tenant with the petitioner.
26. As far as the dates of events are concerned, no specific date of creation of tenancy, construction of office is mentioned by the petitioner, neither any agreement is there in writing nor any oral agreement was ever entered into. No rent receipt was issued by the landlord at the time of inception of tenancy, no record of payment of rent by the respondent to the petitioner is there and also the rent receipts are only from the year 2017, when the cause of dispute arose Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:09:48 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 13 / 50 between the petitioner and the respondent, i.e. when the respondent had managed to installed CCTV camera in his office, which was objected to by the petitioner in the year 2017 and thereafter the dispute arose.
Similarly, the respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner who was trying to grab a public park in the vicinity of his house but due to the interruption of respondent, the petitioner failed to grab the park, therefore in order to teach a lesson to the respondent, the petitioner filed the present petition.
27. The petitioner has filed rent receipts since the year 2017 but it is very strange that the receipts were issued by the respondent itself, at the printed pads of the respondent. It seems, that the petitioner had taken away a pad of the booklet of receipts of the respondent from his office and used the same for treating its pages as rent receipts. The respondent never paid a single penny as rent to the petitioner or to any one else.
28. It is averred, that the petitioner has shown a list of 17 persons as the list of family members of the petitioner but in fact all these persons are not residing in the premises of the petitioner, only 10 persons are residing in the premises of the petitioner, the remaining persons are residing at different places, having there owner properties at various places in Delhi itself.
REPLICATION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER TO THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT/TENANT
29. Replication was also filed by the petitioner, denying all the allegations levelled by the respondent and reiterating and reasserting the same facts as stated in the petition. Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.31
16:09:56
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 14 / 50
EVIDENCE LED BY PETITIONER
30. The petitioner no.1 Sh. Rameshwar Dayal Sharma examined himself as PW1 to prove his case. PW1 tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit, thereby placing reliance upon the following documents :-
1. Ex. PW1/1- Copy of Aadhar Card of the petitioner (OSR).
2. Ex. PW1/2 - Copy of allotment letter (OSR).
3. Ex.PW1/3 - Lease and conveyance deed(OSR).
4. Ex.PW1/4 - copy of Site plan.
5. Ex. PW1/5 - Site plan which is already Ex.PW1/4, hence, Ex.PW1/5 is not read.
6. Ex. PW1/6(colly) - Photocopies of the rent receipts are de- exhibited and marked Mark A.
7. Ex. PW1/7(colly) - Auditors Report (OSR) .
8. Ex. PW1/8 - Show Cause Notice (OSR).
9. Ex. PW1/7 in the affidavit is the copy of the Aadhar Card of the wife of the petitioner the same is wrongly Ex.PW1/7 and now be read as Ex.PW1/8A(OSR).
10. Ex. PW1/8 in the affidavit is the copy of the Aadhar Card of the son of thepetitioner andthe same is wrongly exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 and now be read as Ex.PW1/8B (OSR).
11.Ex.PW1/9 - Copy of Aadhar Card of daughter inlaw of the petitioner (OSR).
12. Ex. PW1/10 - Copy of Aadhar Card of grand son Lakshay Sharma of the petitioner is de-exahibited and Mark B.
13. Ex. PW1/11 - Copy of Aadhar Card of grand daughter Shristi Sharma of the petitioner (OSR).
14. Ex. PW1/12 - Copy of Aadhar Card of soneof petitioner Brijesh Kumar Sharma (OSR). Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.31
16:10:13
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 15 / 50
15. Ex.PW1/13 - Copy of Aadhar Card of wife of son of petitioner Brijesh Kumar Sharma (OSR).
16. Ex.PW1/14 - Copy of Aadhar Card of grand son of petitioner namely Pranshu Sharma (OSR).
17. Ex.PW1/15 - Copy of Aadhar Card of wife of grand son of petitioner namely Ayush Sharma (OSR).
18. Ex.PW1/16 - Copy of college ID of Mr. Lakshay Sharma (OSR).
19. Ex.PW1/17 - Copy of college ID of Ms. Shristi Sharma (OSR).
20. Ex.PW1/18 - Copy of college ID of Mr. Pranshu Sharma (OSR).
21. Ex.PW1/19 -Copy of college ID of Mr. Pranshu Sharma (OSR).
22. Ex.PW1/20 - (colly running into 5 pages)Copy of medical record of petitioner (OSR).
23. Ex.PW1/21 -(colly running into 2 pages)Copy of medical record wife of petitioner (OSR).
24. Ex.PW1/22 - Copy of rent agreement dated 12.06.2019 (OSR).
25. Ex.PW1/23 - Copy of complaint dated 14.04.2017 (OSR).
26. Ex.PW1/24 - Copy of complaint dated 29.07.2017 (OSR).
27. Ex.PW1/25 - Copy of complaint dated 04.08.2017 (OSR).
28. Ex.PW1/26 - Copy of complaint to DCP (West) dated 06.10.2018, de-exhibited and marked as Mark D.
29. Ex.PW1/27 - Copy of complaint to DCP (West), de-exhibited and marked as Mark Y.
30. Ex.PW1/28 - Printout of e-mail dated 21.08.2017.
31. Ex.PW1/29 - Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
Digitally
32. Ex.PW1/30 -Settlement dated 06.10.2018 (OSR).
signed by
RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.31
16:10:19
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 16 / 50
The PW-1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. Apart from PW-1, PW-2 namely Pushpender, ASO, Labour Department, 5-Civil Lines, Shamnath Margh, Delhi-54, PW-3 namely Ct. Vineet, PIS No. 28181787 and PW- 4 namely SI Anoop Singh were also examined by petitioner as his witnesses to prove his case. It is pertinent to note, that inadvertently PW Ratnesh Kumar has also been examined as PW-4 however, PW-4 already stand examined as SI Anoop Singh, therefore testimony of Sh. Ratnesh Kumar be read as that of PW-5.
Thereafter, PE was closed vide order dated 04.07.2023.
EVIDENCE LED BY RESPONDENT
31. The respondent no.1 Sh. Jagjit Singh examined himself as RW1 to prove his case. RW1, tendered evidence by way of his duly sworn in affidavit and relied upon following several documents :-
1. Ex. RE-1/1 is the telephone bill in the name of deponent
2. Ex. RE-1/2 is the letter from the Deputy Director Horticulture Karol Bach Delhi.
3. Ex. RE-1/5 is the receipt of house tax dated 10.05.2011
4. Ex. RE-1/6 is the letter of deponent to the director NDMC, dated 03.01.2017
5. Ex. RW-1/9 is the Copy of aadhar card of deponent
6. Ex. RW-1/10 is the Pen card of the deponent
7. Ex. RW-1/13 is the property tax receipt in the name of deponent
8. Ex. RW-1/14 is the house tax receipt dated 10.05.2011(OSR)
9. Ex. RW-1/15 Property tax challan dated 22.08.2013 (OSR) Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.31 16:10:42 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 17 / 50
10. Ex. RW-1/16 (colly) is the affidavit of the deponent before the Assessors and Collector MCD Rajouri Garden, Delhi dated 02.04.2008 (OSR)
11. Ex. RW-1/18 is the Acknowledgment dated 14.03.2017 by the assistant director of horticulture
12. Ex. RW-1/19 (colly) is the postal receipts (OSR) 13.Ex. RW-1/20 is the site plan of the property in question of the deponent and the alloted property of the petition
14. Documents related to the registration of Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union, the document is De-exhibited and now is mark A (11pages)
15. Electricity bill dated 28.02.2009 in the name of the father of the deponent is also de-exhibited and now is mark B
16. Election Card of the deponent is de-exhibited and is mark C
17. Medical prescription of the father of the deponent is de-exhibited and is mark D
18. Compromise between deponent and Smt. Manju Sharma dated 06.10.2018 is de-exhibited and is mark E.
19. Application of installation of water connection dated 17.11.2014 by the deponent is de-exhibited and is mark F.
32. RW1 was cross examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent's evidence was closed and the matter was listed for the final arguments.
33. I have heard detailed arguments advanced by Learned counsels for the parties and have further gone through the record carefully. My findings are as under :-
Digitally signedRICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:10:50 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 18 / 50 ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
34. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act and the same is as under:
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction-
(1) notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
"That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
35. Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bonafide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. The essential ingredients for attracting the proviso (e) of the Section 14(1) are :
a). The said premises are bonafide required by the landlord either for himself or for his family member.
b). The landlord or the family member has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
36. These twin thresholds are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even one of the said Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:11:02 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 19 / 50 ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
37. The following are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act as culled out from the discussion above :
(i) There should be relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(ii) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(iii) That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(iv) Landlord should not have other reasonable suitable accommodation.
(I) OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS (II) EXISTENCE OF LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP
38. It has been held in the case of Bharat Bhushan Vs. Arti Techchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247 that the concept of ownership in a landlord tenant litigation as governed by the DRC Act has to be distinguished from the one in title suit. In the case of M. R. Sawhney Vs. Dories Randhawa AIR 2008 Delhi 110, it was held that once a tenant always a tenant, unless his status changes by contract or by operation of law which is not so in the present petition.
39. It is settled law, that respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Evidence Act from disputing the ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises. The eviction petition cannot be treated at par with a title suit. The petitioners have to prove only that he is something more than a tenant. In T.C. Rekhi v. Usha Gujral ILR 1969 Delhi 9 and in Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha 1987 AIR SC 2028 discussing on the point what is meant by the word RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:11:18 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 20 / 50 "Owner", it is held that the general rule is to the effect that the petitioners have to have a better title than the respondent and is not required to show that he has the best of all possible titles and that the purpose behind requirement of ownership in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended is to avoid misuse of the provision. It need not be proved in the absolute sense of the term of ownership as laid down in Parvati Devi v. Mahinder Singh 1996 (1) AD (Del) 819, B. Banerjee v. Romesh Mahajan 1996 (63) DLT 930, Milk Food Ltd. v. Kiran Khanna 1993 (51) DLT 141, Sushil Kanta Chakravarty v. Rajeshwari Kumar AIR 2000 Del 413, Ujjagar Singh v. Iqbal Kaur 2002 (97) DLT 646 that the petitioner to an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, 1958 as amended need not show that he was the absolute owner in the strict sense and has to show a better and superior title only to the tenant. The same is reiterated in Sheela v. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash by the Hon'ble Supreme Court report in AIR 2002 SC 1264.
40. In case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162, a Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act had noted as follows:
"There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises." RICHA SHARMA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.31 16:11:27 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 21 / 50
41. Further, in the case titled as Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs Smt Ved Prabha & Ors., 1987 AIR 2028, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed :
"That the meaning of term 'owner' is vis a vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
It is also well settled that the petitioner should be something more than the tenant and the petitioner need not prove his ownership in absolute terms. It is sufficient for the petitioner to prove or to show that he is something more than a tenant.
42. In Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, this Court has specifically held that:-
"It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppal against such tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:11:35 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 22 / 50 whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this respect".
43. It is a settled law, that under Delhi Rent Control Act, the tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord , neither is the landlord required to prove his / her absolute ownership. Moreover, law of estoppal also bars the respondent herein from challenging the land lordship of the petitioners. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors. (AIR) 1987 Supreme Court 2028 that for the purpose of 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the ownership is not to be understood as absolute ownership but only as a title better than the tenant. So, what has to be seen is whether on the basis of the facts averred by the tenant it can be said that the landlord does not have title to the property or a title better than him. The above view was reiterated by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajinder Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Leelawati & Ors. (155) (2008) DLT 383.
44. Now, in light of the law reproduced as above, coming to the facts of the case in hand.
45. In order to prove his case, petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and in his evidence he relied upon the documents being the conveyance deed and allotment letter exhibited as Ex.PW1/3 and Ex.PW1/2 respectively. The bare perusal of these documents reveal, that the said lease and conveyance deed was executed on 21.04.1982, between the Government of India i.e. Delhi Administration being one of the party and Sh. Rameshwar Dayal i.e. petitioner being the second party, bearing the address as B-239, Karampura, Delhi.
Further, vide the allotment letter dated 01.10.1963, the petitioner i.e. RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:11:41 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 23 / 50 Rameshwar Dayal was allotted House No.239 of Block-B at Industrial Housing Colony, (Karam Pura), Najafgarh Road, New Delhi on a monthly license fee of Rs.16/- under the signature of the then Labour Commissioner of Delhi. It is material to note, that even RW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted to the ownership of the petitioner on the premises in question and the relevant excerpts of his cross-examination of dated 13.05.2024 to this effect are as under: -
"It is correct that the Delhi Administration had built Janta Flats / Quarters in Karampura for the workers of Textile Mills, working in or around Karampura for the welfare of the workers. It is correct that Quarter No. B-239, Karampura, Delhi, was allotted to the petitioner and subsequently ownership rights of the said quarter were also transferred in the name of the petitioner."
46. Thus, from the above extracts of cross-examination of RW-1, it categorically stands admitted, that the petitioner is the owner of Quarter No. B-239 Karampura. However, what is material here is that the respondent though has not challenged or questioned the ownership of the petitioner with respect to the premises in question but has challenged the ownership of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises alleged to be forming a part of the premises owned by the petitioner, on the premise that the same does not form the part of Quarter No.B- 239 of the petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner has placed due reliance upon the show cause notice exhibited as Ex.PW1/8, which was issued by the then Assistant Housing Commissioner, Karampura, Delhi.
The perusal of this document i.e. Ex.PW1/8 reveals, that the petitioner had been called upon by the said department to show cause as to why his allotment of the said quarter be not canceled for using the premises for the purpose other than using the same for residential purpose that is for running the office for Trade Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:11:50 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 24 / 50 Union. It is vital to note, that the fact that the Trade Union is being run from the tenanted premises is not questioned or challenged by the respondent but their defence is, that the said Union office is being run since 1982 but the same is not run from the premises falling under the ownership of the petitioner but that the Union office is being run from the property which is adjacent to the property of the petitioner and the same is not forming the part of the property of the petitioner. However, the said defence of the respondent does not inspire the confidence of the Court as had this been the scenario, there was no reason for the Housing Commissioner to issue a show cause notice with respect to the premises not forming the part of the premises allotted to the petitioner, thereby asking for an explanation from the petitioner. If the averment of the respondent had been plausible, there would not have been any breach of clause 4 of the lease and conveyance deed i.e. Ex.PW1/3 and further there would have been no reason for the Housing Commissioner to issue any show cause notice i.e. Ex.PW1/8 upon the petitioner.
47. Even otherwise it is the admitted case of the respondent, that they have been in possession of the premises in question since 1964 and admittedly it is categorically stated by the respondents in their written arguments, that they are not the owners of the premises in question and are in occupation of the government land. It is further material to note, that had the tenanted premises not been forming the part of the said quarter, then the competent authority would have issued notices of encroachment and not of misuse of the premises for the purpose its use is not designated. It is further not out of place to mention, that the respondent has also categorically admitted in his cross-examination dated 13.05.2024, that the portion of the premises in his occupation is bearing the same address i.e. B-239, as that of property of the petitioner and therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondent to prove and adduced evidence to the effect, that Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:12:01 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 25 / 50 if the property/premises in his occupation is not forming a part of the petitioner's premises then how and under what circumstances both the premises i.e. that of the petitioner and the alleged tenanted premises are having same address i.e. B- 239, Karampura, Delhi. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"Question : If the portion where the office of the Union is situated is not a part of the Quarter B-239 allotted to the petitioner, how the address of the said portion is also recognized as B-239, Karampura, Delhi?
Answer : Previously the said portion was recognized as Union Office near Milan Cinema, Karampura, however after some years, the petitioner asked us to use the address of B-239 for the said portion as well."
"The petitioner had asked my father to use the address of the said portion as B-239, when the aforesaid quarter was allotted to the petitioner. It is correct that the said portion where the office of the Union is situated has not been allotted any specific recognizable address by the Delhi Administration or the MCD."
48. At the cost of repetition, it is being stated, that the respondent has not placed on record any document to explain as to what is his locus qua the property in question as admittedly he has neither placed on record any ownership documents nor has he placed on record any other document by virtue which it can be established, that if he is not the tenant then he is the owner to the premises in question. It is further pertinent to note, that though by way of written arguments the respondent is averring himself to be the absolute owner of the property in RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:12:09 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 26 / 50 question but in his cross-examination he himself has admitted, that property in his occupation is a government land. Thus, the respondent is blowing hot and cold in the same breath. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination of to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"It is wrong to suggest that the said portion has not been recognized with a separate address as the same forms a part of Quarter No. B-239, allotted to the petitioner. Vol. The same is Government Land."
49. It is further material to note, that on one hand the respondent is saying, that the land under his occupation is government land and on the other hand it is saying, that respondent union was got registered with respect to the said land in the year 1982 but this explanation is also devoid of merits as registration of government land in the name of the respondent union per se is not permissible within the tenants of law unless conveyance deed or any other legit document stands duly executed between respondent and government/Delhi Administration and so is not the case in hand.
50. Another contradistinction between the averments of the respondent that needs to be highlighted is with regard to the deposition made by the RW-1 in his cross examination dated 07.08.2024, whereby he stated, that his father simply saw a vacant plot of land and started using the same for the union office after raising Jhuggi therein in the year 1976, but it is pertinent to mention, that there is no document on record to even prima facie establish, that the union is functioning from the said premises since 1976 as the RW-1 has himself averred in his cross examination dated 03.05.2024, that the union was got registered in the year 1982. It is further a candid admission by RW-1 in his cross examination, that no permission was ever taken by his father to raise any construction from the MCD RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:12:16 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 27 / 50 or any other authority and that since 1976 till date, he is enjoying the government land without even a single show-cause notice or a letter being issued to him by the MCD and the Delhi Administration, thereby asking him to explain his locus qua the property in question. It is material to note, that RW-1 has further admitted in his cross-examination, that he can not produced any document to show, that the said alleged construction was raised by his father. The relevants extracts of his cross examination to this effect are as under :
"My father simply saw vacant plot of land and started using the same for union office after raising Jhuggi threin in the year 1976. The said wooden Jhuggi was built by my father. After couple of years, my father removed said Jhuggi and raised Pucca construction thereon. No permission was ever taken by my father to raised any construction from MCD or any other authority. Since 1976 till date no notice, show cause notice or any letter has ever been issued by MCD or Delhi Administration or any other competent authority either in the name of respondent to show that the said construction was raised by my father."
51. It further stands unexplained, as to why till date neither RW-1 nor his father ever applied to the authority for allotment of any new plot number or address for the premises in occupation of the RW-1, if the same is not forming a part of the premises bearing number B-239, Karampura, Delhi i.e. the premises under the ownership of the petitioner. The relevants extracts of his cross examination to this effect is as under :
"Neither my father nor me had ever applied to any authority for allotment of new plot. Number or address for the land Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:12:40 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 28 / 50 where the respondents office is situated"
52. It is further pellucid to note, that though RW-1 deposed in his cross examination, that he had applied for the assessment of the said plot for the purpose of house tax but admittedly no house tax receipt is filed on record in support of his averments. It is further deposed by RW1 in his cross examination dated 19.11.2024, that he had applied for assessment of house tax in respect of plot in question before the house tax authority and the same was duly done about 10-12 years back but admittedly neither the respondent had filed any document showing his ownership of the said plot nor any UPIC number that had been allotted to the premises in question has been filed on record. Infact, he further deposed, that he cannot even say if any such number had ever been allotted to him or any other such document was ever provided to him on the basis of which they have deposited the house tax. RW-1 has merely made bald averments stating, that they had deposited the house tax till 2023, but not even a single receipt has been filed on record to substantiate these averments made by him in his cross examination. The relevant extracts of his cross examination to this effect are reproduced as under :
"We have applied for the assessment of house tax in respect of the plot before the House Tax Authority and the same was done about 10-12 years back. Along with the application, we had filed documents like registration of the respondent Union, our aadhar cards, etc. We had not filed any document showing us to be the owner of the said plot along with the application. The application of house tax has been allowed. No UPIC number has been alloted to the suit premises. I can not say as to why the said number has not been alloted, and no such document was Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:12:48 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 29 / 50 provided to us except for one slip which has already been filed on the record, on the basis of which we have deposited the house tax. We have deposited the house tax till 2023, however, I do not have the receipt for the same. I can bring the same. The house tax is being deposited manually. We only deposit the house tax and a slip is issued in respect thereof, however we do not mention any UPIC number at the time of deposit of such house tax. No challan is generated at the time of depositing of house tax. We have not got the said plot of land mutated in our name".
53. It is further material to note, that RW-1 had further admitted in his cross examination, that he had neither filed any suit for declaration claiming himself to be the owner of the said portion of the land on the basis of adverse possession against the government or any other person nor in any other manner he has claimed their ownership for the premises in question. The relevant extracts of his cross examination to this effect are as under :
"I have not filed any suit for declaration claiming to be owner of the said portion of land on the basis of adverse possession against the government or any other person. I do not know the meaning of words Adverse Possession"
54. Therefore, in the light of the above detailed appreciation of evidences, it safely stands deduced, that in the absence of any ownership document, any separate document, any separate address with respect to the tenanted premises in question being different from the premises of the petitioner of which he is the owner by way of implication it stands deduced, that the tenanted premises squarely falls within the quarter bearing the address i.e. B-239, Karampura, Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:12:58 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 30 / 50 Delhi.
As far as the aspect of payment of rent to the petitioner is concerned, it is submitted by the president of the respondent in his affidavit, that the respondent has never paid rent to anyone, but at this stage Court deems it fit to appreciate the document exhibited as Ex. PW1/7, which is the Auditor's Report ending 31.12.2009, and the Auditor's Report ending 31.12.2010, filed by the petitioner in order to prove on record the payment of rent. Perusal of the said documents show, that the respondent has been paying the rent of Rs. 1000/- on the basis of the information that was provided to his office staff or by the respondent staff. It is apropos to note, that the factum of the Auditor's Report i.e. Ex. PW1/7 being duly signed by RW-1 also stands admitted by him and he further went on to depose, that he has signed the report after reading and going through the contents of the same.
Thus, in the light of clear cut admission by the RW-1 to the effect, that they had not paid the rent and especially that they had no other property qua which they could have paid the rent, the only reference which can be drawn is that the respondent has been paying rent in respect of the tenanted premises in question. The relevant extracts of his cross examination to this effect are as under:
"The witness is shown his signature at point B,C,D,E,F,G respectively on exhibit PW1/7 (colly) which he admits, I had seen the said reports before signing the same. I had never raised any objections that the auditor reports exhibit PW 1/7 (colly) is wrong or false. The respondent never paid any rent to any person and the auditor has shown the conveyance which was given to an office worker as rent in the Cash details forming part of his reports Ex. PW1/7 (colly). I have never raised any objection that the RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:13:28 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 31 / 50 conveyance was being wrongly shown as rent in his reports. I also identify the signatures of the petitioner at all points X and the signatures of Sh. Vipin Nischal at all points Y on exhibit PW 1/7 (colly). No entry is wrong in the said reports and no objections was also raised by said Sh. Vipin Nischal with the auditor about wrong nomenclature of the entries in the exhibit PW 1/7 (colly)".
55. Thus, as a corollary to the above discussion, it safely stands deduced, that the explanation tendered in the above extracts of his deposition by RW-1 with respect to the inter change of the entries of the conveyance in place of Cash details is neither plausible nor tenable as the same was signed by the respondent after admittedly going through the documents and further no objection was ever raised by the respondent with regard to the said report on account of improper or wrong entries being made in it.
56. Another interesting aspect that requires appreciation is with regard to the document Ex.PW1/B i.e. settlement document dated 06.10.2018, whereby RW-1 had agreed to hand over the tenanted premises to the petitioner or his family members, as and when he would vacate the tenanted premises.
57. RW-1 in his deposition dated 19.11.2024, was shown the document whereby he duly identified his signature at point A but went on to say, that it was agreed that as and when the premises would be vacated, the same would be sold to the petitioner or his family members. However, the same were not the contents of the said document and once the signature stands duly admitted in the document PW1/B, there is an embargo of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, which requires that no oral evidence can be given with respect to the terms that RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:13:16 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 32 / 50 have been reduced in writing of an agreement or a contract unless the same falls within the exception to the said section, however, so is not the case.
58. Before proceeding further, it is expedient to reproduce the contents of Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same is as under:
"Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that, "when terms of a contract or of a grant, or of any other disposition of property, have been reduced to the form of a document, and in all cases in which any matter is required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, no evidence shall be given in proof of the terms of such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or of such matter, except the document itself or secondary evidence of its contents in cases in which secondary evidence is admissible under the provisions hereinbefore contained".
59. Thus, on the basis of the above codified law, it is explicit that no oral evidence can be given of any term of an agreement otherwise than explicitly permitted by law. Therefore, in the light of the written settlement agreement i.e. Ex. PW1/B , respondent was explicitly barred by provision of Section 91 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to lead any evidence with respect to the terms otherwise embodied in documented form unless the same is permitted as per proviso to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but even to that extent no evidence has been led by the respondent to enable him to establish his case to be falling under any of the proviso appended with Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act.
60. Section 92 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that, "when the terms of any such contract, grant or other disposition of property, or any matter required by law to be reduced to the form of a document, have been proved according to RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 33 / 50 Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:14:01 +0530 the last section (Section 91) no evidence of any oral agreement or statement shall be admitted, as between the parties to any such instrument or their representatives in interest, for the purpose of contradicting, varying, adding to, or subtracting from, its terms:"
61. Now, once a written document is duly admitted by RW-1 itself, latter cannot be allowed to rebut or controvert that document by oral evidence and that too only by leading oral evidence in form of self serving statements. The respondent never examined any independent witness to prima facie show that the RW-1 had entered into the settlement deed qua the sale of the property in question to the petitioner at the time of eviction/vacation of the premises by them. Further, there is no mention of any such pre requisite condition even on the document itself.
62. At this stage court deems it fit to place reliance on the Judgment of " Roop Kumar vs. Mohan Thedani (2003) 6 SCC 595, the Hon'ble Supreme Court commented on section 91 of the Evidence Act by observing that:-
"13.........This section merely forbids proving the contents of a writing otherwise than by writing itself; it is covered by the ordinary rule of law of evidence, applicable not merely to solemn writings of the sort named but to others known sometimes as the best-evidence rule. It is in reality declaring a doctrine of the substantive law, namely, in the case of a written contract, that all proceedings and contemporaneous oral expressions of the thing are merged in the writing or displaced by it. (See Thayer's Preliminary Law on Evidence, Wigmore's Evidence, 0.2406)......"
(emphasis supplied) Digitally signed
by RICHA
RICHA SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.07.31
16:14:09 +0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 34 / 50
The court further observed that:-
"16........... This rule is based upon an assumed intention on the part of the contracting parties, evidenced by the existence of the written contract, to place themselves above the uncertainties of oral evidence and on a disinclination of the courts to defeat this object. When persons express their agreements in writing, it is for the express purpose of getting rid of any indefiniteness and to put their ideas in such shape that there can be no misunderstanding, which so often occurs when reliance is placed upon oral statements. Written contracts presume deliberation on the part of the contracting parties and it is natural they should be treated with careful consideration by the courts and with a disinclination to disturb the conditions of matters as embodied in them by the act of the parties. (See McKelvey's Evidence, p.294) . As observed in Greenlear's Evidence, p. 563, one of the most common and important of the concrete rules presumed under the general notion that the best evidence must be produced and that one with which the phrase best evidence is now exclusively associated is the rule that when the contents of a writings are to be proved, the writing itself must be produced before the court or its absence accounted for before testimony to its contents is admitted.
17. It is likewise a general and most inflexible rule that whenever written instruments are appointed, either by the requirement of law, or by contract of parties, to be the repositories and memorials of truth, any other evidence is Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:14:19 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 35 / 50 excluded from being used either as a substitute for such instrument, or to contradict or alter them. This is a matter both of principle and policy. It is of principle because such instrument are in their own nature and origin, entitled to a much higher degree of credit than parol evidence. It is of policy because it would be attended with great mischief if those instruments, upon which mens rights depended, were liable to be impeached by loose collateral evidence".
63. Therefore, from the above quoted observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court and after going through the provisions of section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act, respondent can not be allowed to retract or deny or controvert a written documents by leading oral evidence. Thus, it was imperative upon respondent to have proved by way of documentary evidences that they intended to propose a sale and nothing otherwise at the time of vacation/eviction of the premises by them.
64. Even otherwise when RW-1 has himself admitted in the earlier extracts of his cross-examination, that he is in occupation of a government land and no ownership document per se has been placed on record by him even to prima facie establish that he is the owner of the tenanted premises, the question of selling the same to the petitioner or his family members per se does not arise as a person cannot sell something of which he himself is not the owner.
65. RW-1 further admitted in his deposition dated 19.11.2024, that no such sale of plot was agreed between him and the petitioner. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : - Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.07.31 16:14:28 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 36 / 50 "It is also correct that the said dispute was settled vide settlement document dated 06.10.2018 Ex. PW-1/30 (OSR). The witness is shown the said documents and he identify his signature at point A. At the time of execution of the said settlement Ex.PW1/30, it was agreed that as and when the premises would be vacated, the same would be sold to the petitioner or his family members. No consideration amount was decided for affecting the said sale. Again said, no such sale of plot was agreed between me and the petitioner."
66. It is further admitted by RW-1, that the son of the petitioner had built a room over and above roof of the tenanted premises and no objection however was raised by the respondent or any of his office bearers to the same. The basic reason that can be culled out for raising no objection to the said construction is, that the respondent was never the owner of the tenanted premises as had he been the owner, he would have most certainly not permitted the son of the petitioner to built a room over his premises, without any objection, more specifically when admittedly since 2017 disputes had arisen between the parties and complaints and counter complaints were being made by both the parties against each other. It is further not out of place to mention, that the respondent has not filed any case challenging the rent receipts filed in the present case as being forged and fabricated and RW-1 has further admitted to this aspect of not filing of any case or complaint challenging the rent receipts relied upon by the petitioner. The relevant excerpts of his cross-examination to this effect are reproduced as under : -
"I have not filed any case challenging the rent receipts filed in the present case, as forged and fabricated. I have Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:14:34 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 37 / 50 not filed any case or complaint challenging the fact that the rent receipts have been forged and fabricated by the petitioner on the slips of the respondent's union."
67. It is further crucial to note, that in para 18 of the affidavit of RW-1, he has categorically admitted, that the petitioner has given an NOC to the electricity authority for the installation of electricity connection in the office of respondent and this per se puts a dent into the contentions of the respondent averring himself to be the owner as had he been the owner there was no requirement for him to take sanction/consent of the petitioner prior to installation of an electricity connection in his own premises.
68. In view of the discussion as above and in light of settled law, this Court has no hesitation in deducing, that the law with regard to the right of the tenant to challenge the ownership of the landlord is fairly settled as well as limited. In this context, what appears to be the meaning of term "owner" vis a vis the tenant is that the "owner" should be something more than the tenant.
69. Therefore, in view thereof, the landlord - tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondents stands duly proved for the purposes of Delhi Rent Control Act and at the same time is also stands established that no material document is placed on record by the respondent to prove that the premises in question is not forming a part of the premises that is within the admitted ownership of the petitioner.
WHETHER THE NEED OF THE PETITIONER IS BONAFIDE & WHETHER THE ALTERNATE SUITABLE ACCOMMODATION IS AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER ?
Digitally signed byRICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:14:43 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 38 / 50
70. Before delving into the merits of the bonafide need of the landlord, this Court deems it fit to discuss the essence of term "bonafide" and the law settled in this regard.
1. The word "genuine" means "natural: not spurious: real: pure:
sincere". In Law Dictionary, Mozley and Whitley define bonafide to mean "good faith, without fraud or deceit". Thus, the term bonafide refers to a state of mind. Requirement is not a mere desire. The degree of intensity contemplated by "requires" is much higher than in mere desire. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whim or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contra- distinction with a mere pretense 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. Rent Control Legislation generally leans in favour of the tenant; it is only the provision for seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord for his own occupation or use of the tenanted accommodation, which treats the landlord with some sympathy.
2. The question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer were in positive the need is bonafide.
3. The Full Bench of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court distinguished between the genuine requirement and the reasonable RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:14:56 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 39 / 50 requirement. It was held in case Damodar Sharma and an- other v. Nandram Deviram that:-
"It is wrong to say that "genuinely requires" is the same as "reasonably requires". There is distinction between the two phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the later to an objective standard. "Genuine requirement"
would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and circumstances in which he lives and thinks. Reasonable requirement belong to the "knowledge of the law" and means reasonable not in the mind of the person requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to the actual facts. In my opinion, in this part of Section 4 (g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises. His claim would no doubt fail if the Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was unreliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy."
4. But the essential idea basic to all such cases is that the need of the landlord should be genuine and honest, conceived in good faith; and that, further, the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession, however honest it might otherwise be, has in-inevitably a subjective element in it and that desire, to become a "requirement" in law must have the objective element of a "need". It must also be such that the court considers it reasonable and, therefore, eligible to be gratified. In doing so, the court must take all relevant circumstances into consideration so that the protection afforded by law to the tenant is not rendered merely "illusory or whittled down". The words "reasonable RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:15:02 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 40 / 50 requirement" undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire. Mere desire of a landlord/owner cannot be equated with bonafide need.
5. Justice H. L. Anand opined that the words "required bonafide by the landlord" signify honestly felt need of an owner and therefore incorporate a concept, which is both objective as well as subjective. The statute makes both the motivations of the owner as indeed the reasonableness of the desire, justiciable and the law therefore requires not only that the need of the owner for the premises should be honestly and genuinely entertained but must also be the need of a reasonable person in the position of the owner having regard to the totality of the circumstances such as the extent of the family of the owner, the standard of living to which the family is used, its social status, the pattern of life relevant to that status, the social conditions and any peculiar requirement of the family. All these have to be considered in the wider context of the socioeconomic conditions obtaining in the country. Once the court comes to the conclusion that the claim of the landlord is result of honestly entertained need the court would not weigh the requirement in a fine scale, even while keeping the landlord confined within reasonable limits having regard to all the relevant circumstances.
6. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Sarla Ahuja Vs. United Indian Insurance Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1999 Supreme Court 100, wherein it was held that :-
"..... the crux of ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14 (1) of the Act is that the requirement of landlord for RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:15:08 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 41 / 50 occupation of the tenanted premises must be bonafide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a primafacie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bonafide. It is often said by the 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 bonafides of requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself..."
71. On the basis of the law as above, returning to the facts of the case in hands. The principal averment made by the petitioner via present petition is, that the petitioner's family consists of a growing family, thereby comprising of the petitioner himself, his wife, his four sons, his daughter in laws, his grandsons and his grand daughter, and beside them, the petitioner also has one daughter, who though is married and has children but she keeps on visiting the petitioner on regular basis but, due to the constraint of space in the current premises, owned and occupied by the petitioner, petitioner has cut a sorry figure and many a times asked his daughter as well as his other family members/relatives to not to come to his house for a longer duration or for stay as the space crunch in his house creates problem in accommodating the daughter and her children and the other guests on their occasional visits. It is apposite to note, that the respondent though had averred, that the family members of the petitioner's family consists of only 10 members as the RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:15:15 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 42 / 50 remaining family members of the petitioner's family are residing in different accommodation of Delhi but the said submission is not tenable as indirectly even the respondent has admitted in his averments, that 10 family members of the petitioner are residing with him in the property in question and the remaining family members though are there but are residing in different accommodations. The petitioner has very well elaborated in his petition, that the available rooms in the premises within his possession do not suffice for the family of the petitioner , thereby detailing the availability of the rooms and the respective occupants of the same.
72. The contention of the petitioner with regard to providing of a separate room to his growing grand daughter and to his grand son, who apart from being employed is also simultaneously completing his masters in business administration and therefore, requires a quiet and silent space to pursue his education/ studies is legit. The respondent apart from making evasive and bald denials to the requirements of the petitioner has not placed on record any cogent evidence to even prima facie substantiate, that the requirements of the petitioner are far fetched and fancy, away from reality.
73. It is crucial to note, that Court cannot be unmindful of the fact, that the petitioner is around 89 year of age and his wife being 88 years of age are in the twilight zone of their life and if at this age, the parents desire to live with their entire family under the same roof, the same cannot be treated as something not falling within the domain of bonafide need of the petitioner. Moreso, when the petitioner has categorically stated in his petition, that his two sons namely Sh. Suresh Kumar Sharma and Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma have to live separate from their family members not out of choice but out of compulsion as it is not possible to accommodate all of them in the same Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:15:20 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 43 / 50 house due to lack of space and further the paucity of space was resulting in constant bickering in the house, thereby further straining the relation between the family members. Also, the need of the petitioner while being in the winter of one's years to live with his children as well as with his grand children is most understandable as the same not only provides a sense of fulfillment but also a sense of security as in the old age, the senior citizens are bound to suffer from various age related ailments and the same requires constant medical attention, which can be addressed to in a much better and swift manner, if the parents are living with their children and grand children.
74. It is further a settled proposition of law, that the daughters, including married daughters and grand sons not only fall within the category of dependents but also fall within the ambit of "family members" for the purpose of any petition filed under the DRC Act, thereby seeking eviction on the grounds of bonafide need entailed under Seciton 14(1) (e) of DRC Act. The court draws strength from the judgment of Rishal Singh Vs. Bohar Ram & Ors and Santosh Kumar Mehra Since Deceased through Lrs Vs. Om Prakash.
In the judgment titled as Rishal Singh Vs. Bohar Ram & Ors., RC. Rev. No. 495 of 2012, it was held as under :-
"The landlord sought the eviction on the ground that his grandson required the property to start his own business and that the landlord had no property, other than the suit property from where he could run his business.
However, counsel for the respondent relied on another judgment of this Court in Om Prakash Bajaj v. Chander Shekhar (2003)1 RCR 332 wherein the Court included sons family of the landlord in the meaning of dependent. The RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 44 / 50 Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:15:29 +0530 Court held that the need of any member including the son; the wife, sons wife and children are to be treated as the need for the landlord. The impugned order also relied on the same judicial pronouncement to arrive at a conclusion. This Court finds such a decision to be more at par with the intent of the Act that the judicial precedent mentioned by the counsel for the tenant. The law, on this point, has evolved to extent where it is accepted position that a grandson is included in dependents of the landlord."
Further, in the judgment titled as Santosh Kumar Mehra Since Deceased through Lrs Vs. Om Prakash, RC. Rev. No. 94/2015 and CM No. 3597/2015 decided on 30.06.2015, it was held as under :-
6. ............Regard has to be taken to the social fabric of the family and in a joint family all members including the grandchildren would be dependent on the grandparents.
Reliance is also placed on Puran Chand Aggarwal Vs. Lekh Raj 2014 (210) DLT 131. Relying on M/s Khem Chand Ramesh Kumar Vs. Smt. Vijay Mehra & Ors. 2014 (10) AD (Delhi) 558 it is urged that merely because the children are financially independent would not mean that they are not family members or that they are not dependent for the purposes of accommodation on the parents.
......
10. In Joginder Pal (supra) the Supreme Court while construing who is the member dependent on the landlord held that keeping in view the social or socio-religious milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:15:35 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 45 / 50 a particular region to which the landlord belongs, it may be the obligation of the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To discharge such obligation, the landlord may require the tenancy premises and such requirement would be the requirement of the landlord. The tests laid down to be applied are: (i) whether the requirement pleaded and proved may properly be regarded as the landlord's own requirement, and
(ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case, actual occupation and user by a person other than the landlord would be deemed by the landlord as "his own"
occupation or user. The answer would, in its turn, depend on (i) the nature and degree of relationship and/or dependence between the landlord pleading the requirement as "his own" and the person who actually would use the premises; (ii) the circumstances in which the claim arises and is put forward, and (iii) the intrinsic tenability of the claim. The Court on being satisfied of the reasonability and genuineness of the claim, as distinguished from a mere ruse to get rid of the tenant, will uphold the landlord's claim."
75. At this stage, this Court deems it fit to discuss the law laid down vide plethora of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court in determining, that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement and he is at complete liberty to take this call. Law is well settled that it is the landlord who has to decide as to how and in what manner, he should live and that he is the best judge of his requirement. RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:15:41 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 46 / 50
76. In the case of Om Prakash Singhal Vs. Shri Roshan Lal, 1969 RCR 391, it has been held that as a broad workable rule, the landlord must left to assess his requirement in the background of his possession, circumstance, status and life and social and other responsibilities, and other relevant factors.
1. In Parvati Devi Vs. P. V. Krishna, JT 1987 (1) SC 764, it has been held as under :-
"The landlord is the best judge of his requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live and prescribe for him a standard of their own. There is no law that deprives the landlord of the beneficial enjoyment of his property.
2. In Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja, MANU / SC / 0435 / 2014 : (2014) 15 SCC 610, it has been held as under :-
"It would hardly require any reiteration of the settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property AIR 1999 SC 100 (1996) 5 SCC 353 (2014) 15 SCC 610, Neutral Citation Number :
2023 : DHC : 3199 belonging to the landlord should be utilized by him for the purpose of his business."
3. In Balwant Singh Vs. Sudarhan Kumar, MANU / SC / 0087 / 2021, it has been held as under :-
"It is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the RICHA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:16:19 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 47 / 50 proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate."
4. In Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta (Dr) MANU / SC / 0432 / 1999: (1999) 6 SCC 222, it has been held as under :-
"Once the Court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of the landlord for the 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."
77. Thus, in the light of the factual matrix of the present case and appreciating the same on the basis of the law reproduce as above, this court finds no hesitation in deducing, that the petitioner has duly satisfied this court regarding his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises in question and further non availability of any alternative suitable accommodation for satisfaction of his needs entailed in the instant petition.
78. It is well settled that, the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court should place himself in the place of landlord to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
79. Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be whimsical or merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has to be allowed in favour of the landlord also and the courts should not impose their own wisdom forcibly upon the landlord/petitioner to arrange his/ her own affairs according to their Digitally signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:17:34 +0530 RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 48 / 50 perception carried away by the interest or hardship of the tenants and the inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of eviction.
80. I have placed myself in the place of petitioner to determine whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest and I have also applied a practical approach instructed by the realities of life on the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement.
81. In view of testimonies of the witnesses, it is clear, that the petitioner has been able to satisfy the Court, that no alternate reasonable suitable accommodate is available with the petitioner for satisfying his bonafide needs as detailed in the petition. The petitioner has succeeded in proving, that requirement as alleged by petitioner is bonafide. Further, the petitioner / landlord cannot be dictated by the tenant to chose a different place for living with his family as at the cost of brevity it is being stated, that neither the Court nor the respondent can dictate terms to the petitioner. The respondent has failed to place on record any document which could show that the petitioner has any suitable alternate accommodation available with him.
CONCLUSION:-
82. Therefore, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the present case, material on record, settled position of law and the reasons as discussed earlier, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to prove all the ingredients of Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act. As such, the present eviction petition is allowed and an eviction order is passed in favour of petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the the tenanted premises i.e. Premises consisting of Portion/Room measuring approx. 12'.6 X 16'.6', forming part of property no. B-239, Karampura, Delhi in the site plan Ex. PW-1/4.
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 49 / 50 Digitally signedRICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.31 16:17:22 +0530
83. However, this judgment shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
84. This file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 31.07.2025 (Richa Sharma) Sr. Civil Judge - Cum - RC THC / Delhi /31.07.2025 Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.07.31
16:17:46
+0530
RC ARC No.60/20 Rameshwar Dayal (Through LRs) Vs Rashtriya General Mazdoor Union Page No. 50 / 50