Delhi District Court
Hem Kanta Joshi vs Ms. Shri Sharda Marbles on 27 September, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK GOEL,
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS SCJ NO.25843/2016
HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES
CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mrs. Hem Kanta Joshi
Widow of Late Shri Gobind Ram Joshi
Resident of: 7/159, Ramesh Nagar
New Delhi - 110015
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
M/s. Shri Sharda Marbles
A Partnership Firm
C-10A, Sharda Puri,
Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi.
Thru its Partner - Shri Sukhraj Jain
...Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 21.11.2011
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 06.09.2023
DATE OF DECISION : 27.09.2023
DECISION : DECREED
CS SCJ NO.25843/2016
HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES
CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 1 of 17
Application under Section 25B read with Sections 14-D, 14(1)(e)
14(1)(c)(i) and 14(1)(g) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 for
recovery of possession of the Suit Premises
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner under Section 14-D of Delhi Rent Control Act and under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRC Act"), thereby seeking eviction of the respondent from the premises bearing No. C-10A, Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi in which the ground floor is comprising open space having a one room and covered verandah in all ad-measuring approximately 270 sq. yards. (hereinafter referred as "tenanted suit premises"), on the ground of bonafide requirement by the landlady for the purpose of carrying on the family business of storage, sales and supply of dairy products by carrying out construction on the said land as the dairy business is presently being carried out from the rented premises at B-6/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27 and landlady of the said premises has filed an eviction petition against the respondent herein seeking their eviction from the said premises on the ground of bonafide residential requirement. The petitioner - Landlady being a widow, bonafide requires the tenanted premises under Section 14-D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
2. Initially, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 25B read with Section 14 D, Section 14(1)(e), 14(1)(c)(i) and 14(1)(g) of DRC Act for recovery of the possession of the tenanted suit premises. But, vide order dated 21.05.2013, the present petition qua Section 14(1)(c)(i) and 14(1)(g) of DRC Act has been dismissed as withdrawn.
CS SCJ NO.25843/2016HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 2 of 17 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
3.1. The brief facts of the case are that the suit premises comprised one Room (ad-measuring approximately 8x10 sq. ft.) covered verandah (ad-measuring approximately 8x10 sq.ft.) on the plot ad-measuring approximately 270 sq. yards which was let out on 16.09.1983 to the Respondent by way of written Agreement dated 16.09.1983, with the Landlord for a period of 5 years. Late Shri Gobind Ram Joshi, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner/landlady inducted the respondent as tenant. The tenanted premises was let out to the respondent, for use as go-down only by executing the Rent Agreement dated 16.09.1983 whereby the respondent agreed to continue in possession as the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/- for a period of five years which could be extended only with the consent of landlady. The Rent Agreement expired on 14.09.1988, however, on the request of respondent, the petitioner allowed the respondent to remain in possession of tenanted premises until they acquire some other rented accommodation. No fresh Rent Agreement was executed and tenanted of the premises continued on month to month basis. The rent was later on increased to Rs.1,757/- per month w.e.f. November, 2008. The petitioner/landlady being widow bonafide require the tenanted premises under Section 14-D and Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act and on the ground of bonafide requirement by her for the purpose of constructing a shop and showroom-cum- residence on the tenanted suit premises.
3.2. The petitioner/landlady is presently living at 7/159, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi in a house constructed on 100 sq. Yds. plot with her family comprising the family of her two sons besides her three married daughters and their families and other relatives who often visit the petitioner/landlady to enquire about her well-being in CS SCJ NO.25843/2016 HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 3 of 17 her old age. The residential accommodation available to the petitioner is insufficient and therefore she intends to construct the house in the tenanted premises in the rear portion and shop and showroom in the front portion for her bonafide residential and business requirements and on the ground of bonafide requirement by the landlady for the purpose of carrying on the family business of storage, sales and supply of dairy products by carrying out construction on the said land as the dairy business is presently being carried out from the rented premises at B-6/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27 and landlord of the said premises has filed an eviction petition against the petitioner herein seeking their eviction from the said premises on the ground of bonafide residential requirement.
3.3. From time to time the petitioner/landlady has been requesting the respondents to vacate the tenanted premises, however, the respondent ignored the repeated requests made by the petitioner/landlady. The petitioner duly sent the 15 days notice dated 31.10.2011 to the respondent terminating his tenancy by Speed Post and the tenant gave Reply dated 08.11.2011 to the said notice. The petitioner has filed the present petition for eviction and delivery of vacant possession of the premises bearing No. C-10, Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi in her favour and against the respondent.
4. Notice of the petition was served upon the respondent and respondent filed application for Leave to defend on 30.01.2012.
5. Now, coming to the leave to defend application of the respondent, vide order dated 30.09.2012, the application seeking leave to defend was disposed of with observation that present petition cannot be exclusively treated u/s 14(1)(D) and/or U/Sec. 14(1)(e) CS SCJ NO.25843/2016 HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 4 of 17 alone ignoring the other claim of the petitioner which falls within the provisions of 14(1)(c)(i) and 14(1)(g) for which opportunity of being heard should be given to respondent and ground U/Sec.14(1)(c)(i) and 14(1)(g) DRC Act itself is a triable issue.
6.1. On 03.10.2012, D.M. Sharda(Partner) of M/s Shri Sharda Marbles/Respondent filed Written Statement. The brief facts pleaded in the Written Statement are that the alleged ground of eviction under Section 14D of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is available only for the own residence of the landlord and not for the requirements as pleaded in the petition. The petitioner has sufficient accommodation available with her for her own residence. The petitioner has not specified the needs for her own residence and existing number of rooms, kitchen, bathroom etc. available to her and how that accommodation is insufficient for her residential needs. The tenanted premises is most unsuitable for the alleged residential needs of the petitioner and her family members. The petitioner has not given correct description and measurements of the tenanted premises nor filed a proper site plan. The actual measurement of the property let out by Late Sh. Gobind Ram Joshi was approximately 70' X 30' and the petitioner has avoided the measurements and proper site plan of the tenanted premises.
6.2. The petitioner and her family members were owner of and/or in possession of several properties in Delhi and NCR Region and she has no bonafide need of the tenanted premises. The property bearing No. 7/159, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi is very spacious and more than 100 sq. Yards and it is constructed upto two floors comprising ground floor and first floor. There are about ten rooms in the property. The petitioner is also owner of residential-cum-
CS SCJ NO.25843/2016HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 5 of 17 commercial property bearing No.WZ-A4, Milap Nagar, Near Uttam Nagar(E), Metro Station, Uttam Nagar, new Delhi - 110059 consisting of ground floor, the first floor and half second floor. The petitioner is also owner of the property bearing Plot No.144, Block K-3, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi - 110059 area measuring 125 sq. Yards out of Khasra No. 43/13 situated in the area of Vill. Hastsal, Delhi. The petitioner is also the owner of the property bearing Plot No. 18, Private No. 2,3 and 4, out of Khasra No. 503, Siri Sai Park, New Delhi area measuring 90 sq. Yards. The petitioner and her family members also own other residential and commercial properties in Janak Puri area and same have been concealed by the petitioner deliberately and with mala fide intention to evict the respondent.
6.3. Late Sh. Gobind Ram Joshi had also been living in the premises bearing No. 7/159, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi for last many years and he had a larger family including his daughters all of them subsequently got married and got settled in their matrimonial homes. After marriage of three daughters and after death of Late Sh. Gobind Ram Joshi, the residential needs of the petitioner have got reduced to a great extent.
6.4. The tenancy of the respondent has not expired since Late Sh. Gobind Ram Joshi had been extending the tenancy of the respondent from time to time and he had always accepted the enhanced rent from the respondent. Even, the petitioner has all along been accepting these undisputed facts.
6.5. The petitioner cannot seek eviction of the respondent merely on the ground that there is possibility that she may be liable to be evicted from the premises bearing No. B-6/1, Rajouri Garden, New CS SCJ NO.25843/2016 HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 6 of 17 Delhi - 110027. There is collusion between the petitioner and the alleged owner of the property bearing No. B-6/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi - 110027. Respondent has prayed for dismissal of present petition.
7. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed replication to the WS filed by the respondent. It has been averred that the tenanted premises fall in mixed land use under MPD 2021 and is suitable both for residential as well as commercial purpose. The respondent had paid rent to the petitioner, therefore, the respondent is barred from disputing the title of the petitioner under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The property bearing no. 7/159, Ramesh Nagar is a two storeyed house constructed on a 100 sq. yards plot comprising of one bedroom and one drawing room on each floor only and not 10 rooms as alleged. The piece of land in Village Hastsal and Masudabad was acquired and remaining piece of land was already sold in October,2010. The owner of rented shop at B-6/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi had also filed eviction petition before the court of law.
Petitioner's Evidence
8. In support of her petition, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit. She relied upon the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW1/1 -Copy of Site Plan of tenanted suit premises,
(ii) Mark A -Copy of Rent Agreement of the tenanted suit premises,
(iii) Mark B -Copy of death certificate of Sh.Gobind Ram Joshi,
(iv) Mark C -Copy of relinquishment deed, CS SCJ NO.25843/2016 HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 7 of 17
(v) Mark D -Copy of eviction petition no.
215/2011,
(vii) Mark E -Copy of legal notice dated
31.10.2011.
PW1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for
respondent. During her cross-examination, PW1 deposed that she had already sold the property at Milap Nagar near Uttam Nagar Metro station and plot no. 18, Sri Sai Park, Khasra No. 503 and the properties mentioned in para no. 9 and 10 of her replication.
9. Statement of Sh. Rajeev Ranjan Singh, Inspector, Income Tax Office was also recorded who deposed that petitioner has not filed any ITR prior to assessment year 2012-2013 and office letter is Ex. X1.
10. No other witness was examined by the petitioner and petitioner's evidence was closed.
Respondent's Evidence
11. No witness was examined by respondent and respondent's evidence was closed.
12. Thereafter, on an application filed by the petitioner, PW1 was again examined on 27.08.2019 and she exhibited Ex. PW1/5 i.e. the site plan of Plot no. 7/159, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015 and she was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
13. Arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for petitioner. Entire record is perused.
CS SCJ NO.25843/2016HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 8 of 17 Applicable law and its application to present facts Section 14(1) (e) DRC Act
14. To prove the case under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act for bonafide necessity eviction petition, the petitioner is required to prove the following ingredients:-
(i) That there must be relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and the landlord must be the owner of the tenanted premises.
(ii) That the landlord requires the tenanted premises for his bonafide need or the need of his family members.
(iii) whether the landlord has an alternative suitable accommodation.
Ingredient (i) The respondent nowhere disputed the rent agreement dated 16.09.1983 which is executed between the husband of the petitioner and the respondent. To show the ownership of the tenanted suit premises, the petitioner has placed on record the relinquishment deed done by the all legal heirs in favour of the petitioner qua the tenanted suit premises. Though the respondent raise finger on the genuineness and veracity of the said relinquishment deed.
Even if the court did not take into consideration the said relinquishment deed, this fact cannot be denied that the petitioner is co-owner of the tenanted premises being one of the LRs of Sh. Gobind Ram Joshi, the erstwhile owner. It is already held by Hon'ble Apex Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in catena of judgments that co-owner can file the suit for eviction.
The concept of ownership in landlord-tenant litigation governed by the rent control laws has to be distinguished from the one CS SCJ NO.25843/2016 HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 9 of 17 in a title suit. Ownership is a relative term, the import whereof depends on the context in which it is used. The word "owner" is not used in the Act in the context of an absolute owner. In this regard reference van be have to be the decision of Apex Court in "Shanti Sharma & Ors Vs. Ved Prabha & Ors, AIR 1987 SC 2028" wherein it was held that:
"14. 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 Ld. 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 holding the land on the same terms 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 tem '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 tenants. But at the same time it has been provided that the landlord under certain circumstances will be entitled to eviction and bonafide requirement is one of such grounds on the basis of which landlords have been permitted to have eviction of 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 CS SCJ NO.25843/2016 HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 10 of 17 order for decree of eviction, the only thing necessary for him to prove is bonafide requirement and that he is the owner thereof. In this context, what appearsto be the meaning of the term 'owner' is vis-à-vis the tenant i.e. the owner should be something more that the tenant."
In another case law, " Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors Vs. Leela Wati & Ors, 155 (2008) DLT 383", it was laid down that a landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act and he is required to show only that he is more than a tenant.
Same was the ratio of decision given in "Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & Ors. 1995 RLR 162". Further, the High Court of Delhi made important observations in the decision given in the case titled as "Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 450" it has been 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 his own benefit and not and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is considered to be 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 CS SCJ NO.25843/2016 HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 11 of 17 the Evidence Act creates estoppel against such a tenant. A tenant can challenge the title of the 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...."
In Kanta Goel Vs. B. P. Pathal (1977) 2 SCC 814; Pal Singh Vs. Sunder Singh (1989) 1 SCC 444; Dhannalal Vs. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16; Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. Vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (2004) 3 SCC 178 and Mohinder Prasad Jain Vs. Manohar Lal Jain (2006) 2 SCC 724 it has been held that the respondent, even if it is absolute owner, is at least one of the co- owners, is entitled to maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
In Sheikh Mohd Zakir & Ors Vs. Shahnaz Parveen & Ors, 2012 2 RCR (Rent) 235, it was held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that it is well settled that one of the co-owners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the co- owners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One co- owner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own right and as an agent of the other co-owner.
Therefore, in the light of pleadings of the parties and evidences led by the parties and other material placed before this court, in so far as the purpose of clause(e) of sub-section (1) of DRC Act, 1958 is concerned, the petitioner is the owner/co-owner of the tenanted premises and it is also found that there exists relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
CS SCJ NO.25843/2016HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 12 of 17 Ingredient (ii)& (iii) As regards bonafide requirement of the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the tenanted premises is required bonafidely by the petitioner for the purpose of constructing the shop and showroom-cum-residence as the petitioner is presently residing at 7/159, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi ad-measuring 100 sq. yards with her two sons and the said house is not sufficient. In order to prove that the house at 7/159, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi-110015 is insufficient, the petitioner has placed on record the site plan of the said house which is Ex. PW1/5. Moreover, at present, the dairy business is being carried out from the tenanted premises at B-6/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi- 27 and the owner of said tenanted premises had filed the suit for eviction. The said fact is not disputed by the respondent.
It is specifically averred by the petitioner that she does not have any other reasonable and suitable accommodation for the said purpose. Per contra, the respondent submitted that the petitioner has reasonably suitable alternative accommodation and provides the details of certain properties. The petitioner during her cross- examination deposed that all the properties mentioned therein have been disposed/sale of. Moreover, no evidence has been led by the respondent and no such document has been placed on record by the respondent to the contrary.
The respondents have challenged the bonafide requirement of the petitioner on the ground that the demand and requirement of the petitioner is not bonafide and genuine, since, the premises where the petitioner is currently residing is sufficient for her residence and the eviction petition filed by the owner of the premises B-6/1, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27 against the petitioner is in collusion with the petitioner. However, no evidence has been led by CS SCJ NO.25843/2016 HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 13 of 17 the respondent and no such documents has been placed on record by the respondent to prove this fact.
Thus, these bald contention of the respondent/ tenant are of no value as in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 157 (2009) DLT 405, it has been clearly held that "a tenant who alleges that landlord has at his disposal other accommodation has to place before the Ld. ARC some material to show that the landlord has a specific alternative accommodation at his disposal". Mere bald allegation with respect to availability of additional accommodation with the petitioner does not hold any basis and cannot be a basis to deny the petitioner of his right to vacate the tenanted premises for his bonafide requirement".
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde, (1999) 4 SCC 1 held that the phrase "reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord" is not to be tested on par with "dire need" of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need. Similarly, in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 it was held that the word "reasonable" connotes that the requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a "compelling" or "absolute" or "dire necessity". A reasonable and bonafide requirement was held to be something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other hand.
The contentions raised by the tenant are not tenable as it has already discussed above that the petitioner is the co-owner of the tenanted premises and co-owner can very well file the suit for eviction on bonafide requirement and also held by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments already discussed above . The tenant cannot dictate upon the bonafide requirement of the owner/landlord as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments and here the CS SCJ NO.25843/2016 HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 14 of 17 respondents cannot contend that the petitioner's requirement is not genuine and not bonafide. The tenant has not placed on record any document or proof to show that the petitioner has any reasonably suitable alternate accommodation in Delhi and is in occupation of the same.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pratiba Devi Vs. K.V. Krishnan, 1956 (5) SCC 353 which is three judge bench judgment has held that owner/landlord is the best judge of his own requirements and the courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live or do business. Reliance is further placed upon Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Dr. M. C. Gupta AIR 1999 SC 2507, Siddalingamma Vs. Mamtha shenoy, AIR 2001 SC 2896. In these judgments it has been held that by way of leave to defend, it is upon the respondent to show the prima facie case which disentitles the petitioner from obtaining an order of eviction. Thus, the basic requirement of prima facie case which the respondent has miserably failed to establish in the present petition.
Section 14D DRC Act The grounds to be proved for the eviction order under Section 14D of DRC Act are almost same as that of the grounds mentioned in Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act except that the extra ground to be proved is that landlord is a widow and the tenanted premises let out by her or by her husband are required by the widow for her own residence. This is admitted fact that the tenanted suit premises was let out to the respondent by Sh. Gobind Ram Joshi i.e. the husband of the petitioner and Sh. Gobind Ram Joshi had expired and the death certificate of Sh. Gobind Ram Joshi is already on court record which fact is also not disputed by the respondent. The petitioner has categorically and specifically mentioned in her petition that she required the tenanted CS SCJ NO.25843/2016 HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 15 of 17 suit premises for her residential as well as commercial purpose. Therefore, when the petitioner has mentioned that she requires the tenanted suit premises for her residential purpose also, the petition under section 14 D is maintainable and cannot go away only on the fact that alongwith the residential purpose, the petitioner has also required some portion of the tenanted suit premises for commercial purpose. Other ingredients as mentioned in section 14D of DRC Act has already been discussed and stands proved while discussing the petition under section 14(1)(e) DRC Act.
Hence, in the views of the settled position of law and the facts alleged in the petition, there appears to be no reason to disbelieve the petitioner's need for the tenanted premises. A strong presumption of her need being bonafide exists in her favour. Nothing has been brought on record by the respondent and no evidence has been let by the respondent to rebut the same.
Conclusion
15. In the light of the above discussion, it is held that petitioner has successfully proved her case under Section 14D as well as section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act in respect of the tenanted premises.
16. Accordingly, petition under Section 14D as well as Section 14 (1) (e), DRC Act is allowed.
17. Further, eviction order is passed against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises bearing No.C-10A, Sharda Puri, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi in which the ground floor is comprising of open space having a one room and covered verandah in all ad- measuring approximately 270 sq. Yds., in terms of Section 14D as well as Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act.
CS SCJ NO.25843/2016HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 16 of 17
18. Original documents be returned to the parties after obtaining certified copies thereof against due receipt.
19. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court on this 27th day of September, 2023.
This Order contains 17 pages Digitally signed by
and is signed by me. MAYANK MAYANK GOEL
GOEL Date: 2023.09.27
16:08:44 +0530
(MAYANK GOEL)
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS/DELHI
CS SCJ NO.25843/2016
HEM KANTA JOSHI Vs. M/s. SHRI SHARDA MARBLES
CNR NO. DLWT-03-000241-2016 Page No. 17 of 17