Delhi District Court
Mohd. Nauman vs Ms. Neha on 12 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SUDHIR KUMAR SIROHI, ACJ/CCJ/ARC SHAHDARA,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS,DELHI.
ARC. No. 259/16
Mohd. Nauman
S/o Late Maqsood Ahmed
r/o Village and post Fazalpur
Dhaki, Tehsil Chandpur,
Distt. Bijnor UP.
Presently resident of Mohalla Quazizaadgan
Town Chandpur, Distt. Bijnor, UP. ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
Ms. Neha
d/o Sh. Abdul Hasan
r/o 10/B, Gali no. 2,
Bajrangabli Mohalla, Maujpur
Delhi110053. .....Respondent
Date of institution : 05.12.2013 Date of order : 12.09.2018 ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND THE FACTS:
1. The present petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has been filed by the petitioners against the respondent for her eviction from one room, latrine, kitcehn and slab for kitchen on first floor of property bearing H. ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 1/18 No.10/B15, Gali No. 2 Bajrangbali Mohalla Maujpur, Delhi110053 (hereinafter called the tenanted premises).
2. Brief facts of the case as discernible from petition are that the petitioner is the landlord of the tenanted premises and requires the suit property for bonafide requirement for himself and for his family members depended upon the petitioner.
3. It is further averred by the petitioner that the petititioner is the owner of the suit property on the basis of GPA, Agreement to sale, Will, receipt, affidavit and possession letter all dated 22.11.2017, duly notaized on the 23.11.2017. the parents of the petitoner namely Late maqsood Ahmad and Late Mussarat Jahan died long back leaving behind other two minor sons. i.e. brothers of the petitioner namely Md. Lukman and Subhan Alam @ Subhan Ahmed. The petitoner being the eldest son brought them and provided education to them. Md. Lukman completed his LLB two years back and yet to be married while Subhan Alam is doing bachelor in pharmacy from Mahamaya Technical University, Noida, UP Hence both the brothers are dependent upon the petitoner financially and for all other needs.
4. It is further averred by the petitioner that the family of the petitoner consists of wife Smt. Shadmani, Brothers Mohd. Lukman, Subhan Alam @ Subhan Ahmed, Sons Mohd. Sarim, Sadiq Amed, Atif Ahmed and a daughter Limra Parveen. The abovenamed wife of the petitioner is ill for the last two years and ever since has been under treatment of Dr. Rajiv Motiani, MBBS, MD. She is ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 2/18 also under treatment of Dr. Vivek Pal at new Jyoti eye Centre, Daryaganj, new Delhi. For the said treatment she regularly visits Delhi NCR and stay in Delhi for days. Petitioner's son Atif Ahmed has also been under treatment in the Noida for which the petitioner frequently visits Delhi Noida . The treatment of petitioner wife and sons are still going on. The petitioner has no reasonable suitable accommodation to stay in Delhi except the aforesaid house and the petitioner, his family is compelled to stay with the relative in Delhi because the said house is constructed on 20 square yds plot and the first floor is so connected with the second floor through inside stairs that there is no privacy in the presence of the respondent. Besides this, petitioner is willing that his brother Subhan Alam to do his pharmacy training at Delhi, to make his future bright and after marriage to settle in Delhi. The petitioner has no suitable residential accommodation in Delhi for his brother. The petitioner is also willing to admitted his children in reputed educational institution in Delhi.
5. It is further averred by the petitioners that the the petitioner bonafidely require one room under the tenancy of the respondent for his family. Then petitoner wife will not be compelled to stay in the houses of the relative and his younger brother will also not face difficulty in doing his course. The petitioner or his family has no other reasonable suitable residential accommodation in Delhi NCR except the tenanted premises to meet the need of his family members thus the bonafide need of the petitoner is genuine.
6. Notice of this eviction petition was sent to the respondents in the ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 3/18 prescribed format which was duly served on the respondent. In response to which the respondent has filed leave to defend application within limitation period.
7. Respondent in his leave to defend application has taken various defence and averred that the the respondent received the summons of the abovesaid petition on 03.04.2014 and averred that the petitioner is not entitled to obtain eviction order against the respondent as the respondent has disclosed sufficient grounds disentitling petitioner from obtaining eviction order and if there is any need of the petitioner same can be satisfied from ground floor and second floor which is lying vacant as admitted by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the site plan in which the petitoner has show vacant ground floor with him but the petitioner is not occupying ground floor and second floor intentionally and deliberately as the petitioner has no need of any accommodation in the suit premises. The need of the petitioner is malafide and in order to harass the respondent.
8. It is further averred by the respondent that the tenanted portion shown in the site plan is incorrect the respondent filed correct site plan of the tenanted portion and averred that the tenanted portion is not shown correct, the petitoner is not entitled for eviction. The petitoner has not made any averments in the petition regarding availability of Ground floor of the suit premises. The petitioner is not the owner of the suit property on the basis of GPA Agreement to sell, Receipt, Will, Affidavit and possession letter as said documents do not confer any title any title in favour of the petitioner in respect of suit property. Thus the ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 4/18 petitoner has no locus standi to file the petition on the basis of the said documents. Respondent further averred that Mohd. Lukman brother of the petitioner is a practicing advocate in Uttar Pradesh as such he cannot shift to Delhi. Moreover, in the petition it is not stated that Md.Lukman is willing to practice in Delhi and it is not stated that the premises in question required for brothers. Subhan Alam brother of the petitioner is doing bachelor of Pharmacy as a regular student from Mahamaya Technical University Noida and institute is in Meerut, he cannot take any training in Delhi unless his study or pharmacy is completed. It is not stated that Subhan Alam is willing to start his business at Delhi as such need is malafide.
9. It is further averred by the respondent that the petitioner is a government employee as "Chakbandhi Lekhpal' in Bijnor as such neither petitioner nor his family can shifted to Delhi in any circumstances. That the ration card filed by the petitoner is forged and incorrect document as name of daughter of the petitioner is not shown in the ration card whereas in sub para 4 of para 18 the petitioner has staetd his daughtere's name Limra Parveen and such contents of petition and ration card are contrary. It is further submitted that name of Adnan Ahmad is shown in ration card but not mention in petition.
10. Reply to leave to defend was filed by the petitioner in which the petitioner denied the averments of leave to defend.
11. I have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and gone through the records.
Ld. counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following judgments: ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 5/18
1. Vinod Kapoor Vs. Kailash Sethi 2008 VII AD (DELHI) 461, RCR 58/2008 decided on 08.08.2008.
2. Sh. Akhil Chander Bhatnagar Vs. Smt. Lajwanti Bhatnagar of Delhi High Court C. R. No. 1376 of 1989 decided on 11.03.1992.
3. Sh. Sarup Singh Ghai (through Lrs) Vs. Mrs. Leela Ahuja & Ors. R. C. R No. 151 of 1999 & C. M. No. 18465 of 2009 decided on 18.12.2009 of 2010 (1) RCJ 314 Delhi High Court.
4. John Impex Private Limited Vs. Dr. Surinder Singh & Ors. C. R. P. No. 654 of 2001 and CM No. 1381 of 2001 decided on 05.12.2006 of 135 (2006) Delhi Law Times 265 Delhi High Court.
5. Shanker Lal Vs. Sh. Thambu Rm 1999 VI AD (DELHI) 102 Civil Revision No. 961 of 1999 decided on 24.09.1999.
The Law:
12. Before proceeding further it would be worthwhile to note that Chapter IIIA of Delhi Rent Control Act deals with summary trial of certain Applications expressly stating that every application by a landlord for recovery of possession on the ground specified in clause (e) of the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 14 of the Act, or under Section 14A or 14B or 14C or 14D shall be dealt with in accordance with the special provisions prescribed in Section 25B of the Act. The provisions in Chap. IIIA confer a real, effective and immediate right to obtain possession by confining the trial only to such cases, where the tenant has such a defence as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for eviction under s.l4(1)(e) or under Sec. 14A. Chap. IIIA seeks to strike a balance between the competing needs of a landlord and a tenant and has therefore provided that the tenant shall have a right to apply for leave to contest. As per the broad ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 6/18 scheme of this Chapter a tenant is precluded from contesting an application filed for eviction on the grounds mentioned in the aforementioned provisions unless he obtains leave from the Controller to contest the eviction petition. In default of obtaining leave to defend or leave is refused to him an order of eviction follows. It appears recourse to summary trial is adopted having due regard to nature of the grounds on which the eviction is sought with a view to avoid delay so that the landlord should not be deprived or denied of his right to immediate possession of premises for his bona fide use.The defence must also be bonafide and if true, must result in the dismissal of landlord's application. Defences of negative character which are intended to put the landlord to proof or are vague, or are raised mala fide only to gain time and protract the proceedings, are not of the kind which will entitle the tenant to the grant of leave. The Controller cannot set down the application for hearing without making an order in terms of subs. (5) of s. 25B. The trial must be confined only to such grounds as would disentitle the landlord to any relief.
13. But at the same time, it is well settled and accepted position in law that no one shall be subjected to suffer a civil consequence like eviction from a premises resulting in hardship to him without providing adequate and effective opportunity to disprove the case against him and establish his case as pleaded.
14. Further, as is evident from Section 25B(4)&(5) of the Act, burden placed on a tenant is light and limited in that if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of the possession of the premises on the ground specified in clause (e) of the ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 7/18 proviso to Section 14(1) of the Act, then the same are good enough to grant leave to defend.
15. At the stage of seeking leave to defend, it is enough if he prima facie makes out a case by disclosing such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order of eviction. It would not be a right approach to say that unless the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as would nonsuit the landlord, leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Section 25B(5). A leave to defend sought for cannot also be granted for mere asking or in a routine manner which will defeat the very object of the special provisions contained in Chapter IIIA of the Act. Leave to defend cannot be refused where an eviction petition is filed on a mere design or desire of a landlord to recover possession of the premises from a tenant under clause (e) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14, when as a matter of fact the requirement may not be bona fide. Refusing to grant leave in such a case leads to eviction of a tenant summarily resulting in great hardship to him and his family members, if any, although he could establish if only leave is granted that a landlord would be disentitled for an order of eviction. At the stage of granting leave to defend, parties rely on affidavits in support of the rival contentions. Assertions and counter assertions made in affidavits may not afford safe and acceptable evidence so as to arrive at an affirmative conclusion one way or the other unless there is a strong and acceptable evidence available to show that the facts disclosed in the application filed by the tenant seeking leave to defend were either frivolous, untenable or most unreasonable. The ground under clause (e) of the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 enables a landlord to recover ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 8/18 possession of the tenanted premises on the ground of his bona fide requirement. This being an enabling provision, essentially the burden is on the landlord to establish his case affirmatively. In short and substance, wholly frivolous and totally untenable defence may not entitle a tenant to leave to defend but when a triable issue is raised a duty is placed on the Rent Controller by the statute itself to grant leave. At the stage of granting leave the real test should be whether facts disclosed in the affidavit filed seeking leave to defend prima facie show that the landlord would be disentitled from obtaining an order of eviction and not whether at the end defence may fail. It is well to remember that when a leave to defend is refused, serious consequences of eviction shall follow and the party seeking leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments made in the eviction petition by crossexamination. It may also be noticed that even in cases where leave is granted provisions are made in this very Chapter for expeditious disposal of eviction petitions. Section 25B(6) states that where leave is granted to a tenant to contest the eviction application, the Controller shall commence the hearing of the application as early as practicable. Section 25B(7) speaks of the procedure to be followed in such cases. Section 25B(8) bars the appeals against an order of recovery of possession except a provision of revision to the High Court. Thus a combined effect of Section 25B(6), (7) and (8) would lead to expeditious disposal of eviction petitions so that a landlord need not wait and suffer for long time. On the other hand, when a tenant is denied leave to defend although he had fair chance to prove his defence, will suffer great hardship.
16. Further, it is immaterial at this stage that facts alleged and disclosed are ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 9/18 controverted by the landlord because the stage of proof is yet to come. It is distinctly possible that a tenant may fail to make good the defence raised by him. Plausibility of the defence raised and proof of the same are materially different from each other and one cannot bring in the concept of proof at the stage when plausibility has to be shown. In this view a balanced view is to be taken having regard to competing claims.
17. Further, it is held time and again by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the genesis of our procedural laws is to be traced to principles of natural justice, the principal amongst them being that no one shall suffer civil or evil or pecuniary consequence at his back without giving him an adequate and effective opportunity to participate to disprove the case against him and provide his own case. Summary procedure does not clothe an authority with power to enjoy summary dismissal. It is necessary to bear in mind that when leave to defend is refused the party seeking leave is denied an opportunity to test the truth of the averments of the opposite party by cross examination and rival affidavits may not furnish reliable evidence for concluding the point one way or the other. It is not for a moment suggested that leave to defend must be granted on mere asking but it is equally improper to refuse to grant leave though triable issues are raised and the controversy can be properly adjudicated after ascertainment of truth through crossexamination of witnesses who have filed their affidavits. Burden is on the landlord to prove his requirements and his assertion is required to be tested.
ARC. No. 259/16Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 10/18
18. In order to suceed in the cases U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of D.R.C. Act, the petitioners is required. to prove the following ingredients:
(a). Ownership in respect of tenanted premises;
(b). Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties;
(c). Petitioner bonafidely requires the tenanted premises;
(d). Petitioner does not have any other alternative accommodation with him/her.
The Findings:
19. With this background, this court turns to the facts of the case in hand. The respondent has raised many issues in the leave to defend application which have been stated to be triable issues. At this stage, it would be appropriate to note that each individual petition decision depends on the peculiar facts, circumstances and material placed on record in that particular petition.
Ownership and relationship of landlord and tenant:
20. The respondent has taken the plea that petitioner is not the owner of tenanted premises on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, WILL, affidavit, possession letter and the said documents does not confer any title on the petitioner but the respondent has not denied the landlord and tenant relationship and as per Section 116 Indian Evidence Act, the respondent cannot challenge the title of the plaintiff, accordingly the landlord and tenant relationship has been established in this matter.
Bonafide Requirement as well as alternative accommodation:
21. The respondent has taken the defence that petitioner is having vacant ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 11/18 ground and second floor of the suit premises, therefore the requirement of the petitioner can be fulfilled from ground and second floor and there is no need of first floor. Respondent has also taken defence that the site plan of the petitioner is wrong and filed her own site plan. Respondent has also averred that Mohd. Lukman is practising as an Advocate in Uttar Pradesh and he cannot shift to Delhi. Moreover, another brother of petitioner Mr. Subhan Alam is doing bachelor of Pharmacy as a regular student from Mahamaya Technical University Noida and Institute is in Meerut and he cannot take any training till his pharmacy eduction is complete. Respondent has also averred that petitioner is government employee as Chakbandhi Lekhpal in Bijnaur and neither he nor his family can shift to Delhi. Respondent has also averred that in ration card filed by the petitioner, the name of the his daughter is not mentioned and name of one Mr. Adnan Ahmad is also mentioned in ration card of petitioner as brother but the same has not been mentioned in petition.
22. The petitioner has filed the petition on the ground of bonafide requirement of himself as well as his family members dependent upon petitioner. Specifically, at the time of filing of petition on 05.12.2013, petitioner has sought the tenanted premises for the requirement of himself, his wife namely, Shadmani and son namely, Atif as his wife and son Atif are taking treatment in Delhi and NCR. Petitioner has also filed the medical record of his wife and son Atif regarding treatment in Delhi and Noida. Petitioner has also sought the tenanted premises on the basis of bonafide requirement of his brother namely, Subhan Alam for his bright future and to settle after marriage in Delhi.
ARC. No. 259/16Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 12/18
23. As per the judgment of "Dwarka Prasad Vs. Niranjan and Others (2003) 4 SCC 549"
brothers of the landlord are also required to be provide accommodation and are considered as family member of the landlord. In the present case, the petitioner is elder brother of his brothers Mohd. Lukman and Subhan Alam and they were minor when parents of the petitioner died, thereafter the petitioner took responsibility of education of his minor brothers, therefore the brothers of the petitioner are family members of the petitioner/landlord.
24. In the reply to the leave to defend which was filed on 05.01.2016, the petitioner has averred that his brother Mr. Subhan has completed B. Pharma in the year 20142015 and has joined M/S Unipath Healthcare Delhi as medical represtative w.e.f. 01.12.2015 and urgently need a residence in Delhi and petitioner also wants to shift his children to Delhi for good education, therefore the contention of the respondent that the brother of petitioner Mr. Subhan Alam is studying in Meerut does not raise any triable issue as Subhan has completed his B Pharma and is working in Delhi even petitioner has also filed the appointment letter of Mr. Subhan and final marksheet of Mr. Subhan Alam of Pharmacy.
25. Petitioner has averred in reply to leave to defend that the one room on the ground floor will be used a drawing room, one room on the first floor will be used by petitioner's wife and his children whenever they would come to Delhi for treatment and one room at second floor shall be used by his brother Mr. Subhan as bedroom. It is pertinent to mention that there are three rooms in total, one on each floor of suit premises measuring 20 sq. yards. 20 sq. yards room is not a ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 13/18 such big room as to accommodate the petitioner, his children, his brother Subhan. Petitioner has averred that whenever he visits Delhi and NCR for treatment then the petitioner's wife has to stay in house of relative despite having his own house and the brother of the petitioner Mr. Subhan is also working now and the petitioner has also sought the ground that his brother is to be married, therefore even Shuban require a separate room. Moreover, the drawing room is also essential as every guest cannot be expected to enter in the bed room and even wife of petitioner and his children require one room during their visit to Delhi/Noida for treatment, therefore the petitioner has sufficiently explained the requirement of one room each on ground, first and second floor. Therefore, the contention of the respondent that the requirement of the petitioner can be fulfilled from ground and second floor does not raise a triable issue.
26. Respondent has also taken defence that petitioner is working Chakbandhi Lekhpal in Bijnaur, therefore neither he nor his family can shift to Delhi. Petiitoner in the petition has averred that he is visiting Delhi and NCR for medical treatment of his wife and son Atif and the same has been supported by medical documents. Moreover, the petitioner in the reply to leave to defend has also submitted that he wants to give better education to his children and he want to shift them to Delhi. It is beyond understanding why the family of petitioner cannot shift to Delhi even if petitioner is working in Bijnaur as many government and private officials are working in different cities while their families are residing in different cities, hence this contention of respondent also does not raise any triable issue. In the reply to leave to defend the petitioner has mentioned that his daughter was borne on 14.11.2010 while the ration was prepared on 28.04.2006, ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 14/18 therefore it does not bear the name of his daughter. Perusal of copy of ration card shows that the same was issued on 28.04.2006, therefore it sufficiently explained why the name of daughter of petitioner Ms. Leena Parveen is not mentioned in ration card as she was not born then. In the ration card, one Mr. Adnan Ahmad has been shown as brother of petitioner but the petitioner has not mentioned about the same either in his petition or the reply to leave to defend. If the petitioner is not claiming any relief for Mr. Adnan Ahmad then he is not supposed to disclose each and every fact about his brother Adnan. Moreover the petitioner has averred in petition that he brought up his two minor brothers namely, Mohd. Lukhman and Subhan and sought relief only for Subhan. Therefore, this contention of respondent does not raise a triable issue. The petiitoner has not sought any relief for Mohd. Lukhman, therefore the averments in leave to defend with respect to Mohd. Lukhman does not raise a tribale issue. The site plan filed by the petitioner and respondent are same showing one room on each ground, first and second floor. The site plan filed by respondent does not show any additional room to satisfy the requirement of petitioner, therefore this contention of respondent also does not raise a triable issue.
27. The fact remains that the petitioner is the best judge of his own requirements as also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court time and again. It was held in Pavitra Devi (Smt.) vs. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 35 SCC 353; that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has a complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own. Moreover, in the judgment titled as Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 15/18 Prem Machinary [AIR 2000 S.C.534] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 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.
28. Furthermore, In the judgment tiled as "Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd." [AIR 1999 S.C. 100] it was held:
"...The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. 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 bona fide. 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 the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. 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...."
29. As such, I hold that the requirement of the petitioner regarding the tenanted premises for himself, his family and his brother Mr. Subhan is bonafide requirement.
ARC. No. 259/16Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 16/18
30. Therefore, in view of above mentioned position of law, the present contention of the respondent does not raise any triable issue of such a nature that would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for the recovery of possession of the suit premises.
Conclusion:
31. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that no purpose would be served, even if, the petitioner is compelled to appear in the witness box. The position would be no different than it is today. For this reason also, I find no triable issue in the leave to defend application of the respondent.
32. Thus, if the court is satisfied that though in the pleadings, an issue is raised but that is not a triable issue, then the court is justified in refusing the leave to defend. The defence, which is practically a Moonshine, sham or illusory cannot be held to be raising a triable issue, as the whole purpose behind enacting a provision for granting leave to defend, and not permitting a contest unless leave was granted, would stand defeated.
33. In the facts and circumstances of the case noticed herein above, it is clear that the respondent has failed to raise any triable issues.
34. For the foregoing reasons, the application seeking leave to defend is hereby dismissed and as a necessary consequence thereof an eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent for eviction from the room, latrine, bathroom and slab for kitchen on the first floor situated at ARC. No. 259/16 Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha Page 17/18 property bearing H. No. 10/B 15, Gali no. 2, Bajrangi Mohalla, Maujpur, Delhi 110053, which is marked as Mark P1 (put by the court for the purpose of identification). However, in the light of Section 14 (7) of the DRC Act, the aforesaid eviction order shall not be executable for a period of six months from the date of this order. The parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court (SUDHIR KUMAR SIROHI)
today on 12.09.2018 ACJ/CCJ/ARC/Shahdara
Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
Digitally signed
by SUDHIR
KUMAR SIROHI
SUDHIR Location:
KUMAR Shahdara,
ACJ/ARC/CCJ
SIROHI KKD Courts,
Delhi
Date: 2018.09.12
16:58:08 +0530
ARC. No. 259/16
Mohd. Nauman Vs Ms. Neha
Page 18/18