Delhi District Court
Usha Yadav vs Ram Prakash Thukral on 24 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. ALKA SINGH,
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI.
DLWT030029472017
ARC No. 155/2017
SMT. USHA YADAV
Widow of Late Sh. Narender Yadav
R/o H. No. 94/C, Village Jwala Heri,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.
...Petitioner
VERSUS
1. SH. RAM PRAKASH THUKRAL
S/o Sh. Desh Raj Thukral,
2. SMT. JANAK KUMARI CHAWLA
W/o Sh. Amrit Lal Chawla,
Both are residents of:-
B-12/12, Punjabi Bagh (West),
New Delhi-110026.
Also at:-
Shop Pvt. No. 4-D/8,
Ch. Kishan Chand Shopping Complex,
Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110063.
...Respondents
ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 1 of 17
Date of Filing : 17.10.2017 Date of Order : 24.04.2025 ORDER ON LEAVE TO DEFEND
1. Present petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "DRC Act") has been filed by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises i.e. One shop bearing Pvt. No. 4-D/8, Ch. Kishan Chand Shopping Complex, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 as shown in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as 'tenanted premises') in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.
2. The present petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) D.R.C. Act has been filed by the petitioner (Usha Yadav) against the respondents (Ram Prakash Thukral and Janak Kumari Chawla) in respect of one shop on ground floor bearing Private no. 4-D/8, Chaudhary Kishan Chand Shopping Complex, Jwalaheri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-63 on the ground that the respondents are the joint tenants qua the said property and the tenanted shop was let out for commercial purpose to the respondents on 02.03.1983 vide written agreement and the rent of the said shop is Rs. 500/- p.m. That the petitioner is the widow of the landlord and owner of the property / tenanted shop and after the death of her husband on 25.12.2012, the petitioner became owner/landlord of the said property. That the petitioner, who is a Post Graduate having experience of stitching and designing ladies suites, has 02 daughters; one married and other unmarried and after the death of her husband, she is unemployed, having no permanent source of income to maintain herself and her younger daughter namely Ms. Nitika Yadav, who is fully dependent upon the petitioner and also fulfilling her social responsibilities towards her family and elder daughter. That the petitioner has no suitable space ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 2 of 17 to start any business for her livelihood and she has no other suitable option in place of the shop in question to start new business like readymade and designer ladies suit with the help of her daughter Nitika Yadav, who is a law graduate and thus, the petitioner has prayed for passing an eviction order qua the tenanted shop in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
3. Notice of this eviction petition was sent to the respondents in the prescribed format which was duly served on the respondents. In response to which the respondents/tenants filed leave to defend application accompanied by affidavit raising various pleas.
4. In the leave to defend, filed jointly by respondent no. 1 & 2, it is submitted that the petitioner has already filed a false and frivolous eviction petition under section 14-D of D.R.C. Act against the respondents qua the same present suit/tenanted premises vide eviction petition No. E-69/2013, which was withdrawn by the petitioner on 29.03.2017. That the petitioner is neither the owner nor the landlord of the suit property bearing No. 4, out of Khasra No. 43, Extended Abadi, situated in the area of Jawala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-63, of which the tenanted premises/shop of the respondents bearing No. 4-D/8 forms a part. That in fact, Ms. Payal Yadav D/o Narender Yadav is alleging her exclusive ownership qua the suit property by virtue of alleged Will and on the other hand, the officials of Govt. of Delhi are also claiming that the suit premises including the suit/tenanted shop is owned by the Govt. of Delhi. That neither the petitioner nor her deceased husband Sh. Narender Yadav has/had any right, which property/open plot was meant for development of roads and railways and other public services as per the Khatauni.
ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 3 of 175. It is further asserted by the respondents that they were inducted as tenants in the suit premises/ shop in question by Sh. Narender Yadav after accepting huge/ pagri/premium, which was the routine practice of Narender Yadav, while giving possession of the respective portion/s to new tenant/ occupires and the respondents were paying rent to the alleged claimant Narender Yadav. That the present petition is even otherwise not maintainable as the petitioner has deliberately filed a wrong, incomplete and incorrect site plan of the suit property including the suit premises and as such, they have filed the correct site plan. That the petitioner does not require the tenanted premises bonafidely and the present petition is an outcome of the greed of the petitioner and her lust for money. It is denied by the respondents that the petitioner is the owner of the suit property and she has no other reasonably suitable accommodation other than the tenanted premises.
6. That the petitioner and her husband Narender Yadav were/are in physical possession of more than 100 shops on different floors of the suit property bearing No. 4, out of Khasra no. 43, Extended Abadi situated in the area of Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-63, which is totally commercial property consisting of ground, first, second and third floor with shops/commercial space on all floors and is known by the name of "Chaudhary Kishan Chand Shopping Complex" and the petitioner's husband Sh. Narender Yadav transferred eight shops in the suit property to prospective buyers and gave them physical vacant possession of the said shop/s. That the vacant shop bearing No. 4-A/9 on the ground floor was transferred/ parted with by petitioner's husband Sh. Narender Yadav to Sh. Amit Aggarwal vide title documents dated 09.11.2012, vacant shop no. 4-A/8 on the ground floor was transferred/ parted with to Kewal Krishan Pahwa vide title documents dated 29.11.2012, vacant shop no. 4-A/8A ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 4 of 17 on the ground floor was transferred/ parted with to Sh. Jagdish Chand Gulati vide title documents dated 29.11.2012 and vacant shop no. 4-B/7A was transferred/parted with to Satish and Chahat Rai vide documents dated 03.12.2012 and vacant shop No. 4-C was transferred/ parted with to Sh. Gianender Kapur vide title documents dated 07.12.2012 and vacant shop No. 4- A/2A on the ground floor was transferred/parted with to Kapil Baja vide title document dated 12.11.2012. That the petitioner herself has transferred vacant possession of the shop no. 4-B/7B on the ground floor of the suit property to Sh. Krishan Tayal vide title document deed dated 18.01.2013 and another vacant shop bearing No. 4-B/8 on the ground floor of the suit property to one Sh. Krishan Tayal vide title documents dated 18.01.2013. That even during the pendency of the earlier petition U/Sec. 14-D D.R.C. Act, filed by the petitioner against the respondents qua the present suit premises, the petitioner gave the physical possession of 19 shops on the ground floor and first floor to the prospective transferees for hefty consideration and even as on date, the petitioner is still in possession of 60 shops on different floors of the suit property besides the fact that the petitioner have huge rental income from the tenants in different shops of the suit property, which consists of more than 100 shops on each floor. It is further contended that just before filing of the said earlier petition U/Sec. 14-D of D.R.C. Act, the petitioner got four shops vacated on the first floor of the suit property. It is also contended that the petitioner is also in possession of 10 shops on the second floor of the suit property and out of the said 10 shops, the petitioner is running her real estate business under the name and style of Yaduvanshi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd." and another "Nand Gopal Estate Pvt. Ltd." being its Managing Director from five shops. Likewise, many other shops are in possession of the petitioner. That the petitioner has further concealed the facts about the property No. WZ-94-c, Jawala Heri, Paschim ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 5 of 17 Vihar, New Delhi-63, measuring about 10,000 sq. ft., which property is owned by the petitioner and the said property consists of commercial ground floor and first floor while the second and third floor are residential in nature. That the petitioner is also the owner of property No. 68, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063, measuring 2,000 sq. yds. Hence, the respondent has prayed for grant of leave to defend.
7. That no alleged agreement was ever executed or entered into at the time of taking the suit premises on rent and accordingly, the alleged documents relied upon by the petitioenr including the alleged agreement/recital are all forged, fabricated and manipulated documents.
8. Reply to leave to defend filed by the petitioner inter-alia contending that the affidavit of the respondents do not disclose any defence or triable issue which entitles the respondents to contest the eviction petition and disentitles the petitioner for obtaining an order for eviction. It is also contended that the defence taken by the respondents is moon shine and bogus which requires no trial in the matter.
THE LAW:
9. It is expedient to discuss certain guidelines in respect of leave to defend before dealing with the present case which is as under:-
10. It is well settled that 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 ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 6 of 17 ground specified in clause (e) are good enough to grant leave to defend.
11. It is further well settled that at a stage when the tenant seeks 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. Unless the tenant at that stage itself establishes a strong case as would non-suit the landlord, leave to defend should not be granted when it is not the requirement of Section 25 B(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 landlord to recover possession of the premises from a tenant. 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.
12. It is also well settled 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. It is also well settled that when a possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement, a landlord has to establish his need and not his mere desire.
13. I have carefully and minutely gone through the petition, leave to defend ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 7 of 17 application accompanied by affidavit, reply, documents and material on record and case law relied upon.
14. It is expedient to reproduce the 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."
15. The court has also heard the arguments advanced by both the parties and has also considered the written arguments filed by the parties and the case laws. However, each case has its own factual matrix and will thus be decided in such background.
ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 8 of 17The first requirement for establishing a case U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act is :-
-that the petitioner should be the landlord/owner of the property;
-that he/ she should require the property for bonafide need; and thirdly that he/she should not have any other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.
(i). LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP:-
16. In the present case the relationship of landlord and tenant has been disputed by the respondent on the ground that he is not the tenant of the petitioner and he was inducted as tenant by the late husband of petitioner. The rent receipts regarding the rent paid by the respondent to the late husband of the petitioner are also on record. It is also claimed that there is dispute between the petitioner and her daughter regarding ownership of the property in question on the ground that daughter has a Will in her favour executed by late Sh. Narender and that some government officials are also claiming stakes over the property.
17. The law in this regard is very clear that the tenant cannot the dispute the title of the landlord or his successor-in-interest i.e. he/she is estopped from challenging the ownership or denying the title of the landlord. The principle is very clear that once a tenant is always a tenant and in the present case it has not been disputed that the respondent has come into the premises as a tenant and therefore, it is not open for her/him to challenge the title or the ownership of landlord or his successor-in-interest. Further, the petitioner herein has a better title than that of the respondent. In this context the reliance is placed on Sh. Bharat Bhushan Vs. Aarti Teckchandani 2008 (153) DLT 247; wherein it was ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 9 of 17 laid down:-
"The concept of ownership in a landlord-tenant litigation governed by the Delhi Rent Control Act, has to be distinguished from the one in a title suit. If the premises was let out by a person and after his death, the premises has come in the hands of beneficiary under a Will, the tenant has no right to challenge the title of such a beneficiary. If on the death of the original owner the tenant has any doubt as to who was the owner of the premises, he is supposed to file an interpleader suit impleading all the legal heirs of the deceased and ask the Court to decide as to who shall be the landlord/owner after the death of the original owner. Where no interpleader suit is filed by the tenant and the tenant continues in possession after the death of the original owner without demur and without raising an objection against the person, who claims to have inherited the property under the Will, he later on cannot challenge the ownership of such a person. It is not the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased landlord. If a landlord is able to show that there is a testament in his/her favour, he/she is deemed to have discharged his/ burden of proving the ownership under the Act."
18. Furthermore, to quote the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Rajender Kumar Sharma Vs. Smt. Leela Wati 155 (2008) DLT 383;
ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 10 of 17".... it is settled law that for the purpose of Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than a tenant."
19. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention another settled position of law i.e. even one co-owner can file a petition U/Sec. 14(1)(e) of the D.R.C. Act and there is no requirement of impleading all the co-owners. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Dhanna Lal Vs. Kalawati Bai & Ors. (2002) 6 SCC.
20. Hence, so far the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent is concerned, the same is held to be established in view of the above discussions and pronouncement and respondent has failed to substantiate anything contrary.
(ii). BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT :-
21. The other requirement is that the premises should be required for the bonafide need of the landlord/petitioner and it is the case of the petitioner that she requires the shop in question bonafidely for herself and her daughter to start a business of readymade and designer ladies suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778 has held that "whenever a landlord seeks eviction of a tenant for bonafide need the Controller shall presume the leave as genuine and bonafide. Additionally, the burden to refute the said presumption squarely lies on the tenant and mere assertion on the ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 11 of 17 part of the tenant is insufficient".
22. It is also the contention of the respondent that petitioner is already earning a huge amount of rental income and is also running two businesses as mentioned in the above paras and is also running hostels, however, these are only bald averments without anything to show for it and in particular when the same has been denied by the petitioner. In this regard, it is also clarified that she is not the Director but a Wholesale Incharge of the Yaduvanshi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. and Nand Gopal Pvt. Ltd., which are being run by her brother-in-law being the Director. Reference in this regard may also be had to the decision of Smt. Phool Kumari & Ors. Vs. Shyam Bir Tyagi RC ARC No. 318/2013 dated 01.10.2014 whereby the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that no triable issue is raised on the ground if the tenant denies that the landlord is not unemployed. Similarly, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Raghunath G. Panhala Vs. M/s Chhagan Lal Sunder Ji & Co.... that "A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation, to contemplate that he must get possession of the premises for establishing business." Thus, in view of these discussions, the need of the petitioner is held to be bonafide and no triable issue is raised.
(iii). REASONABLY SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION:
23. Now, in this regard it is the contention of the respondent that the petitioner already has more than sufficient space available with her in the suit property and that she has not filed the correct site plan to conceal said fact. Thus, it is claimed that even as on date petitioner is in possession of 60 shops on different floors of the suit property and earning huge rental income from these ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 12 of 17 shops and that even after the death of her husband, she transferred two vacant shops as mentioned in the preceding paras. It is also claimed that during the pendency of the earlier petition also, she has given physical possession of 19 shops on the ground floor to the prospective transferees for hefty consideration. However, the same are mere averments without any documentary proof and more so, it has already been explained in the reply filed by the petitioner to the leave to defend that those shops were sold during the lifetime of the husband of the petitioner and the two shops which have been transferred by the petitioner after death of her husband was because the deal regarding them was already finalized by her husband and she only did the needful to execute and honor the commitment of her late husband and that after the death of her husband, she has not sold even a single shop and does not have the possession of any vacant shop. Thus, all the averments regarding having various shops in the suit premises and 05 vacant shops in her possession have been denied by the petitioner.
24. In this respect, it has also been specified that the property was divided between the legal heirs of Ch. Kishan Chand (HUF) and she is not the owner of the entire complex. Furthermore, so far as the incorrect site plan of the petitioner is concerned, the same loses its significance in view of the fact that entire complex does not belong to her nor has it been claimed by the respondent that the tenanted premises is not identifiable from the site plan of the petitioner.
25. Further, the law in this regard is very clear and has been well established by various judicial pronouncements that it is out of the purview of the tenant to dictate as to how much space is adequate for the landlord to run his shop/business or how best to use the tenanted premises or even to adjust in some other premises. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the decision of the ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 13 of 17 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Praveen and Anr. Vs. Mulakh Raj & Ors. RC Rev. 417/2016 wherein it was held that " the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has repeatedly held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to be best utilized by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his property and is the best person to decide which property is to be utilized in what way. The respondent cannot dictate as to how the landlord is to utilize his property. The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. (Residential or commercial use) ". Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also in Balwant Singh Vs. Sudershan Kumar (2021) 15 SCC 75; has held that "it is not for the tenant to dictate how much space is adequate for the proposed business venture or to suggest that the available space with the landlord will be adequate."
26. Similarly, in Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Prem Machinery & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679; it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that " the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter." Also, in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778; it was held that by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that "whenever landlord seeks eviction of the tenant for bonafide need, the Controller shall presume the need as genuine and bonafide. Additionally, the burden to refute such presumption squarely lies on the tenant and mere assertion on the part of tenant is insufficient."
27. Further, the contention that the petitioner is in possession of various shops and the second and third floor is also of no merit for raising any triable issue and in this regard, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court can also be quoted ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 14 of 17 i.e. Uday Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503, wherein it was held that "it is not for the Courts to say that the landlord should shift to the first floor or any higher floor as it is well known that shops and businesses are usually conducted on the ground floor, because the customer can reach there easily." Thus, the Court cannot dictate the landlord which floor he should use for his business and it is for the landlord himself to decide. Similarly, in Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Kumar Tandon 72 1998 DLT 629, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that " the landlord is not dis-entitled from seeking recovery of the possession of the ground floor merely on the plea that he is also in possession of the first floor and second floor so long as the Court is satisfied with respect to the bonafide requirement of the landlord for the tenanted premises".
28. It is pertinent to mention herein that it is not open to the Court or tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as how and in what manner he should adjust himself, without calling upon tenant to vacate the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else landlord could have adjusted. (Ref. Kishan Lal Vs. R.N. Bakshi 169 (2010) DLT 769). Thus, even if it is presumed that the contention of the respondent regarding the petitioner having various shops available on various floors of the property is correct would nevertheless mean that the requirement of the petitioner of the tenanted premises situated at ground floor is not bonafide.
29. So far as the pugree amount having been paid by the respondent at the time of inception of tenancy is concerned, firstly, no such concept is recognized in law and neither any such amount has been specified nor any document has ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 15 of 17 been placed on record to prove the said contention of the respondent. Hence, a bald plea is taken by the respondents in this regard having no value.
30. Furthermore, qua the application for subsequent event of the respondent which was brought on record to show that the petitioner has also filed another petition for eviction of another tenant on the ground of her bonafide requirement as in the present case, was later on settled by them and the rent was increased to be Rs. 70,000/- to imply that in the present tenanted premises also, she wants to induct a new tenant for a higher rent, the provision of Sec. 19(2) of the D.R.C. Act already covers such situations and a tenant is very well protected under the same and he may very well bring an application for putting himself in possession or for compensation.
CONCLUSION:
31. In view of the above discussion, the Court finds no triable issue in the leave to defend application of the respondents which could dis-entitle the petitioner/landlady to obtain an eviction order in her favour. The application for leave to defend filed by the respondents is thus, dismissed.
32. Hence, as a consequence thereof, an eviction order is passed U/s. 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act in favour of petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. One shop bearing Pvt. No. 4-D/8, Ch. Kishan Chand Shopping Complex, Jwala Heri, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 as shown in the site plan annexed with the petition which is marked as Mark- P1 (Put by the court for the purpose of identification).
ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 16 of 1733. However, this order shall not be operative before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14(7) of D.R.C. Act.
34. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 24th April, 2025 This Order consists of 17 signed pages. Digitally signed by ALKA ALKA Date:
SINGH SINGH 2025.04.25 15:38:39 +0530 (ALKA SINGH) Additional Rent Controller West District Courts, Delhi.ARC No. 155/2017 Smt. Usha Yadav Vs. Sh. Ram Prakash Thukral & Anr. Page 17 of 17