Delhi District Court
Mohd. Asif vs Vimal Prabha Diwan on 8 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF LD. ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE-
CUM- ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL)
DELHI
Presided Over By: Sh. Bharat Aggarwal
Petition No.: RC ARC 478421/2016
CNR No.: DLCT03-000926-2014
Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr.
IN THE MATTER OF :-
Mohd. Asif
s/o Late Sheikh Abdul Mugni
r/o 913, Sheesh Mahal,
Azad Market, Delhi-110006
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Vimal Prabha Dewan
wd/o Late Sh. Ganpat Rai Dewan,
c/o Diwan Medical Centre,
10115 (Private No. 10115/2),
Katra Tezab Mill, Library Road,
Pul Bangash, Azad Market,
Delhi-110006.
2. Dr. Poonam Dewan
wd/o Late Dr. Rajneesh Dewan
c/o Diwan Medical Centre,
10115 (Private No. 10115/2),
Katra Tezab Mill, Library Road,
Pul Bangash, Azad Market,
Delhi-110006.
....RESPONDENTS
RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 1/56
Digitally signed
by BHARAT
AGGARWAL
BHARAT
AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08
18:25:29
+0530
Date of Institution : 22.08.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.10.2025
Final Decision : Petition Allowed
____________________________________________________
Argued by : Mohd. Yasin, Ld. Counsel for
petitioner
&
: Mr. Hitendra Kumar Nahata,
Ld. Counsel for respondents
____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide the eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, the 'DRC Act'), seeking eviction of the respondents from property no. 10115 (Pvt. No. 10115/2), Katra Tezab Mill, Library Road, Ward No. XII, Pul Bangash, Azad Market, Delhi-110006. The said premises shall hereinafter be adverted to as the 'tenanted premises'. The tenanted premises are more clearly shown in red colour in the site plan i.e. Ex.PW-1/11, filed by the petitioner along with the eviction petition.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE EVICTION PETITION:
2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the petitioner that the tenanted premises were let out for residential purposes to Late Sh. Diwan Hira Nand, s/o Late Sh. Tej Bhan vide rent note dated RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 2/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:31 +0530 29.05.1967 w.e.f 01.01.1967 but the legal heirs of the deceased tenant have converted the premises for commercial use without any written consent/permission of the father of the petitioner.
That both the respondents are stated to be using the tenanted premises for commercial purposes as they are running their clinic under the name and style as 'Diwan Medical Centre'.
3. It is stated that respondent no.2 is the daughter-in-law of respondent no.1 and grand daughter-in-law of the deceased respondent Sh. Diwan Hira Nand. It is stated that the monthly rent of the tenanted premises is Rs.10/- excluding electricity and water charges and the house tax is being paid by the petitioner. It is stated that father of the petitioner had let out one room, kitchen, bathroom and some open space at the ground floor and open roof at the first floor vide rent note dated 29.05.1967 to Diwan Hira Nand i.e. father-in-law of respondent no.1. It is alleged that the respondents and other legal heirs of the deceased tenant Sh. Diwan Hira Nand have raised unauthorized construction in the open space at the ground floor as well as on the open roof on the first floor without seeking any written permission/consent of father of the petitioner or the petitioner himself.
4. That father of the petitioner Sh. Abdul Mughni s/o Late Sh. Abdul Ghani and mother of the petitioner Mst. Chaman Ara Begum were the owners of properties bearing Municipal No. 10115-10119, Ward No. XII, Katra Tezab Mill, Library Road, Pul Bangash, Azad Market, Delhi-110006. Mother of the petitioner passed away on 12.12.1990 and his father passed away on RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 3/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:25 +0530 27.01.2001, leaving behind one son i.e. the petitioner and two daughters Mst. Sualeha Begum and Mst. Abida Begum. It is further averred that after the death of their parents, certain disputes arose between his legal heirs regarding the property left behind by them and the petitioner filed a partition suit against his sisters bearing suit no. 760/2001 in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. In such suit, a compromise was arrived between the parties and a compromise decree was passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 13.08.2001. It is alleged that the property bearing no. 10115-10119, whereby the tenanted premises are situated, fell to the share of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises.
5. That the tenanted premises were let out by father of the petitioner to Sh. Diwan Hira Nand for residential purpose at a monthly rent of Rs.10/- excluding electricity and water charges vide rent note dated 29.05.1967. After the death of original tenant, his son namely Sh. Ganpat Rai Diwan became the tenant and he also died in the year 1970, leaving behind his widow i.e. respondent no.1 and five sons i.e. Dr. Rajinder, Dr. Rakesh, Sh. Pradeep, Sh. Rohtas and Dr. Rajnish, who became joint tenants and started paying rent to the father of the petitioner against rent receipts.
6. It is alleged that legal heirs of Sh. Ganpat Rai Diwan started using the tenanted premises for running their clinic without the consent of father of the petitioner and Sh. Rajnish Diwan, alongwith his wife i.e. respondent no.2, were later running the clinic in question at the tenanted premises. It is RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 4/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:29 +0530 further alleged that Sh. Diwan Hira Nand and his son Sh. Ganpat Rai Diwan had paid rent to the father of the petitioner till July, 1979 and the rent was lastly paid on 30.08.1979. It is stated that after the death of Sh. Rajnish Diwan, both the respondents are in possession of the tenanted premises and they are running the medical clinic under the same name.
7. It is the case of the petitioner that he is unemployed and he has three unemployed sons. The elder son Mr. Faizan Asif is about 26 years old who completed his graduation in the year 2010 from Delhi University and he started getting knowledge and experience from his uncle Mohd. Sualeh in manufacturing and trading of perfumes and fragrance etc. It is stated that he obtained a certificate in December, 2010 for completing a training in fragrance and flavour creation and thereafter, he managed to get a premises no. 423, Backside, Ground Floor, Shehzada Bagh, Phase-I, Inderlok, Delhi-110035 at a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- where he started his own manufacturing and trading of perfumes under the name and style as 'M/s. Ranee Perfumers'. It is alleged that the tenanted premises are required for the business of son of the petitioner Sh. Faizan who is dependent upon the petitioner and neither the petitioner nor his family members have other reasonable or suitable accommodation for carrying out such business activity.
8. It is stated that petitioner has a moral obligation to settle his son and to contribute towards his economic independence for which the tenanted premises are required. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present eviction petition seeking eviction RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 5/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:27 +0530 of both the respondents from the tenanted premises for the business needs of his son Mr. Faizan Asif.
9. Summons of the petition in the prescribed format were issued to the respondents vide order dated 25.08.2014. Thereafter, an application under Section 25B of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend was filed on behalf of respondents on 14.10.2014.
After much contest, such application filed by the respondents seeking leave to defend was allowed by this court vide order dated 08.12.2015 and an extensive trial took place in the present eviction petition. The court in such order had inter- alia observed in such order that the petitioner has prima-facie established his ownership over the tenanted premises and the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant. The court further observed that the bonafide requirement of son of the petitioner was duly proved. However, as the petitioner admittedly obtained share in certain other properties in the compromise decree between his siblings and he did not file any rent agreement or rent receipts to show that such other properties are not available for the need expressed, a triable issue regarding availability of alternate suitable accommodation was held to be made out, which led to the present trial.
Thereafter, a written statement was filed on behalf of the respondents on 18.02.2016.
RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 6/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:27 +0530 WRITTEN STATEMENT:
10. The written statement was filed only by the respondent no.2 as respondent no.1 had passed away on 29.10.2015. In the written statement so filed by respondent no.2, she has controverted all the allegations of the petitioner and denied the claims made in the eviction petition. She has inter-alia alleged that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands and he has concealed material facts. It was further alleged that after the demise of respondent no.1, her legal heirs including her sons Mr. Pradeep, Dr. Rakesh, Mr. Rohtas and Dr. Rajinder are also beneficiary in the tenanted premises and they have not been made party in the array of petition by the petitioner. Accordingly, it is stated that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that legal heirs of Late Sh. Ganpat Rai Diwan were not made party to the present petition.
11. It is alleged that no landlord and tenant relationship exists between the parties and petitioner has relied upon forged documents in the shape of rent note and rent receipts. It is further stated that the respondent is in possession of property bearing no.
10115 ever since the year 1949 and since last 65 years, no rent has been tendered to the petitioner or his father at any point of time. It is further stated that the site plan relied upon by the petitioner is totally wrong as petitioner has split the property in possession of the respondent with a malafide intention.
12. It is alleged that petitioner is not the owner of the suit premises and half portion of the first floor of the property is in RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 7/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:26 +0530 possession of respondent no.2 and front portion of the entire suit property is with the Municipal Department and the same was used by Congress (I) and the entire area falls within the domain and control of DDA Slum.
13. It is alleged that no property exists with number 10115/2, Library Road and the entire suit property including various other shops / premises exists with number 10115, Library Road, which have been let out by the petitioner and he is charging rent on the basis of his possession from various tenants. It is further alleged that petitioner has let out certain portions to various persons on the strength of his possession and certain portions have been let out recently. It is stated that there exists more than 500 sq. yards area in possession with the petitioner in municipal premises no. 10115, which the petitioner has let out different persons in nexus with land mafia and builders of the area.
14. It is alleged that petitioner has admitted the respondents to be in possession since the year 1968 and hence, as per the admission of the petitioner himself, the respondent no.2 has become the owner of the tenanted premises by way of adverse possession. It is further alleged that the suit filed by the petitioner and his family members was a mere eye wash as the same was filed in April, 2001 and disposed off on the basis of compromise on 13.08.2001 and the Hon'ble High Court did not adjudicate upon the title of the parties. It is stated that the sale deed relied upon by the petitioner relates to a Katra consisting of 20 kothris and three jeena, three balakhana jaat, seven shops RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 8/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:28 +0530 including kothri no. 11554 to 11560, two sakhis and eight kothris in front of kothri bearing no. 11527-11533, five parnalas and five kothris bearing no. 11522-11526, alongwith two toilets, kuan and various other properties, situated at 1000, Murabha Ganj, Saleem Katra, Tezab Mill, Near Pul Bangash and the said document does not relate to the property in question.
15. It is alleged that as per the compromise application filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, petitioner became owner of several other properties bearing no.
9134-3197, Ward No. XII, Katra Nawab Ganj, 10299-10302, Ward No. XII, Kothri Walan, 5306, Kohlapur Road, Subzi Mandi, 25-28, 33-36, Kucha Belamal, Katra Baryan, Delhi and 912-914, Sheesh Mahal, Azad Market. It is alleged that the petitioner has not explained the details of such other properties and their utilization.
16. It is alleged that the son of the petitioner Mr. Faizan Asif is running his proprietorship firm from 912, Sheesh Mahal, Azad Market, Delhi and the said fact is disclosed from the website of the petitioner itself. Further, it is stated that the house tax has been paid by the respondent since the year 1949. Accordingly, the respondent has sought dismissal of the eviction petition.
REPLICATION:
17. Petitioner thereafter filed a replication to the written RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 9/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:34 +0530 statement of the respondent, on 18.07.2016. In such replication, the petitioner has controverted all the allegations of the respondent in her written statement and reiterated his version in the eviction petition. It was inter-alia stated by the petitioner that it is not necessary to bring on record all the legal heirs of the deceased tenant as after his death, all his legal heirs have inherited the property jointly and if one of such tenants occupy the property, it is considered that the other legal heirs have surrendered their tenancy rights in his favour.
18. It is further stated that the tenanted premises has the municipal number 10115 and the other premises, for which a petition on the ground of sub-letting was filed, is 10116. It is further stated that Congress (I) is in possession of property no. 10119 and the same is also owned by the petitioner and the property of DDA (Slum) starts from 10120, Library Road, Azad Market i.e. after the properties of the petitioner.
19. Petitioner has stated that several tenants are in occupation of the katra in question bearing no. 10115/1 to 10115/26 for last several years and the entire katra is occupied by tenants / sub-tenants and the petitioner is not in occupation of any portion of the said katra. That all the tenants/occupants are very old and the petitioner has not let out any premises recently.
20. That the sale deed dated 04.01.1940 was executed in respect of several properties consisting of various kothris, rooms, tin-shed, shops on an area of 1000 square yards on which a big katra was there, having earlier municipal number as mentioned in RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 10/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:30 +0530 the sale deed. It is stated that thereafter, new numbers were given by the government bodies/department/MCD and lastly, municipal no. 10115 was given to the katra in question.
21. As regards the allegation of availability of alternate accommodation, petitioner has specifically stated that all the properties except property no. 912-914, Sheesh Mahal, Azad Market, Delhi-110006, which is the residence of the petitioner, are occupied by tenants and sub-tenants. Petitioner has alleged that none of such property is in possession of the petitioner and such premises which are occupied by the tenants, are not required to be disclosed by the petitioner in a petition for bonafide requirement under the DRC Act. The petitioner has filed 24 copies of counterfoils of rent receipts in Urdu alongwith English translation showing various tenants in such properties alleged by the respondent.
22. Further, as regards the property no. 912-914, shown to be as address of 'M/s. Ranee Perfumers', it is stated that the son of the petitioner wanted to start business of perfumes and for that purpose, the residential address of the petitioner was given on a website in the year 2012 for booking domain name and advertisement purpose. It is alleged that son of the petitioner has started his business at Inderlok on a limited period tenancy and the tenanted premises are required for such purpose.
RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 11/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:27 +0530 PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE:
23. Petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and he tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW-1/A. PW-1 further relied upon the following documents:
(i) Ex. PW-1/1 (OS&R) is the sale deed alongwith translated copy in favour of father of the Petitioner;
(ii) Ex. PW-1/2 is the certified copy of application under Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC, statements of parties and order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 13.08.2001;
(iii) Ex. PW-1/3 is the original Property Tax Receipt issued by MCD for property no.
10115-19;
(iv) Ex. PW-1/4 is the original rent note dated 29.05.1967 alongwith translated copy;
relied
(v) Ex. PW-1/5 (OS&R) (Collectively)
running into six pages are the seven counter foils of the rent receipt in respect of the suit premises alongwith translation;
(vi) Ex. PW-1/6 is the copy of certificate of BA degree of the son of the petitioner Mr. Faizan from Delhi University;
(vii) Ex. PW-1/7 is the copy of certificate of training of the son of the petitioner Mr. Faizan issued by Fragrance and Flavour Development RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 12/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:32 +0530 Centre, Kannauj, UP;
(viii) Mark A is the rent agreement in favour of the son of the petitioner Faizan Asif with Mohd. Muzammil;
(ix) Mark Z is the copy of computerized copy of registration of establishment issued by Department of VAT in favour of son of the petitioner;
(x) Ex.PW-1/8 (collectively) is the copy of Return Verification Form/Registration order under DVAT 56 and CST Act of the firm of son of the Petitioner;
(xi) Ex. PW-1/10 is the blank letterhead of firm of son of the petitioner of M/s. Ranee Perfumer;
(xii) Ex. PW-1/11 is the site plan of the
suit premises;
(xiii) Mark B is the rent agreement of the
son of the petitioner with Sh. Surender Kumar;
(xiv) Ex. PW-1/12 (Collectively) (OS&R) are the twenty four counter foils of rent receipts alongwith English translation qua the other properties which came to the share of the Petitioner;
(xv) Mark C is the copy of ration card of
the Petitioner;
(xvi) Ex. PW-1/14 (Collectively) (OS&R)
are the seventeen counter foils of rent receipts alongwith its translation;RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 13/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL
BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:29 +0530 (xvii) Ex.PW-1/15 (OSR) is the original rent receipt bearing no. 87/30;
(xviii) Ex.PW-1/RX (OSR) is the original application of the mutation qua property no.
10115 to 10119, Ward No. XII, Katra Tezab Mill, Library Road, Pul Bangash, Delhi; and (xix) Ex.PW-1/R-1 is the Hindi Translation of sale deed;
(xx) Ex.PW-1/RX-2 (colly.) are the
property bills;
(xxi) Ex.PW-1/R-3 is the site plan of Katra
Tezab;
(xxii) Ex.PW-1/R-4 (OSR) and
Ex.PW-1/R-5 (OSR) are the certified copies of order dated 29.03.1954 and 17.06.1954 passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property;
(xxiii) Ex.PW-1/R-6 is the English translation of sale deed dated 05.01.1940; (xxiv) Ex.PW-1/R-8 is the translation of rent receipt dated 26.03.2014 regarding municipal no. 10115/26; and (xxv) Ex.PW-1/R-9 (Colly.) are the certified copy of gift deed alongwith its translation.
Petitioner was cross-examined on multiple occasions over several years and eventually, he was discharged on 09.02.2023.
24. Petitioner further examined Sh. Vijaykant Upadhyaye, RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 14/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:28 +0530 Zonal Inspector, House Tax Department, North Delhi Municipal Corporation as PW-2, who brought on record the survey report in respect of property no. 10115-19, Nawab Ganj, Azad Market as Ex.PW-2/A. He was cross-examined and discharged on 04.12.2019.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:
25. Respondent examined Mr. Jitender Kumar, Senior Secretarial Assistant, Assessment and Collection Department, MCD as RW-1 and he brought on record House Tax Survey Report and payment receipts qua municipal premises no. 10115- 10119 as Ex.RW-1/1.
He was cross-examined and discharged on 07.01.2025.
26. Respondent then examined Mr. Layak Ram, UDC, Land and Bulding Deparment as RW-2, who brought on record documents including survey reports of Office of Custodian, Ministry of Rehabilitation, etc. for old municipal no. 11521-33, 11534-53, 11554-67, Katra Tezab Mill, Library Road, Delhi-110006 as Ex.RW-2/2 to Ex.RW-2/7.
He was examined and discharged on 16.01.2025.
27. Respondent no.2 then examined herself as RW-3 and she tendered her evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.RW-3/A. RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 15/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:31 +0530 RW-3 further relied upon her additional evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.RW-3/B in terms of order dated 03.01.2025. She relied upon the following the documents in her testimony:
(i) Ex. RW-3/1 is the copy of slum
petition filed before the Ld. Competent
Authority, Slum by the petitioner;
(ii) Ex.PW-1/DX1 is the site plan filed
by the respondents;
(iii) Ex. RW-3/3 is the true copy of
relevant photographs of other properties in the katra;
(iv) Ex. RW-3/4 is the copy of proof/
print-outs pertaining to Ranee Perfumer
regarding its address;
(v) Mark-A is the copy of
legal notice served upon the petitioner dated 16.08.2022;
(vi) Mark-B is the reply dated 19.09.2022 to the legal notice dated 16.08.2022 received from the counsel for the petitioner;
(vii) Mark-C being the additional statutory legal notice dated 15.09.2022;
(viii) Ex. RW-3/8 is the copy of the suit instituted by the Respondent in the Court of Ld. ADJ bearing no. CS(OS) 151/2023;
(ix) Ex. RW-3/9 is the copy of the notice under Order XII Rule 8 CPC served upon the petitioner on 09.05.2023;
RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 16/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:26 +0530
(x) Ex. RW-3/10 is the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act;
(xi) Ex.RW-3/12 is the copy of written statement filed by the MCD in civil suit filed by the Respondent in the Court of Ld. District Judge, Central;
(xii) Ex.RW-3/13 is the coloured site plan filed by the respondent;
(xiii) Ex.RW-3/X1 and Ex.RW-3/X2 are
the two rent receipts;
(xiv) Ex.RW-3/X3 (Colly.) are the rent
receipts with translated copies w.e.f. April, 2023 to March, 2024 and April, 2024 to December, 2024 for property no. 10115/8 alongwith copies of cheques issued by AV Agencies to Mohd. Asif dated 25.08.2024 and 15.01.2025;
(xv) Ex.RW-3/X4 (colly.) are the four coloured photographs stated to be the part of Katra which was earlier occupied by Gosain Family @ Keshwanand; and (xvi) Ex.RW-3/X5 is the certified copy of judgment/order dated 05.10.2012 in petition no.
CA(s) 1446/07.
She was cross-examined at length and discharged on 04.02.2025.
28. Respondent also examined Mr. Varun Mehra, ASO, Ministry of Home Affairs as RW-4. However, he could not bring RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 17/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:29 +0530 the summoned record qua property no. 11521-11567, Katra Tezab Mill by stating that record has been transferred to Land & Building Department, Government of NCT of Delhi.
He was examined and discharged on 14.01.2025.
29. Respondent lastly examined Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Ahlmad in the court of Ld. District Judge-10, Central, Tis Hazari Courts as RW-5 to prove the written statement i.e., RW-3/8 filed by MCD in Civil Suit bearing no. CS DJ 151/2023 titled as ' Dr. Poonam Diwan Vs. Secretary, Department of Land & Building'.
He was cross-examined and discharged on 27.01.2025.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER:
30. It was strongly argued on behalf of the petitioner that all the requirements of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act have been fulfilled by the petitioner during the trial and he has proved that the tenanted premises are bonafidely required for the business need of his son Mr. Faizan Asif. He further argued that all the aspects of the case were decided in the order dated 08.12.2015 whereby the application seeking leave to defend was decided and the petitioner has also shown during the trial that no alternate accommodation is available to him and respondent has failed to point out a single alternate accommodation.
31. Petitioner has strongly relied upon Ex.PW-1/1 i.e. the RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 18/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:33 +0530 sale deed dated 05.01.1940 in favour of his father Mr. Abdul Mughni, compromise application between siblings of the petitioner and order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 13.08.2001 Ex.PW-1/2, house tax receipts Ex.PW-1/3, rent note dated 29.05.1967 i.e. Ex.PW-1/4 and counterfoils in respect of the tenanted premises Ex.PW-1/5 to argue that the aspect of ownership of the petitioner and relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant stands established.
32. It was vehemently argued on behalf of petitioner that the counterfoils Ex.PW-1/5 show the signatures of the original tenant Sh. Diwan Hira Nand and the respondent no.1. It was argued that the rent note Ex.PW-1/4 and the counterfoils Ex.PW-1/5 are more than 30 years old documents and there is presumption of genuineness of these documents in terms of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It was further argued that petitioner has filed the 24 counterfoils of rent receipts of the other properties of the petitioner as Ex.PW-1/12 to show that no other alternate property is available to the petitioner for the alleged business need of his son as all are occupied by his tenants/ sub-tenants. Petitioner has further relied upon the orders passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property dated 29.03.1954 and 17.06.1954 i.e. Ex. PW-1/R4 and Ex.PW-1/R5 to show that the properties in question were restored to Sh. Adbul Mughni i.e. father of the petitioner and are not attached by the Custodian of Evacuee Property.
33. Ld. Counsel for petitioner further argued that RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 19/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:30 +0530 admittedly as per respondent herself, petitioner has occupied possession of portions/areas which is in dilapidated condition and not suitable for the commercial need of the son of the petitioner as such areas are located inside the Katra Tezab Mill whereas the tenanted premises are situated on the main Library Road. It was further submitted that the suit premises are bigger in size and are most suitable for starting a shop by son of the petitioner as it is also located nearby the house of the petitioner. It was argued that the respondent has falsely claimed that petitioner has obtained possession of premises from Narayan Devi / Vinod Gupta / AV Agency as such premises i.e. 10115/8 is in possession of Sh. Vinod Gupta s/o Sh. Narayan Devi who is still paying rent by cheque to the petitioner filed on record as Ex.RW-3/X3.
34. That father of the petitioner Sh. Abdul Mughni was the owner of 1100 sq. yards of old no. 11521-11533 and 11554-
11567 and the remaining half portion of the 2100 sq. yards katra was owned by wife of Mohd. Naqi as per sale deed of the year 1940. Lastly, it was argued that petitioner was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination and yet, no substantial testimony in favour of the respondent could be elicited from the petitioner.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT:
35. It was inter-alia argued on behalf of respondent that the petitioner is neither the owner of the tenanted premises nor there exists any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 20/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL
BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:27 +0530 Further, it was argued that the son of the petitioner is already running his business from other premises and there is no bonafide requirement of tenanted premises and that petitioner has several other alternate accommodations available with him. That possession of certain portions in the katra in question has been received by the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition thereby there being no requirement of the tenanted premises.
36. It was argued that admittedly the petitioner has not got the property mutated in his name and the rent note Ex.PW-1/4 does not bear the signatures of his father. It was further argued that petitioner admitted that municipal numbers 10115/1-
10115/26 have not been mentioned in the house tax and no old house tax record of 11521-53 have been produced by him.
37. It was strongly argued on behalf of respondent that the suit property was an evacuee property as per Ex.RW-2/4. Further, it was argued that Mr. Abdul Mukran and Mr. Abdul Muquir are recorded as owner who were a resident of XIII/1001/2, Sheesh Mahal and petitioner has no connection with the same.
38. It was further argued that as per Ex.RW-2/4, Mohd. Muquir was recorded owner and the occupant was Mr. A.R Chaddha in old municipal no. 11557-58 and 11562-63 and the grandfather-in-law of respondent worked as a Diwan for Mr. Chadhha as deposed by her in cross-examination. It was argued that the petitioner has created forged and fictitious record only to illegally grab the government land.
RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 21/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:26 +0530
39. It was argued that there is no landlord-tenant relationship exists between the parties as family of the respondent has remained in possession in the property since the year 1949-50 and no rent was paid by the grandfather-in-law of respondent no.2 to the petitioner or his predecessors. It was further argued that rent receipts relied upon by the petitioner do not bear the signatures of family of the respondent and the rent agreement Ex.PW-1/4 admittedly does not bear the signatures of the executant and hence, unreliable.
40. That petitioner has admitted in his cross-examination that certain portions of premises no. 10115 have been vacated and in possession with the petitioner. Further, it was pointed out that son of the petitioner is running his business from 912, Sheesh Mahal, Azad Market and rent agreements Mark-A and Mark-B have been created only to show a bonafide requirement and he has also concealed operation of his factory from Badli Village. Further, it was argued that the site plan relied upon by the petitioner is inconsistent with the municipal records.
41. It was vehemently argued that no relief qua municipal no. 10115/2 can be granted to the petitioner as no such number exists and petitioner has no right to affix such sub-numbers as the same has not been allocated by Land & Building Department or MCD. Further, it was argued that MCD in their written statement to the suit filed by respondent no.2 before Ld. District Judge, Central, District, has inter-alia stated that no new municipal RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 22/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:33 +0530 number was allotted against property no. 11521 to 11533.
42. Respondent further argued that petitioner is not the owner of the tenanted premises as per the L&DO records and he is playing fraud upon the court to grab the public land. In these circumstances, respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present eviction petition.
ANALYSIS WITH REASONS:
43. In order to setup a case under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner/landlord has to establish the following ingredients:
(i) Existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties;
(ii) That the landlord/petitioner is the owner of the property;
(iii) That the premises are required bonafidely for his use or for the use of any other family member dependent on him; and
(iv) That he does not have any other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation available with him.
In Satyawati Sharma Vs. Union of India , [AIR 2008 SC 3148], the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has extended the scope of the provision to include areas for which an eviction RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 23/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:30 +0530 petition can be filed which are commercial in nature.
44. It is well settled that the petitioner need not be an absolute owner of the tenanted premises. In a landlord-tenant dispute, the owner is the one who has better rights than that of the tenant and it is not incumbent upon the landlord to prove beyond shadow of doubt that he is the owner of the property as is rather required if he was contesting a suit whereby his title was challenged. A person who may not be the absolute owner but exercises rights of the property more than that of a tenant, is also recognized to be petitioner/owner under the DRC Act. The petitioner may be a lessee of a land/property from the government, a mortgagee with possession or even a prospective purchaser of the property put into possession in part performance of the agreement of sale for valuable consideration with a will and an irrevocable power of attorney. The law with regard to concept of ownership in context with Clause (e) of Section 14 (1) is well settled and leaves no doubt that the 'ownership' contemplated in this provision is viz-a-viz the tenant and an owner means that his ownership over the subject premises is something more than the tenant. Mere denial of ownership is no denial and when the respondent denies the ownership of the petitioner, he must state as to who is the owner of the property occupied by him. The tenant cannot be allowed to convert the eviction petition into a title suit by raising unnecessary objections about the title of the petitioner.
45. The bonafide requirement must be a sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere and honest desire rather than RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 24/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:29 +0530 mere pretense. Such need must be conceived in good faith and the court must also consider it reasonable to gratify that need. Landlord's desire for possession howsoever honest has inevitably a subjective element in it and such desire to become a requirement in law must have an objective element of need. As regards the bonafide requirement of the petitioner, it is settled that it is not open for the Court or to the tenant to dictate the petitioner in what manner he should live nor can the Court impose its own standards upon the landlord. Such bonafide need of the landlord is to be considered on the date of filing of the petition and the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined as on date when the petition was filed.
46. The Courts have time and again observed that landlord is the best judge of his requirements and he has complete freedom in the matter. It is not the concern of the Court or the tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live or conduct his business, unless the requirement of the landlord is shown to be totally malafide or not genuine. As regards the alternate accommodation alleged by the respondent/tenant, the same must also be suitable to fulfill the need of the landlord in comparison to the premises from which eviction is sought.
47. The factual matrix of this case shall be examined through prism of legal position enunciated above.
RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 25/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:26 +0530 Ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises & Subsistence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties
48. These two criteria shall be discussed together, as they are interlinked. To substantiate his ownership over the tenanted premises, petitioner has primarily relied upon the sale deed Ex.PW-1/1 in favour of his father, the application under Order XXIII CPC filed by the petitioner and his sisters alongwith the order dated 13.08.2001 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Ex.PW-1/2, rent note i.e. Mark-A, rent receipts alongwith counterfoils Ex.PW-1/5 qua the tenanted premises and property tax receipt issued by MCD Ex.PW-1/3 in favour of father of the petitioner. The petitioner has further relied upon judgment/order dated 05.10.2012 passed by Ld. Competent Authority (DUSIB) in a case filed by the petitioner against the respondent and other legal heirs of the original tenant under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956. He has also relied upon Ex.PW-2/A i.e. document issued by MCD which shows Sh. Diwan Hira Nand to be a residential tenant at Sr. No. 16 at a monthly rent of Rs.7/- in the property in question and the said document also shows father of the petitioner Sh. Abdul Mughni as the tax payer.
49. The ownership of the petitioner over the tenanted premises has been strongly disputed by the respondent who has inter-alia argued that predecessors-in-interest of the respondents have remained in possession of the tenanted premises since the year 1949 and property in question is with MCD and the area RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 26/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:25 +0530 falls under the domain and control of DDA (Slum). During the course of her testimony, respondent no. 2 changed her stance to say that Sh. Hira Nand Dewan, her grandfather-in-law worked for one Mr. Chaddha who gave the property to Mr. Dewan and later, during further cross-examination, she deposed that her predecessors were tenant of said Mr. Chaddha. The respondent has also claimed ownership over the tenanted premises due to long possession by way of adverse possession. It is further the case of the respondent that no rent has ever been paid by the respondent or her predecessors-in-interest to the petitioner or his predecessors-in-interest.
50. It is well settled that the petitioner is not required to show his/her absolute title over the tenanted premises and the ownership has to be considered qua the tenant. It is settled that if the landlord was receiving rent for himself/herself and not on behalf of someone else, he/she will be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his/her title may be over the property. A tenant can only challenge the title of the landlord after vacating the premises and not prior to that. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi [2008 SCC OnLine Del 1187].
51. Upon comprehensive perusal of evidence led on record by both the sides and careful perusal of all the documents placed on record, it becomes amply clear that petitioner has successfully established that he is the owner of the tenanted premises for the purposes of the present petition under the DRC RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 27/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:32 +0530 Act and there also exists landlord and tenant relationship between the parties to the present petition. At the outset, it is important to reiterate the principle of law that mere non payment of rent by a tenant for a long duration or showing imperfectness in the title of the petitioner over the tenanted premises does not enure to the benefit of respondent in a petition filed for bonafide need under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
52. It is of considerable relevance to observe that the petitioner has placed reliance on a registered sale deed dated 05.01.1940, identified as Ex.PW-1/1, executed in favour of Sh. Abdul Mughni, the father of the petitioner. This document, which forms the foundational basis of the petitioner's claim of ownership, has remained wholly uncontroverted and undisputed on the record. At no stage during the proceedings has the respondent raised any challenge to the genuineness or validity of the said sale deed. Furthermore, the respondent has not led any oral or documentary evidence to cast doubt upon the authenticity of the said instrument. The only contention advanced on behalf of the respondent is that the said sale deed does not pertain to the property which is the subject matter of the present proceedings.
53. However, a bare perusal of the translated version of the said sale deed Ex.PW-1/R6, reveals that the document makes specific reference to the old municipal numbers corresponding to the suit property. The description contained therein clearly refers to an area measuring 1100 square yards, representing half portion of the entire 'katra' situated in Ward No. XII, Tezab Mill, Pul RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 28/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:30 +0530 Bangash, Delhi. This reference provides a direct and substantial link between the property described in the sale deed and the tenanted premises forming the subject matter of the present petition. Moreover, when this document is read cumulatively and in conjunction with the other material brought on record namely, the property tax receipts, rent receipts, survey reports, etc., it becomes evident that the said sale deed establishes the ownership of the petitioner's predecessor-in-interest over the larger parcel of land that includes the tenanted premises. The petitioner's claim of ownership is, therefore, not based upon an isolated document but is duly corroborated by a consistent chain of evidence reflecting long-standing and continuous ownership.
54. In any event, the sale deed in question expressly includes, within its scope and ambit, inter alia, property bearing municipal number 11521-67, which is the very property in which the tenanted premises is admittedly situated, a fact not disputed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the respondent's contention seeking to disassociate the tenanted premises from the property covered under the aforesaid sale deed. The said document, coupled with the supporting evidence on record, sufficiently and conclusively establishes the petitioner's ownership for the purposes of the present petition.
55. The respondent has herself admitted in the written statement that the tenanted premises forms a part of municipal no. 10115. It is also pertinent to note here that during his cross- examination, petitioner deposed that the new municipal no.
RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 29/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:31 +0530 10115-10119 was issued in respect of old municipal no. 11554- 11567 as per the property tax bills Ex.PW-1/RX2. Ld. Counsel for respondent himself gave a suggestion to the witness/petitioner that the municipal premises adverted to in the sale deed of the year 1940 i.e. Ex.PW-1/1 is 11521-11567. Hence, such testimony and the suggestion given on behalf of respondent and admitted by the witness would lead to an inference that the sale deed covers the tenanted premises within its ambit. Therefore, there is no hesitation in holding that by virtue of the sale deed Ex.PW-1/1, the tenanted premises forms part of the property which was owned by Sh. Abdul Mughni i.e. father of the petitioner.
56. The respondent has consistently insisted that there is no municipal number as 10115/2 and Ld. Counsel for respondent has also repeatedly argued that petitioner has admitted that no house tax is being specifically paid for such municipal number. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the tenanted premises are identified with a private number i.e. 10115/2 as the entire katra bears a same number and there are multiple shops / residences in such katra which bears the same number i.e. municipal no. 10115. In such circumstances, it is often noticed especially in old Delhi and similar areas where properties are existing prior to the partition, that such private numbers are carved out by the landlord/tenant/owner for convenience, demarcation and identification. Such practice is neither unusual nor unprecedented.
57. The same also becomes apparent from bare perusal of RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 30/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:28 +0530 the photographs relied upon by the respondent herself i.e. Ex.RW-1/3 which shows that 'MP Food' has stated its address as 10115/26 while 'Tushar Trading Company' has stated its address as 10115. Therefore, I find no force in the argument that qua private number 10115/2, no orders can be passed by this court merely because such private number are not identified by the municipal department. To accept such an argument would be to disregard the realities of property identification in legacy urban areas. More significantly, if an order were to be passed in respect of the generic municipal number 10115 alone without reference to the specific portion in occupation of the respondent, it would inevitably lead to ambiguity, enforcement difficulties, and potential prejudice to other occupants within the same premises/katra.
58. Even otherwise, for the purpose of identification of the tenanted premises and its location, site plans have been filed by both the parties which clearly depict the tenanted premises i.e. 'Diwan Medical Centre' and hence, there is no dispute over the identification or location of the premises in question. It is admitted by the respondent that the tenanted premises in question bears municipal no. 10115 which contains various other shops/premises. This fact per se lends much credence to the version of the petitioner that due to existence of several shops/premises in the katra in question, private numbers are given to identify particular portions of the same katra. The same also makes much sense as when multiple premises having old numbers are given only five distinctive identification numbers as 10115-19 then for purpose of proper delineation, identification RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 31/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:32 +0530 and convenience, sub-numbers/ private-numbers are not only necessary but inevitable. The respondent's argument, seeking to undermine the legitimacy of such sub-numbers solely on the ground that it is not reflected in municipal records, is devoid of substance. When the physical identity and location of the tenanted premises stands clearly established through site plans, admissions, and other evidence on record, the absence of a specific municipal number does not in any manner vitiate the entire petition.
59. Another essential aspect of the matter is that the respondent, in the written statement, has alleged that the property in question is owned by municipal department and the entire area falls within the domain and control of DDA (Slum). It is the admitted position of the respondent as stated in the written statement that petitioner has created several tenancies in the same property number i.e. 10115, however, yet the respondent has alleged that the properties are owned by municipal department or DDA (Slum). She has argued that petitioner has been creating tenancies around the tenanted premises on the strength of his possession. Though, such argument appears to be astounding as not one but multiple tenants are admitting a person to be their landlord merely on strength of possession but yet, not a single such tenant was produced by the respondent during the trial to add force to such contention. The conduct of multiple tenants recognizing the petitioner as their landlord whether based on title or long-standing possession is, in itself, a relevant and weighty consideration in determining the locus standi of the petitioner under the DRC Act. In the absence of any contrary evidence from RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 32/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:27 +0530 similarly situated tenants or from the alleged public authorities, the respondent's plea that the property belongs to the Municipal Department or the DDA (Slum) remains wholly unsubstantiated and is liable to be rejected.
60. The respondent has vehemently failed to prove during the trial that the tenanted premises are either owned by MCD or DDA (Slum). Even though, witnesses were called by the respondent from several government departments including municipality, Land & Building Department, etc. yet, the respondent has failed to establish even remotely that any government department has claimed title/ownership rights in the katra in question, whereby the tenanted premises are situated. Be that as it may, from analysis of the evidence led on record by her, it does not appear that the tenanted premises were either acquired by government as an evacuee property or were always owned by the government.
61. The petitioner has, on the strength of sale deed in favour of his father Sh. Abdul Mughni i.e. Ex.PW-1/1 and mutual compromise between the legal heirs of his father through compromise decree dated Ex.PW-1/2 has established, on a scale of preponderance of probabilities that he is the owner of the area where the tenanted premises are situated i.e. municipal no. 10115-10119. Even if the rent note i.e. Mark-A is ignored by this court, yet the rent receipts i.e. Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/15 qua the tenanted premises establishes that respondent no.1 has admitted her capacity to be a tenant of the father of the petitioner.
RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 33/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:25 +0530
62. Rent receipts Ex.PW-1/5 and Ex.PW-1/15 or their counterfoils at point X3 and X5 clearly shows the signatures of respondent no.1 i.e. Smt. Vimal Prabha Diwan. Such signatures of respondent no.1 on counterfoils when compared with her undisputed signatures on her affidavit accompanied with application seeking leave to defend, reveals that such rent receipts/counterfoils actually bear her signatures. Such critical aspect of the case has remained unexplained by the contesting respondent and she has merely denied the signatures of respondent no. 1 on the counterfoils.
63. Noticeably, when such question was specifically put to respondent no.2 during cross-examination by the Ld. Counsel for petitioner, she stated that she cannot identify signatures of respondent no.1. It is relevant to note here that the application seeking leave to defend was filed jointly by both the respondents and respondent no.2 has signed on such application alongside respondent no.1 and hence, her testimony that she cannot identify signatures of respondent no.1, does not inspire confidence of this court in the veracity of her deposition. This Court finds such denial to be evasive and lacking in truthfulness. Even otherwise, it is relevant to note that respondent no. 2 / RW-3 did not clearly deny in unequivocal terms that signatures at point X3 and X5, does not belong to respondent no.1. In such circumstances, when the respondent no. 1 is shown to be a tenant of the predecessors- in-interest of the petitioner and respondent no. 2 does not claim any rights independently of respondent no. 1, she is estopped under section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from denying the title of the landlord in the tenanted premises.
RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 34/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:31 +0530
64. The respondent has made vague and unsubstantiated assertions to the effect that the documents produced by the petitioner purporting to establish title to the premises and evidencing the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties are forged and self-fabricated, allegedly with the intent to encroach upon public land. However, it is pertinent to observe that the respondent has not shown any formal complaint to challenge the genuineness of the said documents. No credible evidence has been brought on record during the trial to support the claim that the tenanted premises is situated on public land. Furthermore, the respondent has failed to maintain a consistent position with respect to her own locus in the tenanted premises, having altered her stance at various stages of the proceedings.
65. The property tax receipts issued in favour of the petitioner's father, Sh. Abdul Mughni, in respect of property bearing No. 10115-10119, i.e., Ex. PW-1/3, further strengthens the petitioner's claim that his father was regularly discharging tax liabilities pertaining to the tenanted premises, being the owner thereof. At this stage, it is apposite to reiterate that this Court is not required to undertake a fishing or roving inquiry into the title of the petitioner vis-à-vis the tenanted premises. As already discussed, the expression 'ownership' under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, is not to be interpreted in a narrow or technical manner so as to convert an eviction petition into a title suit. The legal requirement is for the petitioner to establish that he holds a status superior to that of a tenant in relation to the premises in question. In the present case, the petitioner has produced on RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 35/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:33 +0530 record several documents including the sale deed, compromise decree, rent receipts, property tax receipts, orders issued by the Custodian of Evacuee Property and relevant survey reports, etc which collectively satisfy the requirement of demonstrating a sufficient interest in the property to be construed as an 'owner' for the limited purpose as contemplated under the Act.
66. It is pertinent to note that the respondent has not asserted any independent title or proprietary interest in the tenanted premises. Her sole defence rests on the assertion that the property in question belongs to the Government and not to the petitioner. The respondent has neither disclosed the identity of any private landlord under whom she allegedly occupies the premises, nor has she produced any documentary evidence indicating the payment of rent, lease charges, or license fees to any government authority. At one stage, she made a vague and unsubstantiated claim of being a tenant under one Mr. Chadha, but no credible material has been placed on record to support this assertion. A bare and general denial of the rent receipts dated 1968, 1971, and 1973 relied upon by the petitioner on the ground that they are forged, without any effort to establish such forgery, is insufficient to rebut the petitioner's claim of being the landlord and owner of the premises. Mere vague denials, unsupported by evidence, cannot dislodge the petitioner's case which is supported with the documents of title and landlordship.
67. The respondent's plea of adverse possession is found to be devoid of merit and unsupported by the essential legal ingredients required to sustain such a claim. It is well settled that RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 36/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:33 +0530 mere long and continuous possession, by itself, does not entitle a person to claim ownership under the doctrine of adverse possession. For such a claim to succeed, the possession must be open, continuous, hostile, and to the exclusion of the true owner, accompanied by a clear assertion of ownership against the interests of the true owner. The burden of proof to show adverse possession is on the person who claims title by way of adverse possession. It is also established position of law that the mere enjoyment of the property over long period of time does not amount to adverse possession unless it is accompanied by adverse animus i.e. intention to hold adversely. Furthermore, such adverse intention must be openly and explicitly brought within the knowledge and notice of the real owner. Furthermore, the person claiming title by adverse possession must show as to when his possession became adverse and must acknowledge the actual ownership of the landlord. The said possession must be peaceful, open and continuous. It is evident that the respondent has taken this plea only to create an illusion of a triable issue.
68. During her cross-examination dated 27.01.2025, respondent voluntarily deposed that she is a tenant under one Mr. Chadha, a statement which finds no mention in her written statement. This contradiction not only undermines her plea of adverse possession but also indicates a lack of consistency in her stand. Furthermore, the petitioner has placed on record rent receipt Ex. RW-3/X1, which demonstrates that M/s A.R. Chadha & Company was, in fact, a tenant of Sh. Abdul Mughni, the petitioner's father. A conjoint reading of the pleadings and the RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 37/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:33 +0530 evidence led shows that the respondent has attempted to go beyond her pleadings and has taken inconsistent and shifting stands regarding her status in the tenanted premises. Such conduct severely erodes the credibility of her defence and fails to establish any right, title, or interest, adverse or otherwise in the tenanted premises.
69. Another argument advanced on behalf of the respondent is that the property in question belongs to the Custodian of Evacuee Property. However, this contention is clearly untenable in light of the documentary evidence placed on record during the trial. Orders dated 29.03.1954 and 17.06.1954 passed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property, identified as Ex. PW-1/R4 and Ex. PW-1/R5, unequivocally establish that the petitioner's father, Sh. Abdul Mughni, was declared to be a non- evacuee and, consequently, the properties in question were de- notified. These orders specifically refer to property numbers 11521-33 and 11554-67, Ward No. XII, which corresponds to the old municipal numbers of the property now forming the subject matter of the present proceedings. Further, perusal of Ex. RW-2/3 reveals an order dated 16.10.1951 passed by the Assistant Custodian (Judicial), wherein Sh. Abdul Mughni is expressly referred to as the owner of property bearing Nos. 10521-33 and 11554-67 i.e., locations which the petitioner asserts include the tenanted premises. On the other hand, while the respondent has admitted to being in possession of municipal property No. 10115, she has conspicuously failed to disclose its corresponding old municipal number. This omission, coupled with the clear RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 38/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:29 +0530 documentary record supporting the petitioner's claim, undermines the respondent's version and further corroborates the petitioner's assertion of ownership.
70. The respondent has also raised a frivolous objection to the effect that Sh. Abdul Mughni whose name appears in the records may not be the father of the petitioner, merely because he is shown to be a resident of 1001/2, Ward No. XIII, Sheesh Mahal, which, according to the respondent, is not the address of the petitioner. This contention is devoid of any substance and appears to have been taken merely to cast baseless doubts. A perusal of the notice dated 06.08.1991, issued by the Assistant Custodian and placed at page no. 16 of Ex. RW-2/3, refers to Sh. Abdul Mughni as the son of Sh. Abdul Ghani. This fact clearly corroborates the petitioner's claim regarding his parentage and cannot be dismissed as a mere coincidence.
71. The raising of such unwarranted and speculative defences by the respondent appears to be a strategy to prolong the proceedings, particularly when no substantive or credible defence has been established against the petitioner's claim of ownership and landlordship. Additionally, the documents filed by RW-2 further indicate that at least, the properties bearing old municipal numbers 11555, 11556, 11557, 11558, 11559, 11560, 11562, 11563, and 11565, among others, were subsequently renumbered as 10115, the very premises respondent is admittedly in occupation of. These documents also record Sh. Abdul Mughni as the owner of the said properties, thereby further strengthening RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 39/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:32 +0530 the petitioner's case.
72. Respondent also claimed that MCD/defendant no.3 in the suit filed by her against Land & Building Department as well as the petitioner, has inter-alia averred that no separate municipal numbers have been issued to premises no. 11523-11533 till date. However, merely such statement of MCD that no corresponding municipal numbers were given to municipal premises i.e. 11523- 11533 does not help the respondent in any manner as admittedly, she is having possession in premises having municipal no. 10115 and perusal of written statement of MCD per se shows that such municipal numbers have various sub-numbers thereby discrediting the contentions of the respondent herself. Hence, Ex. RW-3/12 i.e. written statement of MCD does not aid the respondent in any manner to establish her defence.
73. The respondent has further sought to create ambiguity by contending that Ex. RW-1/1, comprising MCD records, reflects that property tax payments in respect of municipal premises Nos. 10115 to 10119 were made by one 'Sh. Abdul Muqran' or 'Sh. Abdul Muquir'. However, this argument is of little assistance to the respondent, as the same records also include property tax bills and receipts indicating that Sh. Abdul Mughni, s/o Sh. Abdul Ghani r/o 913, Sheesh Mahal, Delhi, had similarly made tax payments for the very same properties i.e., municipal Nos. 10115 to 10119. The existence of minor discrepancies or clerical variations in names particularly in public/municipality records cannot, in the absence of any RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 40/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:30 +0530 contrary evidence, be treated as conclusive proof discrediting the petitioner's claim. On the contrary, the consistency in the name, parentage, and address of Sh. Abdul Mughni across multiple documents, including the property tax receipts and survey reports brought on record by the respondent herself lends credibility to the petitioner's case to show his father as the owner. The respondent has failed to reconcile or substantiate her contention with any cogent explanation or evidence. Therefore, the said argument lacks merit and appears to be yet another attempt to cast unfounded doubt upon the ownership and landlordship of the petitioner.
74. It is pertinent to observe that the respondent has not produced a single document during the course of her evidence to demonstrate that either she or her predecessor-in-interest, Sh. Diwan Hira Nand, ever held any right, title, or interest in the tenanted premises, beyond that of a tenant. While the respondent has consistently denied the ownership and landlordship of the petitioner, she has miserably failed to clearly disclose the identity of the alleged true owner or her actual landlord, if any, in respect of the said premises. No rent agreement has been filed by the respondent, nor has she relied upon any rent receipts to substantiate her claim of tenancy under any third party. Her defence, for the most part, comprises vague denials of the petitioner's assertions regarding the ownership of his father over the tenanted premises. Such blanket denials, unsupported by any documentary or credible oral evidence, are insufficient to rebut the documentary evidence produced by the petitioner, which RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 41/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:34 +0530 collectively establishes his case under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
75. It is relevant to note that during her cross- examination, the respondent deposed, inter alia, that one Mr. Chaddha had permitted her grandfather-in-law, Sh. Hira Nand Diwan, to reside in the suit premises along with his family in the year 1949. Even if, for the sake of argument, this version is presumed to be correct, it is evident from the documents placed on record including those relied upon by the respondent herself that Mr. Chaddha of 'A.R. Chaddha & Co.' was, at best, a tenant under the petitioner's father, Sh. Abdul Mughni. Therefore, any permissive occupation by Sh. Hira Nand through Mr. Chaddha would not vest in him, or in the respondent, any independent or superior right in the property.
76. Further, during her cross-examination, the respondent admitted to using both municipal numbers 10115 and 10116 in relation to the premises in her occupation. However, in her written statement, she has consistently maintained that she is in possession only of property bearing municipal No. 10115. This discrepancy once again reflects the inconsistency in her version and an apparent attempt to improve her case by departing from the pleadings. Moreover, in response to a direct suggestion put to her during cross-examination as to whether Sh. Diwan Hira Nand was a tenant of property No. 10115/2, i.e., the tenanted premises, the respondent stated, "I cannot accept or deny that Sh. Diwan Hira Nand was a tenant of 10115/2." This evasive reply is RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 42/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:31 +0530 significant, particularly in view of her consistent denial of the existence of premises bearing No. 10115/2. Her reluctance to offer a clear denial at that significant stage further weakens her overall defense and raises serious doubts about the credibility of her testimony.
77. It is also pertinent to note that the respondent's version in her written statement has been that her predecessors-in-interest has remained in possession of the tenanted premises since the year 1949. However, during her cross-examination, she admitted that she has not filed any document showing possession prior to the year 1967. She admitted that the premises from where her clinic is being run was earlier being used as a residence. This fact aligns with the petitioner's case in the eviction petition, wherein it was averred that the premises was originally residential in nature when it was let out. Even though she has claimed that DDA is the owner of the tenanted premises, she admitted that she has never tendered any rent to DDA nor she has deposited the same in the court. She further admitted that DDA owns the property from 10120 to 10123 measuring 1000 sq. yards thus, adding strength to the petitioner's version that tenanted premises bearing no. 10115 is not owned by the DDA.
78. The relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant was observed in the order/judgment dated 05.10.2012 passed by Ld. Competent Authority (DUSIB) in a case filed by the petitioner against the respondent and other legal heirs of the original tenant under the Slum Areas (Improvement and RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 43/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:28 +0530 Clearance) Act, 1956. The respondent, during her cross- examination, stated that she has filed an appeal against such order, however, no such appeal or appellate court's order was brought on record by her throughout the trial. In the absence of any contrary adjudication, the findings of the Competent Authority recognizing the petitioner as the landlord remain unrebutted and further reinforces the petitioner's case.
79. The argument on behalf of the respondent that the present petition is bad for non-joinder of other legal heirs of Sh. Ganpat Rai Diwan is also found to be bereft of any merit. Such issue was dealt with during the trial by this court vide order dated 21.07.2016 whereby it was inter-alia observed that there is no need to implead other legal heirs of the deceased respondent no.1 i.e. wife of Sh. Ganpat Rai Diwan as they have all inherited as joint tenants and there is no legal requirement to implead all of them as party respondents.
80. In view of the documents placed on record by the parties, the oral and documentary evidence led during the trial, and the material admissions elicited during the cross-examination of the respondent, it stands clearly established that the petitioner is the owner of the tenanted premises for the purposes of the present petition. The petitioner has demonstrated a title superior to that of the respondent, who has failed to establish any independent or competing right over the said premises. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is also duly proved through the production of rent receipts, counterfoils, and other contemporaneous documents as discussed above, all of RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 44/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:30 +0530 which remained unrebutted in material particulars. Accordingly, both essential ingredients under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act namely, the petitioner's ownership of the tenanted premises and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, stands satisfactorily fulfilled.
Bonafide nature of the requirement disclosed by the petitioner & Availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner
81. These criteria shall be considered together as well. It is a well settled proposition of law that in a petition filed under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act, the bonafide nature of the requirement disclosed by the landlord has to be presumed, and the onus is upon the respondent/tenant to bring on record 'facts' within the meaning of Section 25-B(4) of DRC Act to refute this presumption. Reliance at this juncture can be placed upon the seminal pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Ahuja Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1998) 8 SCC 119]. It shall now be examined if the respondent has been able to bring on record any such 'facts' within the meaning of Section 25-B(4) to refute the presumption which arises in favour of the petitioner.
82. Bonafide requirement disclosed by the petitioner in the present petition is that the elder son of the petitioner Sh. Faizan Asif has been carrying out his business of fragrance and flavour creation under the name and style of 'M/s. Ranee Perfumers'. It is alleged that he is carrying out such business by RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 45/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:26 +0530 paying monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- for the premises at Shahzada Bagh, Inderlok. It is the case of the petitioner that the tenanted premises are required by the son of the petitioner for carrying out such business of his son at the tenanted premises.
83. Furthermore, petitioner has averred that he does not have any other reasonable or suitable accommodation for such business of his son in Delhi. For such purpose, the petitioner has relied upon the certificate issued in favour of his son Sh. Faizan Asif regarding completion of training in fragrance and flavour creation i.e. Ex.PW-1/7 and the rent agreement for the property taken by his son at Inderlok for running his business at a monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- i.e. Mark-A. He has also relied upon a registration certificate under DVAT and CST Act issued by department of Trade and Taxes i.e. Ex.PW-1/8, another rent agreement in favour of his son for a property at Village Badli, Delhi for a monthly rent of Rs.15,000/- i.e. Mark-B, registration certificate of establishment 'Ranee Perfumer' issued by Department of Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi i.e. Mark-Z and return verification form issued by Department of VAT, Govt. of NCT of Delhi i.e. Mark-Z1.
84. The need of the petitioner is opposed by the respondent by alleging that Sh. Faizan Asif is running his proprietorship 'Ranee Perfumers' from 912, Sheesh Mahal, Azad Market and the said fact has been disclosed by the petitioner's son on his website. In the replication filed to the written statement of the respondent no. 2, the petitioner has averred that such property no. 912-914, Sheesh Mahal, is the residential RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 46/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:28 +0530 address of the petitioner and his son Sh. Faizan Asif and as he wanted to start his business in the field of perfumes, the residential address was given on the website in the year 2012 for booking of a domain name and advertisement purpose. It is further stated that otherwise, he has started his business in the year 2013 at Inderlok after taking another premises on lease as no other property was available with the petitioner for such purpose.
85. Respondent has further alleged that petitioner has not disclosed regarding possession of all other properties conferred upon him and even as per the admitted compromise between his siblings, petitioner became owner of several properties as disclosed in para 20 of the written statement. In response thereto, petitioner has specifically averred that even though he became owner of several properties as stated in the compromise application, yet except his residential address i.e. 912-914, Sheesh Mahal, Azad Market, Delhi, all other properties are occupied by the tenants and sub-tenants of the petitioner. Hence, it is the version of the petitioner that no alternate, leave apart suitable, property is available to the petitioner for alleged bonafide need of his son.
86. In support of his contention that no suitable alternative accommodation is available to him, the petitioner has placed on record several rent receipts identified as Ex. PW-1/12 (along with their translated versions), originally in Urdu. These rent receipts pertain to various properties and have been filed to demonstrate that not only are other portions of the Katra in question (i.e., municipal No. 10115) in occupation of different RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 47/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:32 +0530 tenants, but that properties located at Gali Zamirwali, Nawab Ganj, Tokriwalan, Kucha Belamal, Naya Bans, and Chandrawal Road are also under various tenancies and not in the petitioner's possession and hence, not readily available.
87. This assertion made by the petitioner in his replication has remained uncontroverted throughout the trial. The respondent has failed to bring on record any credible or specific evidence, oral or documentary to establish that any of the properties mentioned in para 20 of her written statement are either vacant, available, or suitable for the petitioner's alleged requirement. No evidence in any form was brought on record to rebut such allegation of pre-occupation of alternative properties by other tenants. Furthermore, the respondent has merely contended that the petitioner has not disclosed the manner in which such other properties are being utilized. It is not even the respondent's case that these alternative properties are vacant or available to her knowledge, nor has she demonstrated that they are in fact suitable to meet the petitioner's alleged need. In the absence of any such proof, the petitioner's claim concerning the non- availability of alternative suitable accommodation stands substantiated and remains unshaken.
88. The respondent has relied upon one additional evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.RW-3/B. It is inter-alia stated by the respondent therein that certain portions shown in red colour and orange colour with green dots in the site plan Ex.RW-3/13 have got vacated by the petitioner from various RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 48/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:25 +0530 tenants. It is further stated that the portion shown in orange colour with green dots is surrendered by Narayan Devi @ Vinod Gupta in favour of the petitioner.
89. In view of the assertions made by the respondent regarding the alleged availability of alternate premises, certain portions of her cross-examination assume considerable significance. During her deposition, the respondent admitted that a crockery shop located at the backside of her clinic was vacated approximately 5-6 years ago and that some goods are presently stored therein. She further stated that one Kalamwale Sardarji and a member of the Gosai family had also vacated their respective shops; however, she admitted that these premises are merely being used for keeping certain goods and failed to disclose the name of any new tenant who may have occupied those portions during the pendency of the present petition.
90. More importantly, the respondent admitted that the tenanted premises are situated on the Library Road, which is a main road, thereby affirming the commercial and locational value of the tenanted premises. She also confirmed that the premises previously occupied by Kalamwale Sardarji, Gosai family, and Subhash Crockery are located inside the same Katra and hence, not on the main road. Further, the photographs placed on record as Ex. RW-3/X4, which the respondent acknowledged pertain to the portion occupied by the Gosai family, clearly depict that the said portion is in a severely dilapidated condition and not readily usable. The respondent's admissions, coupled with the lack of evidence showing that any of these vacated portions were re-let RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 49/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:26 +0530 or are suitable for use, significantly weakens her contention regarding the alleged availability of alternate accommodation. On the contrary, such testimony bolster the petitioner's case that the tenanted premises are bonafidely required and that no suitable alternative premises are available to him.
91. During her cross-examination, the respondent was confronted with rent receipts marked as Ex. RW-3/X3, pertaining to the portion occupied by AV Agency/Mr. Vinod Gupta, which clearly demonstrate that the said premises remain under tenancy and are not available to the petitioner. In response, the respondent claimed ignorance about these facts. This evasive response reinforces the conclusion that the respondent has failed to establish the existence of any vacant or suitable alternate accommodation for the petitioner.
92. The portions within the same Katra that the respondent has alleged to be vacant particularly in her additional affidavit cannot be treated as suitable alternative premises. It is pertinent to note that the tenanted premises are situated on the main road, i.e., Library Road, which the respondent herself has admitted during cross-examination. The strategic commercial location of the tenanted premises renders it far more viable and appropriate for the petitioner's asserted business needs. Considering that the petitioner's proposed use involves running a perfume business, where visibility, accessibility, and customer engagement through display may be essential, the suitability of a main road property cannot be equated with any internal or dilapidated portions located within the Katra. Therefore, the RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 50/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:26 +0530 respondent's claim that alternate space is available within the same Katra is not tenable in law or on facts.
93. The tenanted premises being situated on the main road, is undoubtedly best suited accommodation for the alleged need of the petitioner for carrying on business of his son. In the opinion of this Court, any other shop/space inside the katra in question cannot qualify as 'suitable' alternate accommodation. Here, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shiv Sarup Gupta Vs. Mahesh Chand Gupta [MANU/SC/0432/1999] are relevant to the controversy at hand and are reproduced below:
"14. The availability of an alternate accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to bonafides of the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such circumstance would enable the Court drawing an inference that the need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another principal ingredient of Clause (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14, which speaks of non-availability of any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied. Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as available than the court has to ask the landlord why he is not occupying such RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 51/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:31 +0530 other available accommodation to satisfy his need. The landlord may convince the court that the alternate residential accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist. Needless to say that an alternate accommodation, to entail denial of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his family members would be relevant factors. While considering the totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members, their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom they come." (emphasis supplied)
94. It is common knowledge that shops in respect of fragrance business and allied products as mentioned by the petitioner are preferred with display and showcase to the customers as it is more convenient for the shopkeeper to attract prospective customers. In a case, where the landlord wants to set up his business/office on the ground floor and facing towards the main road of the property as it is suitable for the business in question and easily accessible to the general public, neither the tenant nor the Court can dictate the landlord to use the upper floors or inner portions for conducting his business/office. The same is well settled position of law and also reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uday Shankar Vs. Naveen Maheshwari [(2010) 1 SCC 503].
95. The petitioner has specifically addressed the RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 52/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:28 +0530 assertions made by the respondent in paragraph 20 of her written statement by filing rent receipts Ex. PW-1/12 pertaining to the properties which the respondent has alleged to be alternatively available. Through these rent receipts, the petitioner has convincingly established that all such properties, which had come to his share pursuant to the compromise deed, are already let out to tenants and are neither vacant nor suitable to meet his bonafide requirement. In these circumstances, and in light of the petitioner's documentary evidence, the burden shifted upon the respondent to lead cogent and positive evidence to demonstrate that any of the said properties are, in fact, available and suitable to fulfill the petitioner's alleged need. However, the respondent has failed to discharge this burden during the trial. No credible material either in the form of photographs, documents or reliable oral testimony was brought on record to show that the petitioner is in possession of any other reasonably suitable accommodation.
96. In any event, it does not lie in the mouth of the tenant to dictate to his landlord as to whether need of the petitioner shall be satisfied from the space available to him simply for the reason that the petitioner/landlord is the best judge for his bonafide needs. Be that as it may, from comprehensive perusal of evidence led on record, it does not appear that the need expressed by the petitioner is not genuine or malafide. It is trite that the court would not unnecessarily make an endeavor to see as to how else the landlord can adjust himself in the tenanted premises and when a landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the court to draw a presumption that his requirement is bonafide. It is quite settled that suitability has to be seen from the convenience RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 53/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:33 +0530 of the landlord and the family members and on the basis of their circumstances including their profession, vocation, style of living, habits and background and in such circumstances, it is repeatedly held that landlord is the best judge of his requirement of the space for his/her own residence/business and tenant cannot dictate terms to the landlord to adjust in a particular manner.
97. The respondent has, inter alia, contended that the site plans placed on record by the petitioner Ex. PW-1/11 and Ex. PW-1/R3 do not accurately reflect the actual layout or position of the tenanted premises. However, the respondent has failed to demonstrate in what specific manner the said site plans are incorrect or inconsistent with the actual site. While the respondent has placed reliance on her own site plan i.e., Ex. RW-3/13, she has not been able to establish that the same offers a more accurate or reliable depiction of the tenanted premises than those filed by the petitioner. It is an admitted position that the tenanted premises bears municipal No. 10115 and is located on the main road, i.e., Library Road. This is also evident from a perusal of the site plans relied upon by the petitioner. Furthermore, the argument advanced by the respondent that the petitioner has deliberately attempted to split the tenancy for vested purposes is also found to be without merit. The respondent has failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that the premises known as 'Diwan Medical Centre' was ever let out under two separate tenancies in favour of her predecessor-in- interest. No rent agreement, rent receipt, or other record has been filed to show the dimensions or extent of the original tenanted premises. In the absence of such evidence, the respondent's RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 54/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:27 +0530 allegations appear to be speculative and are clearly aimed at creating confusion rather than rebutting the petitioner's case on merits.
98. From the evidence led on record, it becomes quite apparent that the need of the petitioner as alleged in the eviction petition is not malafide or fanciful and is quite genuine as it is his moral obligation to settle his son and provide him with a premises to carry out his business. Petitioner has successfully established on record that his son is carrying business from a premises obtained on lease. Further, in the considered opinion of this court, there is no other alternate or suitable accommodation available with the petitioner from where such need can be satisfied. Needless to say, that if petitioner fails to carry out his intention expressed in the petition after obtaining possession of tenanted premises, the respondent would be at liberty to avail her legal remedies under Section 19 of DRC Act. Furthermore, any other burden cannot be laid down on the petitioner at this stage to prove that he intends to utilize the property for the alleged need, as the same would render the intention of the legislature otiose.
99. This Court is of the considered opinion that no "facts" have been brought on record by the respondent to refute the claim of the petitioner that the requirement for the tenanted premises is bonafide. This criterion is hereby established. It also stands established that the petitioner does not have available any alternate accommodation for the requirement disclosed in the eviction petition.
RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 55/56 Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWALBHARAT AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:25:32 +0530 CONCLUSION:
100. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant eviction petition stands allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect of property no. 10115 (Pvt. No. 10115/2), Katra Tezab Mill, Library Road, Ward No. XII, Pul Bangash, Azad Market, Delhi-110006, more clearly delineated in red in the site plan Ex.PW-1/11 which is annexed with the eviction petition. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided u/s 14 (7) of DRC Act. Parties to bear their own costs.
101. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by BHARAT AGGARWAL BHARAT Date: AGGARWAL 2025.10.08 18:26:31 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Bharat Aggarwal) Today i.e. 08.10.2025 ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi
Present judgment consists of 56 pages and each page bears my initials. Digitally signed by BHARAT BHARAT AGGARWAL AGGARWAL Date:
2025.10.08 18:26:36 +0530 (Bharat Aggarwal) ACJ-cum-ARC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi 08.10.2025 RC ARC No. 478421/16 Mohd. Asif Vs. Vimal Prabha Diwan & Anr. Page No. 56/56