Delhi District Court
Ashok Kumar Jain vs Gurpreet Singh on 9 May, 2025
RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh
IN THE COURT OF MS. ARJINDER KAUR,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-2 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No: 78606/2016
Shri. Ashok Kumar Jain
S/o late Sh. Padam Singh Jain
4341, Pahari Dhiraj
New Delhi-110006
...........Petitioner
VERSUS
Sh. Gurpreet Singh
Prop./Partner of M/s Hemkunt Enterprises
5194, Ground Floor, Main Road
Sadar Bazar, Delhi 110006
Also at :-
Kothi No. 25, Road no. 43,
Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi.
.........Respondent
***********
Date of Filing of petition : 30.10.2013
Date of reserving judgment : 09.05.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 09.05.2025
Decision of petition : Allowed
***********
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 14 (1)
(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of suit premises i.e. one shop on the ground floor of property bearing (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.1 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh no. 5194, main road, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi which has been shown in 'red colour' of the site plan attached (hereinafter referred to as 'suit premises').
1.1 The eviction of the respondent has been prayed for by the petitioner for the bonafide need for himself of a shop at ground floor as the premises in which the petitioner is carrying on his business is the rented one and the petitioner has no other alternate suitable accommodation with him to fulfill his bonafide need.
1.2 On the other hand the eviction has been resisted by the respondent mainly on the ground that the premises where the petitioner is already carrying on business is owned by him and the petitioner has also got various other properties which can be used by him as alternate suitable accommodation to fulfill his bonafide need.
EVIDENCE OF PETITIONER
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain S/o Late Sh. P.S. Jain has examined as PW-1 and tendered evidence by way of affidavit vide Ex. PW1/1 and relied upon the following documents:
Site plan Ex. PW1/1.
Copy of complaint to the Commissioner of MCD Mark A. Copy of establishment details issued by Dept of Labour Mark B. Copy of petition Mark C. Copy of RTI Application dt. 11.03.14 alongwith postal receipt made to Dept of Trade and Taxes Ex. PW1/2 (OSR) (objected to mode of proof).
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.2 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh Copy of RTI Appeal dt. 28.05.14 Ex. PW1/3 (OSR) (Objected to).
Copy of order dt. 24.06.2014 Ex. PW 1/4 (OSR) (Objected to).
Copy of RTI reply dt. 09.07.2014 Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) (objected to).
Copy of documents received with RTI reply Ex. PW. 1/6 (OSR) (objected to).
Copy of MSME Certificate Mark D. Copy of Newspaper Ex. PW1/7 (OSR) (objected to). Copy of goods insurance policies Ex. PW 1/8 (Colly) (OSR) (objected to).
Copy of MCD Trade License Ex. PW 1/9 (Colly) (OSR) (objected to).
Copy of house tax receipt Mark E. Certified copy of order dt. 20.11.2012 Ex. PW1/10. Copy of rent receipts Ex. PW 1/11 (Colly) (OSR). Copy of authority dt. 10.07.2000 Mark F. Copy of Bills of Jainsons Mark G to J.
Copy of DL Ex. PW 1/12/A (the copy of DL which had been filed by the plaintiff expired on 18.07.2013 after the expiry renewed DL was issued by Dept of Transport of Delhi, copy of which is Ex. PW1/12(OSR) (Objected to mode of proof) Copy of order dt. 10.08.1999 Ex. PW1/13(OSR) Objection to L.C. report Ex. PW 1/14 (Colly) (Objected to mode of proof).
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.3 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh 5.1 The witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for Respondent.
2.1 Vide order dated 16.08.2024, evidence on behalf of petitioner was closed in affirmative.
EVIDENCE OF RESPONDENT
3. RW1 Sh. Sh Gurpreet Singh, Respondent, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW1/A which bears his signature at point A and B respectively.
He relied upon the following documents:
Copy of sale deed dated 05.07.2002 in favour of Mohd. Meharban Ex. RW1/1.
Ex. RW1/2 is already Ex. PW1/13 and therefore deleted. Original LC report alongwith documents and photos is Ex. RW 1/3.
Copy of the petition before ARC for repair of roof is Ex. RW1/4.
Photographs of second and third floor of the property bearing no. 5193-94, main road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi taken from the period 03.12.2013 to 11.12.2014 (72 in number), Ex. RW 1/5 (Colly).
Copy of the letter dated 04.01.2014 issued by BSES to Sharad Jain is Ex. RW 1/6.
Site plan of the suit premises is Ex. RW 1/7. Photographs of the property bearing no. 26-28 Vijay Park, Najafgarh Delhi, (6 in number) Ex. RW1/8 (Colly). Copy of the letter dated 11.08.1999 issued by MCD is Ex.RW1/9
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.4 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh Copy of letter dated 20.05.2002 issued by SDM (HQ) Ex.
RW1/10.
Copy of the order/letter dated 08.04.2003 by the Sub- Registrar, North Delhi is Ex. RW 1/11.
Certificate of the respondent under section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex RW 1/12 for electronic evidence.
(Objected to Ex. RW1/3 regarding mode of proof, Ex. RW1/5 mode of proof and Ex. RW1/6 photocopy and mode of proof, Ex. RW1/7 mode of proof, Ex. RW 1/8 mode of proof, Ex. RW1/9, Ex. RW1/10 and Ex. RW1/11 are photocopies and mode of proof.
3.1 RW-2 Sh. Kawal Grover, Respondent, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-2/A which bears his signature at point A and B respectively.
3.2 RW-3 Sh. Asheesh Chandra also known as Asheesh Raizada, Respondent, is and advocate by profession Enrollment no. from D/11/2012. He had transferred his Enrollment No. from D/11/2013 to U.P./6861B/2012(Bar Council of U.P.). That he had conducted his duties as local commissioner as per order dated 16.05.2014 and had filed his report on 05.06.2014 (61 pages) Ex. RW-1/3, which bears his stamp and signature. 3.3 The witnesses were cross examined by Ld. Counsel for Petitioner.
3.4 Vide order dated 16.12.2024, RE was closed.
ARGUMENTS
5. I have heard the arguments at length and have also (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.5 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh carefully gone through the testimonies of the witnesses, documents and material on record and case law relied upon.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS
6. At the outset, it is expedient to reproduce Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which 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."
7. As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(i) There should be a 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/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
8. Let us now discuss the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act one by one as applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
I. OWNERSHIP & LANDLORD /TENANT RELATIONSHIP
9. As stated in the petition, the petitioner is the (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.6 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh owner/landlord of the property bearing no. 5194, Main Road, Sadra Bazaar, Delhi.
9.1 In the written statement the respondent has contended that the petitioner is not the owner of the property as he has not annexed any document which shows that petitioner is the owner of property. It is also stated that as per the municipal records, the property number 5194 stands in the name of Sultan Singh and the documents of the property are not with the petitioner as the property stands in the name of Sultan Singh and even deceased Sultan Singh had no documentary evidence with regard to ownership of the suit property. It is further averred that Govind Prasad Sumit Prasad Jain was tenant in the shop number 5193-94 and as agreed between Govind Prasad Sumit Prasad Jain and Ashok Kumar Jain and the respondent, the respondent firm took the premises on rent after giving ₹20 lakhs to the tenant. It was also agreed that said Ashok Kumar Jain will take the rent on behalf of Sh. Sultan Singh, who claimed to be the owner of the said premises and the respondent firm got the possession of the shop in March 1993 and requested Ashok Kumar Jain and Neena Kumar Jain to give the ownership proof of the shop as both of them had taken Rs.10 lakhs each as security on behalf of the Sultan, though there is no documentation in regard to transfer of any right, but as a usual course of business, the security among was given. That Ashok Kumar Jain and Nirmal Kumar Jain failed to produce the chain of ownership despite numerous demands made by the respondent. It is further stated that petitioner has wrongly mentioned the rate of rent to be ₹396 per month, (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.7 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh whereas the actual rate of rent is ₹360 per month. To prove her ownership and relationship with the respondent, the petitioner himself stepped into the witness box as PW1 and deposed through his affidavit Ex. PW1/A. 9.2 The perusal of cross examination of PW1 shows that the Sultan Singh story mentioned by the respondent in his written statement was totally discarded and not a single question was asked to PW1 regarding alleged owner Sh. Sultan Singh. As per the story put forward by the respondent counsel during the course of cross examination of PW1, it comes out that as per the respondent the property was originally owned Smt. Sunehri Devi, Nirmal Kumar Jain, Jaswant Kumar Jain and Ashok Kumar Jain, the petitioner herein. It further comes out that it is not disputed vide award dated 18.09.1974 Ex. PW1/D2 (original produced in court on 17.09.2019) the property no. 4672, Gali Moahr Singh, Pahari Dheeraj Delhi and property no. 5193-94 Min Road Sadr Bazaar Delhi were awarded to the petitioner and his brother Nirmal Kumar Jain. As put forward by the respondent in cross examination dated 30.11.2019 of PW1 the alleged award Ex. PW1/D2 is forged and fabricated as originally it was with regard to only property no. 5193 and the 94 was later on added by hand. All the suggestions in this regard were denied by PW1. Apart from suggestions nothing could be brought on record by the respondent to show the alleged forgery.
9.3 However, it is pertinent to note here that the respondent has himself admitted that the property 5193-94 both were under the tenancy of Gobind Parsad Sumar Parsad Jain and (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.8 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh after paying Rs. 20 lakhs and the possession of the property was taken by the father of the respondent.
9.4 The respondent has further tried to substantiate his version of forgery of award by the petitioner by putting forward the case that the sh. Jaswant Singh the uncle of the petitioner had filed complaint against the petitioner in MCD on the basis of which the MCD cancelled mutation in the name of the petitioner. However in his cross examination he has admitted that as on date the property stands mutated in the name of the petitioner. 9.5 The respondent as RW1 deposed through his affidavit Ex. RW1/A that the award exhibit PW1/D2 is forged and fabricated in as much as it has cutting/ over-writing/ interpolation with hand on page number two, where property bearing number 5194. Main Bazar, Sadar Bazaar has been added/ over written over the number 5193 Main Bazar, Sadar Bazaar to show that the same also belongs to the petitioner. However, RW1 did not depose anything as to who committed that alleged overwriting or interpolation. He further deposed that he is in possession of another copy of award in which there is no cutting overwriting interpolation, and it only recites that the petitioner is owner of property 5193 Main Bazaar, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi and the copy of the said award is already marked Ex. PW1/2-A. It is further deposed that it is the copy of the award filed by the uncle of the petitioner, namely Jaswant Singh Jain before the MCD mutation or house tax department for the cancellation of mutation of property bearing number 5194 in favor of the petitioner on the basis of which the mutation of entire property no. 5194 Main (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.9 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh Bazaar, Sadar Bazaar in favor of the petitioner was cancelled by the MCD vide letter dated 11.08.1999, Ex. RW1/9. RW1 further deposed that he had procured the copy of the award from Shri Jaswant Singh Jain.
9.6 Here, it would be pertinent to take note of the cross examination of RW1 in this regard. In his cross-examination dated 07.09.2024 RW1 clearly admitted it to be correct that tenancy in the premises in question is created in the name of Hemkunt Enterprises in 1992, and it was Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, the petitioner herein who had handed over the posession of the premises in question to his grandfather named Shri Kirpal Singh. He further admitted that Shri Kripal Singh used to pay rent to Shri Ashok Kumar Jain till 1998, and thereafter the respondent started paying rent to the petitioner. He also admitted it to be correct that the rent was also paid to Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, who used to issue receipt against the same. In his cross examination dated 03.10.2024 RW1 stated that it is wrong to suggest that Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain is the owner of the tenant premises and nobody except him ever claimed ownership right over the tenanted premises. He further voluntarily state that Sh. Jaswant Singh Jain, the uncle of the petitioner had sent legal notices demanding rent in the year 1999 and in 2003, claiming himself to be the owner of the premises. However, he clearly admitted that he never paid rent to Jaswant Singh and never personally contacted Jaswant Singh, even after the receipt of the notices. It must be noted that no copy of any such notice has been placed on record, neither any witness has been examined to prove the same.
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.10 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh It is also pertinent to note here that RW1 admitted in his cross- examination that Jaswant Singh had died 18 years ago and he is unable to recollect when he last met him. This statement of RW1 casts a doubt on his deposition in the affidavit to the effect that he procured the copy of award Ex. PW1/2A from Sh. Jaswant Singh Jain. He also admitted to be correct that after death of Sh. Jaswant Singh Jain none of his legal heirs ever came forward to claim any title over the tenanted premises. RW1 has further admitted it to be correct that he had filed petition under section 44 of DRC against Ashok Kumar Jain, where in para 11, he had mentioned Shri Ashok Kumar Jain to be the respondent of landlord.
9.7 Even during the course of arguments in the court the Ld. Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the title of the petitioner and the landlord-tenant relationship between the petitioner and the respondent. It is also to be noted that the respondent has nowhere pleaded/deposed or averred that who is actually the owner of the tenanted premises. 9.8 Also, the legal position in this regard is well settled as discussed in case titled as Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162 wherein 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.
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.11 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh 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."
9.9 Further, in Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450, it was 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 estoppel 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 whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I, therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in this respect".
9.10 Thus, it can be concluded that the ownership of the petitioner over the suit property and Landlord-tenant relationship with the respondent with respect to subject shop stand established.
II. BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT & ALTERNATE ACCOMODATION
10. The petitioner as PW1 deposed about his Bonafide requirement through his affidavit PW1/A and while reiterating the averments made in the petition stated that the petitioner is running his business from the shop no. 4341, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.12 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh which is on rent and the landlord is threatening to evict the petitioner. That the petitioner is an old man of 68 years and is surrounded by various ailments. The petitioner is acute patient of diabetics and hyper tension and having knee pains. He is on regular medicines and having difficulty in climbing the stairs. That the present rented accommodation is also on ground floor which is primarily being used as office and also some goods are stored in a corner. The loft in these premises is used for storage. The petitioner is unable to climb loft in order to check the stock lying there. The petitioner who is having no place to store the goods is in dire need of the tenanted premises as presently the goods are being spoiled due to the non-availablity of space for storage. That the suit premises being situated on ground floor besides being in the busy commercial market so are very commodious and suitable for storage and also as a show room for displaying the goods. The petitioner is dealing in wholesale supplies of tissue papers and housekeeping items and for storing the same adequate space for the storage is required. That the petitioner is not owing any other commercial premises except the premises no. 5193-94, Main Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. 10.1 That one of the sons of the petitioner Shri. Sharad Jain is having his business from shop at 3 rd floor of premises no. 5193-94, Main Bazar, Delhi. The said premises was also on rent and Smt. & Shri Om Prakash (tenants) were evicted from the 3 rd floor by filling eviction petition against them for the bona-fide necessity of his son Sharad Jain. Thus, vide orders dated 06-09- 2010 the premises were got vacated on the bonafide ground of (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.13 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh his son Sharad Jain as he was not having any place to run his independent business. That after starting business the Sh. Sharad Jain was feeling shortage of accommodation and was not comfortable and therefore he requested the second floor tenant Shri Shyam Sunder to vaccate the tenanted second floor premises no. 5193-94, Main road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi as was having good relations with him. Accordingly in July 2013 the same was also occupied by Shri Sharad Jain (son of the petitioner) who is now in use and occupation of 2nd and 3rd floor for his business activities.
10.2 On the other hand, the respondent as RW1 deposed that the shop no. 4341 Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi from where the petitioner is carrying on his business has been alleged by the petitioner to be on rent, but the respondent has come to know that a flex board is displayed in the front of the shop in which it has been stated that the said property belongs to Shri Ashok Kumar Jain. He further stated that petitioner is the owner/landlord of two shops in property bearing 4341 Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi along with entire mezzanine floor above said shops and is in peaceful position and occupation of the said shops. It is further stated that the said shops are situated on the main road just 300 m away from the suit shop. He further treated that the area of the said shops is more than four times the suit shop and they are being used showroom from display for goods and also for purpose of storage by the petitioner. RW1 further stated that petitioner is landlord of property 4341 having acquired all its rights from Shri Hansraj Duggal by virtue of GPA dated 12.08.1992, who was a (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.14 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh landlord in respect of the said shops, having all powers from its owner to sublet or part with its possession to any person. RW1 further deposed that petitioner had filed eviction against Sh. Nemi Chand Jain, who was tenant in respect of one shop at 4341 alleging that he is the landlord of the shop. The pleadings of the said suit are already marked PW1/D to PW1/DH. It is further deposed that the shops and the mezzanine floor at 4341, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi are available with the petitioner as reasonable, suitable alternate accommodation and the bona fide requirement of the petitioner is false and bogus. RW1 further deposed that petitioner has relied upon an eviction petition bearing number E 35/1998 filed by M/s Rai Sahib Chiranji Lal and son against him, seeking his eviction from one of the shops in property 4341 Pahari Dheeraj, but the same was filed in collusion with the petitioner.
10.3 However, during his cross-examination, RW1 admitted that he never personally has seen title/ownership document of the property bearing no. 4341 Pahari Dhiraj, Sadar Bazaar and he never got verified from the house tax department or the Sub-Registrar office about the title of the said property. He further voluntarily stated that Shri Ashok Kumar Jain got installed a board in which it is written that the said property belongs to Shri Ashok Kumar Jain and any trespasser would be prosecuted and also that Mr. Hansraj Duggal had executed GPA in favour of the petitioner in respect of collection of rent and ownership. However, he admitted it to be correct that the word "owner" has not been used in the said Board that has been got (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.15 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh installed by the petitioner. RW1 also admitted it to be correct that he cannot produce any document to show that Shri Hansraj Duggal had received any consideration amount from Shri Ashok Kumar Jain in execution of the alleged general power of attorney. From the perusal of depositions of RW1 itself it comes out that Hansraj Duggal was himself not the owner of the said property. 10.4 Also, PW1 was cross examined at length by the counsel for the respondent but nothing substantially contrary could be elicited which could have established that the petitioner is owner of property no. 4341 Pahari Dhiraj. Thus, this court comes to the conclusion that this property cannot be considered as suitable alternative for the petitioner and the petitioner cannot be compelled to do his business from the property not owned by him when he has his own property just at the distance of 300 metres.
10.5 RW1 has further deposed that second and third floor of the premises 5193-94 Main Bazar, Sadar Bazaar are lying vacant since the same have been vacated by tenants of the petitioner in the year 2013 and 2010 respectively. He further stated that no independent business activities being carried out from the second and third floor of the premises by Shri Sharad Jain and infact the same are lying vacant as there is no electricity, water or telephone connection in the same. He further deposed that due to non-maintenance and improper upkeep of the said floors by the petitioner for last many years, a part of roof of third floor has fallen leading to seepage of water in the entire building, including the tenant premises. RW1 also deposed that the local (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.16 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh commissioner Ashish Chandra visited the second and third floor of the premises as per directions of the court and has given a report that same are lying vacant, unused for any purpose and no business runs there from. RW1 further deposed that all the documents produced by the petitioner with regard to business activity of Sharad Jain from the second and third floor of the premises bearing number 5193-5194, Main Road, Sadar Bazar, Shyam, have been procured as an afterthought in order to create false evidence after the visit of LC in the year 2014. 10.6 Here, it would be pertinent to note that the Local Commissioner was not called as witness by the respondent. Also, since in the present petition the Bonafide need for the ground floor has been asked for, second and third floor cannot be considered suitable alternate and for that reason this court does not deem it relevant to further check whether or not the son of the petitioner or anyone else is using those floors. Admittedly the floors are in dilapidated condition too. 10.7 RW1 further deposed that the petitioner is also owner of another property bearing number 4672 Gali Mohar Singh Jat, Pahari Dhiraj in his own name and the petitioner has been carrying out commercial activities in the said premises which is also situated in commercial hub of Sadar Bazaar and is a reasonably suitable alternate accommodation for the petitioner to satisfy his bonafide need. Photographs of the said property are Ex. RW/D1 to D21. It is further deposed that the petitioner has filed copy of settlement agreement dated 23.07.2011 before the mediation Centre Delhi High Court between him and all his (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.17 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh family members, including the family members of his uncle late Jaswant Singh Jain, in which the petitioner has shown that he has no connection with this property and all rights regarding same have been vested in other family members. However, it is argued by counsel for the respondent that the said agreement is a sham document and has never been acted upon. PW1 was cross examined at length in this respect but nothing substantially contrary could be elicited therein. Admittedly the petition was filed in the year 2013, i.e. two years after the said family settlement. Also the perusal of affidavit of RW1 shows that he is well aware that in 2002 a partition deed was executed between the petitioner and his brother Nirmal Jain in which this property came to the share of Nirmal Kumar Jain. In his cross examination the RW1 denied such knowledge but also stated that the said partition is bogus. If the RW1 was not aware of the partition how could he say that the same is bogus.
10.8 RW1 further deposed that petitioner at the time of filing the petitioner till the year 2022 was permanent resident of second floor of property bearing number C-47 Inderpuri which was not equipped with lift and that's why the claim of the petitioner that he cannot climb stairs is false. However, it is not denied that the petitioner is about 80 years old. It can not be said that a petitioner should first become completely unable to climb the stairs and then seek eviction of the ground floor. 10.9 RW1 further deposed that the petitioner has also concealed the fact that he has purchased two floors of another property bearing number A-72 Inder Puri during the pendency of (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.18 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh the present petition. It is not disputed that this property is purely residential. Hence the same cannot be considered as suitable alternate.
10.10 RW1 further deposed that during the pendency of the present petition the petitioner has sold out the property situated at Vijay Park, Njafgarh and has purchased property A-29 in Naraina. RW1 has tried to establish that the property situated at Vijay Park, Najafgarh is a commercial property however he failed to do so. RW1 in his cross-examination stated that he cannot admit or deny that the property situated at Vijay Park Najafgarh was residential. Though he stated that the property was used to carry out commercial activities but it could not be proved on the record that the property was commercial in nature. Even otherwise the property being situated in Najafgarh cannot be considered alternative suitable accommodation to the suit property situated in Sadar Bazaar the area where in the petitioner has already been carrying on business for years. The property situated at Narayana Industrial area, for the similar reasons, can also not be considered as alternative suitable accommodation for the petitioner.
10.11 The law regarding determination of Bonafide need of the landlord is well settled in the case titled as Sudesh Kumar Soni & Ors. Vs. Prabha Khanna & Ors. 153 (2008) DLT 652 wherein it was observed that:
(Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.19 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh "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 ad-
just 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".
10.12 Here it is important to quote the following observation made in "Shri Satish Chand Vs. Girdhar Gopal Gupta decided on 10.01.2023:-
"......21. In the present petition there is no plea challenging the finding of the Trial Court with respect to the bona fide need of the landlord and his son addressed during the arguments. It is not disputed that Sh. Amit Gupta, son of the landlord is carrying on business and therefore the contention of the landlord that he needs the tenanted premises for his son's business stands sufficiently established on record.
22. As per Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord/landlady, is required to prove his/her bona fide need for the tenanted premises as well as that he/she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation, to satisfy their requirement. However, recently the Supreme Court in Abid-Ul-Islam (Supra) has held that in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the Court is concerned only with the requirement of a bonafide need and that the plea of alternative accommodation is 'incidental one' at best. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment read as under:
"29. Section 14(1)(e) deals with only the requirement of a bona fide purpose. The contention regarding alternative accommodation can at best be only an incidental one. Such a requirement has not been found to be incorrect by the High Court, though it is not even open to it to do so, in view of the limited jurisdiction which it was supposed to exercise. Therefore, the very basis upon which the revision was allowed is obviously wrong being contrary to the very provision contained in Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B(8)."
The word 'incidental' as defined in the Oxford dictionary, sixth edition, refers to 'occurring as something casual or (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.20 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh of secondary importance'. This would mean that availability of alternate accommodation should not become the decisive or pivotal factor in eviction proceedings. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, once a landlord/landlady has sufficiently established his/her plea of bona fide need, the mere availability of alternate accommodation at the disposal of the landlord/landlady is but a secondary factor and not a primary one and therefore the same cannot become the sole basis for permitting the tenant to retain the tenanted accommodation to the peril of the landlord/landlady, particularly once the other factors entitling him/her to recovery the premises have been established. The landlord/landlady having duly disclosed the alternate available accommodation and having reasonably explained that the same are not adequately suitable for his/her requirement, the fact that tenant contends that the said alternate accommodation is suitable cannot detain the Court from passing the eviction order. The Court will reject the explanation offered by the landlord/landlady with respect to the unsuitability of the alternate accommodation only if it is perverse, however the Court need not substitute the preference for tenanted premises shown by landlord/landlady with the dictates of the tenant. The preference shown by landlord/landlady for the possession of the tenanted premises vis-à-vis another alternative accommodation available to him/her cannot be rejected on the say-so of the tenant so as to set at naught the salutary purpose of Section 25B of the DRC Act. [The Technological Institute of Textiles and Sciences v. M/s Shree Nath Ji Developers, RC. REV.
174/2020]...."
10.13 Thus, this court comes to conclusion that petitioner has successfully established that her need is bonafide and no vacant alternate accommodation is available to him.
CONCLUSION
11. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, the petitioner is able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.21 of 22 RC ARC No. 78606/2016 Ashok Kumar Vs. Gurpreet Singh entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e. one shop on the ground floor in property bearing no. 5194, main road, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi as shown in 'red' colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. 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.
12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs.
13. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on 09.05.2025 (Arjinder Kaur) Additional Rent Controller-02, Central District, THC, Delhi (Arjinder Kaur) ARC-02 (Central), THC, 09.05.2025 Page no.22 of 22