Delhi District Court
Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari vs Ms Shanta Electric Co on 16 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY SINGH PARIHAR
ACJ-CUM-ARC, NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI, DELHI
RC ARC No. 67/2016.
CNR No. DLNT030000542010.
Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari
(since deceased through legal heir)
Gurmukh Singh Namdhari (son)
S/o Late Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari
R/o D-35, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi
......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. M/s Shanta Electric Co.
Kh. No 876/634, Also Known as D-1/1
Estate D-35, Rana Pratap Bagh
Delhi-110007
2. Tilak Raj Vacchar (since deceased through LRs)
Partner M/s Shanta Electric Co
a. Sh. Sunil Vachhar (since deceased through LRs)
(i) Smt. Sunita Vachhar W/o Late Sunil Vachhar
R/o B-81, Sector-30, Noida and
Flat No. 401, Tower 23, Parsvnath La Tropicana, Khyber Pass,
Civil Lines, Delhi
(ii) Smt. Namrata Anand D/o Late Sunil Vachhar
W/o Sh. Pranav Anand R/o B-81, Sector-30, Noida
b. Sh. Anil Vachhar
S/o Late Tilak Raj Vachhar R/o K-28, Model Town, Part II,
Delhi-09
c. Sh. Vimal Vachhar S/o Late Tilak Raj Vachhar R/o 7/10,
Nehru Enclave, Kalka Ji Extension, Delhi-09
.....Respondents
RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr. Page 1 of 21 Digitally signed
AJAY by AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:47:28 +0530
Date of Institution : 20.09.2010
Date of reserving the order : 04.04.2025
Date of pronouncement : 16.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present petitioner seeks the eviction of the respondent from the property bearing Khasra No. 876/634, also known as D-1/1, Estate D-35, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-10007, as indicated in red color in the site plan annexed to the petition (hereinafter referred to as "tenanted premises") under sec- tion 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (here- inafter referred to as "DRC Act"), read with Section 25B of the DRC Act.
2. In essence, the petitioner asserts ownership of suit property. Respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as "R1") took a part (marked X in site plan) of suit property on rent in around 1954 and similarly Respondent no. 2 (hereinafter re- ferred to as "R2") being proprietor of R1 took one small room (marked Y in site plan) and one big room with cov- ered verandah and open space (marked Z in site plan) on rent in around 1962-1963. The respondents occupy a total area of approximately 600 square yards. There is no rent agreement, however the rent for property marked X was paid by R1 and for marked Y and Z was paid by R1 in the name of R2.
3. Last received rent for premises marked X is ₹510/- per month, for premises marked Y is ₹90 per month and for Digitally signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr. Page PARIHAR 2 of 21 SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17 14:47:37 +0530 premises marked Z ₹900/- per month. The total rent payable is ₹1,500/- per month.
4. Petitioner's wife established a commercial venture named M/s Kay Gee Marketing, which is managed by her son.
This firm eventually became a CFA agent for M/s Venkataramana Foods Specialties Ltd. In 2006, M/s Kay Gee Marketing was stocking their products in a godown ap- proximately 9000 square feet in Village Todapur, Delhi, on monthly rent of ₹53,200/-. On 05.02.2009, the petitioner received communication from M/s Venkataramana Foods Specialties Ltd requesting more storage of products due to increased sales, however, M/s Kay Gee Marketing was un- able to secure additional space due to high rental costs. Consequently, M/s Venkataramana withdrew the CFA from the company but assured them that they would consider providing the CFA agency again if they could provide the required storage space of 15,000 to 16,000 square feet.
5. The petitioner has received offers to establish commercial ventures by becoming a CFA and distributor. It is also stated that petitioner has also received offer for establish- ing school. Hence, petitioner requires his entire estate for commercial purpose, as it would allow him to establish a CFA agency and distributorship or a school. Through these endeavors, the petitioner could generate a profitable com- mercial activity for himself and his son, who operates a small business that supports the entire family.
6. Notice of the petition was sent to the respondents in the Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 AJAY by3 AJAY of 21 SINGH Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
Page
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:47:44 +0530
prescribed format which was duly served upon the respondents, in response to which the respondents filed leave to defend application.
7. Leave to defend application of the respondents was allowed on 11.07.2013 and respondents were given opportunity to file W.S.
8. Respondents filed Written statement in the matter and petitioner filed rejoinder to the same reiterating the facts alleged in the petition.
9. Thereafter, matter was listed for petitioner's evidence.
10. Petitioner examined himself as PW1 vide his affidavit Ex.
PW1/A and relied upon documents i.e. certified copy of revenue record i.e. Fard Jamabandi, Khasra Girdhawri and shajra as Ex. PW1/1; certified copy of adoption deed Ex. PW1/2; rent receipts with respect to portion Mark X Ex. PW1/3 (colly); rent receipts with respect to portion Mark Y Ex. PW1/4 (colly); rent receipts with respect to portion Mark Z Ex. PW1/5 (colly); copy of site plan Ex. PW1/6; original cheque given by respondent for the month of October 2010 Ex. PW1/7; tax returns showing remission of rent Ex. PW1/8; communications from M/s Venkataramana Foods Specialities Ltd. for arranging the additional space Ex. PW1/9 (colly); copy of termination of agency Ex. PW1/10; communications from Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. and S C Johinson Products Pvt Ltd. Ex. PW1/11 (colly); communications from different schools/ societies Ex. PW1/12 (colly); copy of DDA Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH RC ARC No. 67/2016 AJAY Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
Page 4 of 21
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:47:50
+0530
record Ex. PW1/13; photographs of tenanted premises kept vacant Ex. PW1/14 (colly) and present petition Ex. PW1/15.
11. PW1 was cross examined on several dates, however, PW1 expired on 21.05.2021 before cross examination could be completed. Vide order dated 22.03.2022, the application u/o XXII rule 3 r.w.s 151 CPC filed by LRs of petitioner was allowed and all LRs of petitioner were impleaded as petitioner to pursue the present petition.
12. During the proceedings R2 Sh. Tilak Raj Vacchar expired whereafter his LRs, Sunil Vachhar (Respondent no. 2A), Anil Vachhar (Respondent no. 2B) and Vimal Vachhar (Respondent no. 2C) were impleaded, however, vide order dated 27.09.2018, Anil Vachhar and Vimal Vachhar were proceeded exparte. On 01.10.2020, Sunil Vacchar also expired whereafter upon application u/o XXII rule 4 CPC, his LRs Sunita Vachhar and Namrata Anand were impleaded. On 19.08.2023 Sunita Vachhar and Namrata Anand, who were the legal heirs of Late Sunil Vachhar, gave a statement that they are not claiming any tenancy rights with respect to the suit premises in question with the understanding that the petitioners shall not claim any outstanding rent or other charges as claimed from them for past as well as for future period. They further stated that they do not have the physical possession of the tenanted premises and that they do not have the keys of the same.
13. On 03.04.2024, application u/o VI rule 17 CPC was moved Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
AJAY Pageby
5 ofAJAY
21 SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:47:56 +0530
on behalf of petitioner for amending the memo of parties wherein it was stated that other LRs have relinquished their share in favor of one of the LRs namely Gurmukh Singh Namdhari. Same was allowed and amended memo of parties was taken on record.
14. PW2 Gurmukh Singh Namdhari was examined vide his affidavit Ex. PW2/A and he relied upon documents already Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/15. PW2 was not cross examined. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
15. No arguments were advanced on behalf of respondents as Respondent no. 2A and 2B were exparte. Ld. Counsel for petitioner addressed her final arguments.
16. Arguments heard. Record perused.
17. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the petitioner must establish that:-
(i) He is the owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
(ii) He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
(iii) He has no other reasonably suitable accommodation.
18. In the present case, PW1 was cross examined on nine dates, however he expired before the cross examination could be completed. Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Maharaja of Kolhapur vs S. Sundaram Ayyar And Ors. AIR1925MAD497, AIR 1925 MADRAS 497, made following observation regarding effect of partial cross Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
AJAY Page
by6AJAY
of 21 SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:48:01 +0530
examination. It was observed as follows :- " I think the correct rule is that the evidence is admissible but that the weight to be attached to such evidence should depend upon the circumstances of each case and that, though in some cases the Court may act upon it, if there is other evidence on record, its probative value may be very small and may even be disregarded."
19. In Dever Park Builders Pvt. Ltd. And Ors. vs Smt. Madhuri Jalan And Ors., AIR2003CAL55, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court observed :- " 19. Therefore, from the aforesaid catena of decisions which are rendered in Civil cases and from the discussion reached by me hereinabove I hold that the testimony of the deceased defendant is admissible and the Court is bound to consider its weight to be attached for deciding this matter. Each and every proof in examination in chief does not require being cross- examined. There are cases where no cross-examination is really required. I find here a portion of the examination-in- chief has been cross-examined and such portion in my view should be absolutely admissible in evidence and be considered without any hesitation by the learned Judge at the time of hearing and deciding of the suit. Cross- examination is essentially needed to bring out the truth of the oral testimony, but in case of documentary evidence where there is no suggestion or pleading as to fraud and forgery the cross-examination hardly matters."
20. It is clear from the observation made by Courts, RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr. Page 7 ofDigitally 21 signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17 14:48:08 +0530 incomplete cross examination is admissible in evidence, however its probative value shall depend on the facts and circumstances of respective case.
21. In written statement, the respondent has taken several objections. It is averred that the petitioner is in actual possession of other reasonable suitable accommodation in the locality. It is averred that petitioner has deliberately and intentionally not given the address of non-residential accommodation actually available with him.
22. It is averred that petitioner wants to start CFA, which is nothing but an extended form of tenancy. It is further averred that the principal fixes charges on the basis of quantity of goods stored and the employees of the Principal inspect, visit and stay at the premises, hence CFA is indirect letting out.
23. It is a averred that the petitioner has no experience of running a school and has not filed any detailed plan for setting up a school. It is also averred that no sanction from any authority has been filed by the petitioner for running a school.
24. It is a averred that petitioner is not the owner of any of the premises let out for rent. It is averred that original landlady Smt. Leelawati had no male or female issue at the time of her death. It is averred that Smt. Leelawati never informed the respondent that she had adopted petitioner as her legal heir. It is averred that after the death of Smt. Leelawati, the respondent started paying rent to the petitioner in a bona Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 AJAY Pageby Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr. AJAY 8 of PARIHAR 21 SINGH SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17 14:48:16 +0530 fide manner. It is averred that petitioner has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to show that he is the adopted son of Smt. Leelawati. Petitioner has failed to place on record any documentary evidence to show his ownership with regard to the tenanted premises.
25. It is a averred that respondent had paid a pagri amount of ₹550/- ₹200, and ₹1500/- for three premises to create a permanent tenancy. It is a averred that the present petition has been filed with malafide intention as the market value and the rental value of the premises have increased.
26. It is a averred that the respondent is running factory in the suit premises for last 60 years and if he is dispossessed, then he will be without any source of income and several employees will be rendered without work. It is averred that respondent runs small factory and respondent is financially incapable to shift to other place due to higher rental in market.
27. It is averred that the petitioner has other residential cum commercial properties in the area of Rana Pratap Bagh, which he did not disclose deliberately. The premises in possession of the respondent is very small as compared to the area already in possession of the petitioner.
28. It is averred that the real motive for filing present eviction petition is that the petitioner wants to sell out/let out the premises at exorbitant rate hence the need of the petitioner is not bonafide.
29. It is a averred that rent receipts shows the name of landlord Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
Page by9AJAY of 21 SINGH AJAY PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17 14:48:23 +0530 as Ram Ratan Singh Namdhari, Ratna Ram Namdhari, Prem Ratna Namdhari, Nirmal Ratna Namdhari and Gurmukh Singh Namdhari, whereas present petition has been filed only by Ram Ratan Singh Namdhari, hence present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
30. Respondents by way of WS have challenged the ownership of the petitioner. It is a averred that petitioner has not placed on record any document to show his adoption.
Record shows that petitioner/PW1 has placed on record adoption deed dated 04.11.1950 and PW1 was cross examined on the aspect of adoption at length. As per section 68 of Indian Evidence Act 1872 (herein after referred as Evidence Act) execution of document required by law to be attested can be proved by examining at least one attesting witness, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. During cross examination dated 31.03.2015 PW1 stated that none of the five attesting witnesses to adoption deed are alive. Section 69 of Evidence Act provides that if no attesting witness can be found it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the hand writing of that person. PW1 during his cross examination dated 02.09.2014 answered direct question of Ld. Counsel for respondents that he can identify signatures of Sh. Brij Mohan Singh Ahluwalia in the deed of adoption Ex Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 AJAY Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
by AJAY SINGH
Page PARIHAR
10 of 21
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.1714:48:28 +0530
PW1/2. The respondent has not been able to show that signature appearing on adoption deed Ex PW1/2 does not pertain to Sh. Brij Mohan Singh Ahluwalia. During cross examination, Ld. Counsel for respondents tried to show contradictions in the adoption deed, however, they are not such so as to question the authenticity of adoption deed.
31. For the sake of arguments if the adoption deed is taken to be invalid then also respondent can not challenge the right of petitioner. In WS in preliminary objection at paragraph no. 6, the respondents have made averment that after the demise of Smt. Leelawati, the respondent started paying rent to petitioner in a bonafide manner. This averment is sufficient to create estoppel against the respondent u/s 116 of Evidence Act.
32. It is averred that petitioner is not the owner of the suit property. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shanti Sharma & Ors. Vs. Ved Prabha & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 2028 regarding ownership has held as follows :-" The word 'owner' has not been defined in this Act and the word 'owner' has also not been defined in the Transfer of Property Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be is that ownership means absolute ownership in the land as well as of the structure standing thereupon. Ordinarily, the concept of ownership may be what is contended by the counsel for the appellant but in the modern context where it is more or less admitted that all lands belong to the State, the persons who hold properties Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
AJAY Page 11 ofby
21 AJAY SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:48:36 +0530
will only be lessees or the persons holding the land on some term from the Govt. or the authorities constituted by the State and in this view of the matter it could not be thought of that the Legislature when it used the term 'owner' in the provision of Sec. 14(1)(e) it thought of ownership as absolute ownership. It must be presumed that the concept of ownership only will be as it is understood at present. It could not be doubted that the term 'owner' has to be understood in the context of the background of the law and what is contemplated in the scheme of the Act. This Act has been enacted for protection of the tenants. But at the same time it has provided that the landlord under certain circumstances will be entitled to eviction and bona fide requirement is one of such grounds on the basis of which landlords have been permitted to have eviction of a tenant. In this context, the phrase 'owner' thereof has to be understood, and it is clear that what is contemplated is that where the person builds up his property and lets out to the tenant and subsequently needs it for his own use, he should be entitled to an order or decree for eviction, the only thing necessary for him to prove is bona fide requirement and that he is the owner thereof, In this context, what appears to be the meaning of the term 'owner' is vis-a- vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more than the tenant."
33. In Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi made observations regarding Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 AJAY Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
Page
by12AJAY
of 21 SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:48:43 +0530
estoppel against the tenant, which is as follows :- "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 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 DRC Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act creates estoppel against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not when he is occupying the premises. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly........"
34. It is clear from above judgments that the petitioner/landlord has to show a better title than the tenant. In present case, the petitioner has placed on record adoption deed. Apart from adoption deed, the respondents are estopped from challenging the ownership/landlord-ship of petitioner due to the averment in WS. It is for the tenant Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
Page
by13AJAY
of 21 SINGH
AJAY PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:48:52 +0530
to show that petitioner was taking rent not in the capacity of landlord, however, respondents have failed to lead any evidence on the said aspect. Hence, the stand of respondents that petitioner is not owner/landlord of suit property stands rejected.
35. It is averred that CFA is nothing but extended tenancy as the principal will charge on the basis of quantity of goods stored and the employees of the Principal will inspect, visit and stay at the premises, hence principal would be having controlling function. It is also averred that petitioner does not have experience in running a school and he has also not filed any sanction from any authority for running a school.
36. The averment of respondent that CFA will be an extended tenancy is fallacious on the face of it. The petitioner was holding a godown for stocking products of M/s Venkataramana Foods Specialties Ltd in Village Todapur, Delhi, on monthly rent of ₹53,200/-. If we go by the logic of respondents, then the petitioner was having tenancy with the owner of godown as well as with M/s Venkataramana Foods Specialties Ltd. Clearly, such kind of situation is not envisaged by law and not even by logic. CFA (Carrying and Forwarding Agent) is primarily responsible for managing the storage, distribution, and transportation of products. CFA provides the facility of storage for which he gets paid by the manufacturer. This is purely a contractual relationship between CFA and RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr. Page 14 of 21 AJAY Digitally signed by AJAY SINGH SINGH PARIHAR Date: 2025.04.17 PARIHAR 14:48:58 +0530 manufacturer. By no stretch of imagination, this relationship can be equated with tenancy.
37. In Bhawani Shankar vs Nand Lal And Ors RC. REV.
146/2020 it is observed "22. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.C. Kapoor Vs. Nand Kumar Bhasin, AIR 2002 SC 200, where the Supreme Court noted as follows:- "9. It is settled position of law that bonafide requirement means that requirement must be honest and not tainted with any oblique motive and is not a mere desire or wish. In Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde [1999] 2 SCR 912, this Court while considering the bonafide need of the landlord was of the view that when a landlord says that he needs the building for his own occupation, he has to prove it but there is no warrant for 'presuming that his need is not bonafide'. It was also held that while deciding this question. Court would look into the broad aspects and if the Courts feels any doubt about bonafide requirement, it is for the landlord to clear such doubt." 23. Similarly, in Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, it was held that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and Courts have no concern to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should not be normally interfered with."
38. No presumption can be drawn against the petitioner that Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 AJAY Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
Page by
15 of 21 SINGH
AJAY
SINGH PARIHAR
Date: 2025.04.17
PARIHAR 14:49:04 +0530
his requirement is not bonafide. PW1 has filed the communications from M/s Venkataramana Foods Specialties Ltd regarding additional space dated 01.04.2009 and copy of termination letter dated 15.05.2009 Ex PW1/9 and Ex PW1/10 respectively. These documents show that M/s Venkataramana Foods Specialties Ltd required space of about 14000 sq. ft whereas the petitioner was having only 9000 sq. ft. These documents show that the son of petitioner was having CFA which was terminated for want of much larger space. The respondents during cross examination could not bring any fact which may create doubt regarding the bonafide need of petitioner. Hence, this court does not have any hesitation in holding that requirement of petitioner is bonafide.
39. So far as the averment regarding running of school is concerned, same is also without any substance. The petitioner has filed communications from schools and societies which prima facie show that petitioner had offers for running schools. For running schools the petitioner may not be having expertise and may suffer loses, however that by itself is no ground to doubt bonafide need of petitioner. Rent controller has to see the bonafide need of petitioner not the expertise of landlord in proposed business, hence this averment is also without merits and same stands rejected.
40. It is averred that the real motive for filing present eviction Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 AJAY Pageby AJAY Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
16 of 21 SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:49:10 +0530
petition is that the petitioner wants to re-let it for higher rent.
41. Delhi Rent Control Act has made sufficient provision for safeguarding tenant against any misuse of eviction grounds by landlord. Section 19 of DRC provides for restoration of possession to tenant if the tenanted premises is not used by landlord. Section 19 of DRC reads :- "Where a landlord recovers possession of any premises and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises are held, within two months of obtaining such possession, or the premises having been so occupied are, at any time within three years from the date of obtaining possession, re-let to any person than the evicted tenant without obtaining the permission of the Controller such tenant can be put back to the premises or can be paid such compensation as the Controller thinks fit."
42. Hence, if the landlord obtains eviction and does not occupy the premises or let out the same then tenant can always apply for restitution under section 19 of the DRC Act. Therefore, this ground is also not tenable and accordingly stands rejected.
43. It is a averred that rent receipts shows the name of landlord as Ram Ratan Singh Namdhari, Ratna Ram Namdhari, Prem Ratna Namdhari, Nirmal Ratna Namdhari and Gurmukh Singh Namdhari, whereas present petition has been filed only by Ram Ratan Singh Namdhari, hence Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 AJAY Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
Page
by17AJAY
of 21 SINGH
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:49:17 +0530
present petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
44. In India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) by L.R.s, AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1321, the Supreme Court observed that one of the co- owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co-owners and this principle was based on doctrine of agency. One co-owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so, on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other co-owners. The consent of other co-owners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other co-owners were not agreeable to eject the tenant.
45. Admittedly, Ratna Ram Namdhari, Prem Ratna Namdhari, Nirmal Ratna Namdhari and Gurmukh Singh Namdhari are wife and children of petitioner, hence they are the co- owners in the property. The respondents have not placed on record any oral or documentary evidence to show that these persons were not agreeable to filling of present eviction petition. Respondents have made mere bald averments without any substance, hence this contention is also rejected.
46. It is also averred that the petitioner has other residential cum commercial properties in the area of Rana Pratap Bagh, which he did not disclose deliberately. The premises in possession of the respondent is very small as compared to the area already in possession of the petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner has alternate accommodations Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 AJAY by AJAY 18 of 21SINGH Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
Page
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17
14:49:25 +0530
which are sufficient for the purpose mentioned.
47. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kanahaiya Lal Arya v. Md.
Ehshan & Ors. 2025 INSC 271, recently reiterated that tenant cannot dictate landlord to get another property vacated for bona fide need. It was held :- " 10. The law with regard to eviction of a tenant from the suit premises on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord is well settled. The need has to be a real one rather than a mere desire to get the premises vacated. The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction."
48. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Om Prakash Bajaj v. Sh.
Chander Shekhar, 102 (2003) DLT 746, has observed that :- "Suitability of the alternate premises cannot be determined by mere counting the rooms. But it has to determine keeping in view the totality of facts, the nature of need pleaded by the landlord, his and his families standard and style of life and the purpose to which the landlord wants to actually put it after coming it into possession. The landlord has right to choose which of the accommodation is required by him for himself and for his family members."
49. Mere bald averments that petitioner owns certain other properties will not be sufficient. Respondents need to substantiate the same by documents, which has not been RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr. Digitally Page 19 of 21 signed AJAY by AJAY SINGH PARIHAR SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17 14:49:34 +0530 done in the present case. The petitioner has shown his requirement of 15000 sq. ft. of space for CFA by request letter and termination letter Ex PW1/9 and PW1/10. Petitioner sought eviction of suit premises for his bona fide need. The petitioner is best judge of his requirement and the tenant can not ask him to file eviction petition for other tenanted premises, it is the respondents who need to show that other accommodations are adequate for petitioner, however, the respondents have failed to prove the same. The averment made by respondents remain bald statement without any substance, hence this contention is also rejected.
50. It is also averred that the respondent is running factory in the premises for last 60 years and if he is dispossessed, then he will be without any source of income and several employees will be rendered without work. It is averred that respondent runs small factory and respondent is financially incapable to shift factory to other place due to higher rental in market.
51. This averment is also without any substance. If petitioner can show his right under law then same will be enforced no matter the consequence. The legal maxim "Damnum sine injuria" takes care of this averment. This maxim means damage without injury, where someone suffers a loss or damage but there's no violation of a legal right, and therefore, no legal action can be taken. A landlord has a legal right to vacate the tenant, even if as a consequence of Digitally signed RC ARC No. 67/2016 AJAY Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr.
by AJAY SINGH
Page 20 of 21
PARIHAR
SINGH Date:
PARIHAR 2025.04.17 14:49:39 +0530
eviction, the tenant may not be able to afford further accommodation. Just because the respondent is running factory for last 60 years and his employees will be laid off on eviction, the petitioner can not be stopped from availing his right of eviction if established before the rent controller. This averment is also without any force hence rejected.
52. In view of the above discussion, petitioner has proved all the ingredients of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, hence petitioner is entitled for an eviction order. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises i.e. Khasra No. 876/634, also known as D-1/1, Estate D-35, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-10007 as shown in the site plan as mark X, Y and Z filed with the eviction petition, in terms of Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The petitioner, however, shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order.
53. No order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Digitally signed File be consigned to Record Room. AJAY by AJAY SINGH SINGH PARIHAR Announced in Open Court on 16.04.2025. PARIHAR Date: 2025.04.17 14:49:49 +0530 (Ajay Singh Parihar) ACJ-cum-ARC-North Rohini Court/ Delhi RC ARC No. 67/2016 Ram Rattan Singh Namdhari VS M/s Shanta Electric Co. & Anr. Page 21 of 21