Delhi District Court
Mr Anubhav Mehrish vs Mr Vinod Sharma on 27 October, 2025
RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-02 (CENTRAL), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No. 458/2024
In the matter of:-
Sh. Anubhav Mehrish,
S/o Late Mr. Arun Kumar Mehrish,
R/o H.No. B-507, Aashirwad Vaibhav,
Plot No. SP 12B, Indra Vihar,
Keshopura, P.I.P Kota,
Rajasthan-324005
Presently at:-
1105/T3, L&T Emerald Isle,
Saki Vihar Road (L&T Gate 6),
Powali, Mumabi-400072.
Mobile: 9324621572.
Email: [email protected]
................ Petitioner
VERSUS
MR. VINOD SHARMA,
Shop No. 1952, Ground Floor,
Katar Lachhu Singh,
H.C. Sen Road, Fountain,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006
Also at:-
H.No. 2030 Katra
Lacchu Singh
Bhagirath Palace, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi-110066
................ Respondent
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025
Page no. 1 of 17 Digitally signed
VIVEK by VIVEK
KUMAR
KUMAR AGARWAL
AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27
16:12:10 +0530
RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA
ORDER
1. The application under consideration is the one filed by the respondent/tenant u/s 25(B) of DRC Act seeking leave to contest against the eviction petition filed by the petitioner/landlord under Section 14(1) (e) with section 25(B) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short "DRC Act") for seeking eviction of tenant/respondent, in respect of one shop on ground floor bearing Municipal No. 1952, Katra Lachhu Singh, H.C. Sen Road, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, having an area of around 28 sq feet approximately, as shown in red color in site plan Mark A (Marked for sake of identification) (hereinafter referred as tenanted premises).
THE PETITION:-
2. As per the eviction petition, the case of the petitioner is that the suit premises / tenanted premises was let out for non- residential purposes is required bonafide by the Petitioner for the purposes of bonafide business need of the Petitioner as detailed in the present petition. That the Petitioner is the co-owner/ landlord of the suit premises/ tenanted premises. The larger property where the suit premises/ tenanted premises is situated, was previously owned by Late Smt. Padmawati, who was the grand-mother of the Petitioner herein. The Respondent's Father, (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed Page no. 2 of 17 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:12:18 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA Sh. Nath, was previously paying rent to Smt. Padmawati. After demise of Smt. Padmawati, the said property devolved upon her legal heirs. That Father of the Petitioner namely Shri Arun Kumar Mehrish was one of the sons of Smt. Padmawati. That Shri Arun Kumar Mehrish has also expired. As such, the Petitioner is one of the co-owners/landlord of the suit premises/ tenanted premises. The other co-owners have no objection whatsoever to the Petitioner herein filing the instant eviction petition against the Respondent herein. That the Petitioner is presently working at Mumbai in a company namely Kodan Solutions Private Limited (hereinafter also referred to as the said company for short). The said company deals in shipping and logistics. The Petitioner has been working for last various years and has vast experience of doing buisness. That the Petitioner intends and requires to start business of commercial carriage from wherein goods would be transported from Delhi to different states. The Petitioner bonafide needs to utilize the tenanted premises as booking office for the said business purposes. That Chandni Chowk, Delhi is one of the largest market area of Delhi/India where various types of businesses are being run by various persons/entities on wholesale and retail basis. The footfall of customers at Chandni Chowk, Delhi is extremely huge. People from various states of India regularly come and visit Chandni Chowk, Delhi for buying various items on wholesale and retail basis. Chandni Chowk, Delhi is virtually a hub of commercial activities. That the suit (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed Page no. 3 of 17 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:12:25 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA premises is situated in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. The Old Delhi Railway Station is situated hardly at a distance of 700-800 meters from the suit premises. Even the interstate bus terminal (ISBT) is situated nearby. The suit premises is well connected from Metro Train as the nearest Metro Station Chandni Chowk is situated hardly at a distance of around 100 meters from the suit premises. Thus, the suit premises is most strategically located. That the tenanted premises has very high commercial potential. As such, the Petitioner intends to start the aforesaid business from the tenanted property which is most suitable and convenient for the bonafide requirement of the Petitioner and therefore the Petitioner has been constrained to file the present eviction petition. That the petitioner required the abovesaid property for bonafide reason. Hence, eviction petition has been filed against the respondents/tenants.
THE LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION:-
3. The application for leave to defend has been filed within 15 days from date of service of summons. As per the application for leave to defend and as per the supported affidavit, the case of respondent is that the respondent was the tenant till 19.08.1998 in the respect of a Shop No.1952, Ground Floor, Katra Lachhu Singh, H.C. Sen Road, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 and the said tenancy was for the purpose of commercial use. That on 20.08.1998, Mr. Arun Kumar Mehrish (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed Page no. 4 of 17 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:12:53 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA the tenancy of (now deceased) terminated respondent, after the death of depent's father namely bri Nath and stated that I terminate your tenancy from today and you will have to vacate the physical and peaceful possession within 15 days from today otherwise corrosive steps would be taken against you before the court of law and thereafter the respondent became the owner by adverse possession as it is further submitted that the respondent is enjoying the possession of this property in question, more than 12 years i.e. 26 years, undisturbed possession. That thereafter the respondent became the owner through adverse possession as neither Mrs. Padmawati (deceased) nor his legal heir never claimed nor disturbed the physical possession of the respondent since 20.08.1998, while more than 12 years has been passed away, which shows that the petitioner and his other co-sharer and co-owner filed any, proceeding. before any court of law, which shows that the respondent has became in owner through adverse possession. That the respondent has been duly served with the summon issued by this Hon'ble Court U/S 14(1)(e) R/W read with section 25-B or the DRC Act as amended up-to-date and received the summons on 16.08.24 and respondent filed the accompanying petition for leave to defend and to contest the eviction petition with limitation. That, the ground stated in the affidavit for seeking relief to defend and to contest the accompanied application with this application raises triable issues and cannot be decided without evidence, even otherwise the (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK Page no. 5 of 17 VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL 2025.10.27
16:12:59 +0530
RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA
necessary ingredients has not been pleaded in the eviction petition. The relevant ground to contest the eviction petition are stated as that the petitioner has sold out his residential share himself alongwith the relinquishment of his mother and elder brother in his ancestral property bearing no. 1953 on dated 14.11.2022 and the plaintiff has already sold out his commercial share in property no.1952/ 1954/1955 himself alongwith the relinquishment of his mother and elder brother in his ancestral property on dated 16.10.2023, which proves that neither the petitioner is the owner nor the landlord of this shop in question at the time filing this eviction petition, which has been mentioned by the petitioner for eviction.
3.1. That there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent and the respondent never paid any rent to the petitioner, nor he demanded any rent from the respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioner never gave any notice of atonement to the respondents with respect to tenancy. That the petitioner has concealed material facts before this Hon'ble Court and has suppressed the real facts with respect to the properties sold by the petitioner and his family members.That, the petitioner has not filed proof of ownership or landlord alongwith this petition, which proves that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and g. The Respondents never attorned the Petitioner as their landlord at (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK Page no. 6 of 17 VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL 2025.10.27
16:13:05 +0530
RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA any point of time and neither they have paid any rent to the Petitioner alone. The documents filed by the petitioner itself do not entitle the petitioner as the landlord / owner of the suit property. That the petitioner failed to implead other legal heirs of Smt. Padmawati (deceased),grandmother of the petitioner in the present petition and until or unless they are impleaded as party in the array of petition the present petition is not maintainable.
3.2. It is further stated that the forefather of the respondent namely Sh. Jiya Lal Ji took the shop in question on rent @Rs.15/-per month from the grandmother / grandfather approx 100 years ago and thereafter it was enhanced to Rs.20/- per month, since then 5 generation were/are in possession in the above said shop by way tenancy till 19.08.1998 and on20.08.1998 Mr. Arun Kumar Mehrish (now deceased) terminated the tenancy of respondent, after the death of depnent's father namely Shri Nath and stated that he terminated his tenancy from that day and he will have to vacate the physical and peaceful possession within 15 days from today otherwise corrosive steps would be taken against you before the court of law and thereafter the respondent became the owner by adverse possession as it is further submitted that the respondent is enjoying the possession of this property in question, more than 12 years which is approx 26 years, without any undisturbed possession or claimed possession.
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed Page no. 7 of 17 by VIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date:
AGARWAL 2025.10.27
16:13:13 +0530
RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA 3.3. That this property in question was taken by Late Sh. Jiya Lal on rent and thereafter Shri Amarnath son of Shri Nath, thereafter Shri Nath Ji and thereafter Vinod Sharma So Shri Nath Ji, (respondent herein) and Mr. Aditya S/o respondent (deceased) who expired on dated 08.06.2022 due to jaundice, which proves that the shop in question was in the possession of respondent and his predecessors.
3.4. The family tree of Padmawati (deceased) W/o Late Chandra Prakash Mehrish is provided and it is stated that no SPA has been placed on record to prove that he has been authorized by other members / co- possession sharer / co-owner of this property as the complete details of co-shares has been given in family tree of Late Padmawati in above mentioned. That the petitioner has not disclosed as he does not have neither any residence address of Delhi in his petition nor any commercial address of Delhi which shows that he is not living in Delhi for any purpose and he wants to take benefit of his own wrongs. That the petitioner has not disclosed any business criteria and field and has not supported any document which proves that he is interested to such business and such other commercial activities cannot be operated without occupying / possession at this properties. That this property is constructed property and is having 3 shops at the ground floor constructed upto 3rd floor, however the petitioner as well as other co-sharer / co-owner have (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed Page no. 8 of 17 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.10.27 16:13:19 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA sold out their property both residential and Oath Commission commercial. That the petitioner, has filed this patition to evict the tenant only to harass the tenant and to humiliate the tenant as the tenant is running his shop since teenage prior to his father. That there is no bonafide requirement of the commercial purpose for the petitioner as alleged in the petitioner, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief from this Hon'ble Court until or unless the petitioner impleads other co-sharer of the tenanted property. All the other averments of eviction petition are denied with the prayer to allow the respondents to contest the eviction petition.
THE REPLY:-
4. Reply to leave to defend application has been filed by the petitioner alongwith supporting affidavit wherein the allegations raised in the application for leave to defend are denied. Again averments of eviction petition are reiterated with the prayer to dismiss the said application and to pass the eviction order.
ARGUMENTS :-
5. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. and perused the records of the case very carefully including written submissions filed by the respondent as well as the petitioner and (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Page no. 9 of 17 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:13:26 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA have also gone through the judgments filed on behalf of respondent.
THE LAW:-
6. The present petition for eviction is under clause (e) of proviso to sub-section (1) of section 14 of DRC Act, 1958 which after the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Satyawati Sharma Versus Union of India", on 16.04.2008 reads as under :-
14.(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 any court or 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 the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
***
(e) that the premises are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation 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 :
7. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction filed under section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish the following ingredients:-
(I) That he is the owner of the tenanted property and there exits relationship of landlord and tenant between him and the respondent. (II) That tenanted property is required bonafide by the petitioner for himself or for any member of his family dependent upon him.
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed Page no. 10 of 17 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:13:32 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA (III) That the petitioner does not have any other alternate, reasonable and suitable accommodation.
8. The facts and circumstances of the present case are being analyzed hereunder keeping in view the principle of law as discussed above.
I. Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises & Landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent :-
8.1. It is observed that in the application for leave to defend and detailed affidavit the respondent has duly stated that he was a tenant in the shop in question till 19.08.1998 and on 20.08.1998, Mr. Arun Kumar Mehrish had terminated the tenancy of the respondent after the death of his father namely Mr. Shrinath and had given time to vacate the said premises within 15 days. It is further stated that after termination of the tenancy the respondent was enjoying the possession of the said property for more than 12 years without any disturbance and therefore he became the owner of said shop by way of adverse possession. In this regard, it is observed that it is a matter of legal trite that "once a tenant is always a tenant" and therefore, there cannot be any eventuality that a tenant may become the owner of the tenanted premises even by way of adverse possession. The tenant has no right to challenge the ownership of the landlord in view of the provision of Section 116 of IEA (122 BSA) and therefore the plea of ownership by way of adverse possession taken on behalf of (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed Page no. 11 of 17 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.10.27 16:13:39 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA defendant is not tenable in any manner. Now as the respondent has further admitted that the father of petitioner was the landlord of the property in question and therefore, after death of father of petitioner, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of his father and became the co-owner / landlord of property in question and the respondent became his tenant. It is a matter of legal trite that attornment of the successor in interest of the previous landlord is not required by the tenant. Again it is also settled legal proposition that any co-owner can file eviction petition against the tenant.
8.2. Accordingly, it is concluded that petitioner has duly established his ownership in the property in question and again landlord and tenant relationship between both the parties is also established.
II & III Bonafide requirement and suitable alternate accommodation.
8.3 It has been submitted by counsel for petitioner that as mentioned in the para 3 to 7 of the annexure of the eviction petition, the petitoner requires the tenanted premises to start the business of commercial carriage from delhi where goods would be transported from delhi to other states. Again the petitioner also need the said premises to use as a booking office for purpose of said business. It is further submitted that tenant premises is (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed by VIVEK Page no. 12 of 17 VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date:
2025.10.27 16:13:45 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA situated in the area of Chandni Chowk, which is a very large commercial / market area where various types of business are being run and again the tenant premises are well connected to railway station, metro station and bus terminal and therefore, the premises are very much suitable for the requirement of the petitioner and petitioner has no other suitable accommodation for purpose of said business requirment.
8.4. On other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of respondent that petitioner has no bonafide requirement and again he had already sold two shops in the said building of the subject premises.
8.5. Heard. It is observed that the law is very well settled that the requirement of the landlord is to be presumed as genuine and in this regard, reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Abid-Ur-Islam Vs Indersen Dua dated 07.04.2022, wherein it was observed as follows :-
".........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 prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that requirement of the landlord is bonafide......".
Again, it is further observed that the legal position is very well settled that it is not the tenant but the landlord himself who has to decide the suitablility of his requirement with (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed Page no. 13 of 17 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:13:51 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA respect to the tenanted premises. In the case titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT 652 it was observed that:-
"24. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.
25. Suitability has to be seen from the convenience of the landlord and his family members and on the basis of the circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background. Landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement".
Again in the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC
353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
8.6 Now in view of this legal position, let me advert to the facts of the present case. In the entire application of leave to defend the respondent has failed to make any specific averment to deny the bonafide requirment of the petitioner and only vague denial has been made. Said denial cannot rebut the presumtion of bonafide requirement in favour of the petitioner, as discussed above. Again with respect to availability of alternate (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed Page no. 14 of 17 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:14:00 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA accommodation avaiable with the petitioner, the respondent has again made only vague averments and nothing is specified which shops were allegedly sold by the petitioner and when they were sold. In the reply of the application of leave to defend, the petitioner has clearly denied about any such sale of shops by him.
8.7 Accordingly, I am duly satisfied that the petitioner needs the tenanted premises in question for purpose of running of the business of transport. The factum of requirement is further substantiated from the fact that the tenanted premises which is the shop is situated in the area of Chandni Chowk, which is a well known commercial hub. I am further satisfied that the petitioner does not have any other alternate property available with him to fulfill the said requirement.
8.8 After analysis of the present factual situation in backdrop of the law discussed above, this Court is of the considered opinion that respondent has failed to raise any triable issue in respect of bonafide need of petitioner and alternate accommodation available with the petitioner.
CONCLUSION:-
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, the present petition for eviction is allowed and an application for leave to defend stands disposed of accordingly as dismissed. The Petitioner is (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK Page no. 15 of 17 KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:14:07 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA held entitled to recover the possession of tenanted premises i.e. one shop on ground floor bearing Municipal No. 1952, Katra Lachhu Singh, H.C. Sen Road, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, having an area of around 28 sq feet approximately, as shown in red color in site plan Mark A (Marked for sake of identification). However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions given in Section 14 (7) of the Act.
10. It is further observed that the present eviction petition was filed in August, 2024 and the was pending before the court for more than one year. As reflected from the ordersheet the delay was caused for the reasons to be assigned to both the parties, however, the fact remains that for more than one year, the petitioner was deprived of the enjoyment of his own property and to start his business. Accordingly, I am of the view that it is a fit case where reasonable amount of cost should be imposed upon the respondents. Even otherwise, the imposition of cost goes a longway in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings by the litigants. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Ram Rameshwari Devi & Ors Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors dated 04.07.2011 and also on the celebrated case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India AIR 2005 SC (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Digitally signed Page no. 16 of 17 VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:14:14 +0530 RC ARC No. 458/24 MR ANUBHAV MEHRISH VS. MR VINOD SHARMA 3353. As discussed above, even in the present case, the respondent had raised false plea while denying the ownership of the petitioner in the property in question. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is imposed the cost of Rs.25,000/- ( rupees twenty five thousand only) to be paid to the petitioner within the period of 6 months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to file the execution petition for recovery of said amount from the respondent alongwith execution proceedings for recovery of possession.
File be consigned to record room.
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 27.10.2025 Digitally signed (Announced in open court VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR On 27.10.2025).
AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:14:21 +0530 Note: This order contains 17 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
(VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 27.10.2025 Digitally signed VIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.10.27 16:14:27 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/27.10.2025 Page no. 17 of 17