Delhi District Court
Rajmal Nolkha vs Ms Nannu Mal Sons on 30 March, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARJEET SINGH JASPAL , SCJ-
CUM-RC CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
RC/ARC NO. 480454/2016
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHRI RAJMAL NOLKHA (SINCE DECEASED)
THROUGH HIS LR SHRI RAJNISH NOLKHA ,
SON OF LATE SHRI RAJMAL NOLKHA
PRESENTLY RESIDENT OF F-3, FIRST FLOOR,
PLOT NO.186, GYAN KHAND 1, INDIRAPURAM,
GHAZIABAD-201010 (UP) ....Petitioner
VERSUS
M/S. NANNU MAL & SONS
1727-B/IV, DARIBA KALAN
DELHI-110006 ....Respondent
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.02.2016
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 13.03.2024
DATE OF DECISION : 30.03.2024
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF THE TENANT/
RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (E) READ WITH
SECTION 25-B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall decide and dispose off the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner Sh. Rajmal Nolkha, S/o- Late Chittarmal Nolkha under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 1 of 43 Act against the respondent M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons seeking its eviction from the tenanted premises on the ground of bonafide requirement.
2. The bonafide requirement of the petitioner is that he needs the tenanted premises in question for himself and for the family members, including his son who is already engaged in business of jewellery. It is worth mentioning here that in the course of the proceedings, the petitioner Rajmal Nolkha has expired and now it is prayed that the tenanted premises in question is needed for the bonafide requirement of the LRs of the petitioner i.e. his son Rajnish Nolkha and daughter-in-law Pooja Nolkha. The said demand is stated to be in consonance of original projected requirement i.e. the tenanted premises in question is needed for petitioner and his family members.
3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner, as per his petition, are as follows:-
i) That the petitioner is co-owner of the suit shop after the death of his wife (on 03.08.2014). The other co-owners are Rajnish Nolkha, Neelam Bohra, Ritu Chordia, Reena Chopra and Rajita Bhansali. It is submitted that none of the other co-owners have any objection in the filing of the eviction petition by the petitioner against the respondent.RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 2 of 43
ii) The tenanted premises in question was required for the bonafide use and occupation of the petitioner and after him for his LRs. It is submitted that the family of the petitioner is carrying on the business of Gold, Silver and Diamond ornaments from the residence situated in a Gali named Chhipiwara, Gali Guliyan near Jama Masjid, Delhi. It is stated that the residence of the petitioner is not an appropriate place for carrying on the business of Gold, Silver and diamond ornaments. The petitioner was well versed with the business of Gold, Silver and Diamond ornaments and after him even the LRs are equally capable, since the son and daughter-in-law are engaged in the same business.
iii) It is stated that previously too an eviction petition was filed qua the tenanted premises in question by late Smt. Prasanna Devi Nolkha, however, the same was dimissed in default on 08.01.2015, on account of death of Smt. Prasanna Devi Nolkha on 03.08.2014.
iv) It is averred that Smt. Prasanna Devi Nolkha used to carry business in a tenanted shop bearing No.19, Red Fort Bazar, Red Fort, Delhi in the name and style of "The Treasure House". Business of import and export of Jewellery and handicrafts used to be done by her from that place. The said shop no. 19 Municipal Market, Red RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 3 of 43 Fort Meena Bazar was on rent in the name of Late Smt. Prasanna Devi Nolkha for which rent of Rs.240/- was paid by her to Archaeological Survey of Delhi Circle Red Fort, which is reflected in one of the rent receipt issued in the name of the treasure house of whose proprietor was Smt. Prasanna Devi Nolkha.
v) It is averred that the LRs of the petitioner are not having any other alternative suitable shop for carrying on their business i.e. the business of the sale and purchase of Gold, Silver and Diamond Jewellery coupled with the business of export and import of jewellery and handicrafts. The need is projected to be genuine and bonafide and as such the LRs of the petitioner are entitled to get the respondent evicted from the suit shop enabling them to run the said business from tenanted premises in question.
vi) That Late Smt. Prasanna Devi Nolkha, vide registered sale deed dated 15.07.1989 purchased property bearing No. IV/2432 Chah Rahat, Gali Guliyan, Jama Masjid, Delhi from Smt. Sushila Devi Jain video document no. 4375, Volume No. 5128 pages 100 to 105 dated 24.07.1989.
vii) That the suit shop was purchased by Late Smt. Prasanna Devi Nolkha on 10.06.1993 from Sh. Virender Kishore Jain, Sh. Satinder Kishore Jain vide registered sale deed documents No. 3690, RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 4 of 43 Addl. Book No. 3, Vol. No. 6191 pages 76 to 85 dated 10.06.1993.
viii) It is averred that Smt. Prasanna Devi Nolkha, through the aforesaid sale deed purchased three shops on the ground floor bearing No.1727 A, 1727 B and 1728. It is further submitted that the petitioner purchased the upper floors of the three shops which portions/property are not conducive, appropriate and good for the purpose of running business of Gold, Silver and Diamond Jewellery as well as the business of export and import. As such the ground floor of the tenanted premises in question is required bonafide for the aforesaid use and occupation.
ix) Late Smt. Prasanna Devi Nolkha sold one shop, out of the three shops on 28.04.1999 to Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain, Anil Kumar Jain and Dharnender Kumar Jain. A copy of the sale deed of the sold shop No. 1727A, Dariba Kalan, Delhi is on record.
x) It is, therefore, prayed that an eviction order may be passed in favour of the LRs of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Shop No. 1727 B IV, Dariba Kalan, Main Road, Chandi Chowk, Delhi, more particularly shown in red in the site plan marked A, B, C, D.
4. On the receipt of notice of the petition in the form RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 5 of 43 prescribed in the third Schedule of DRC Act, the respondent appeared before the Court and applied for leave to defend. The said liberty was granted to the respondent by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 02.07.2018. The contextually relevant portion of the said order is being reproduced hereunder:-
11. Reverting back to the facts of present case, I find that in the petition, petitioner has stated that he requires shop in question for carrying out business of gold, silver and diamond jewellery and also artificial jewellery. It is not the case that as on date petitioner is not running said business as he himself stated in his petition that he is carrying out business of gold, silver and diamond ornaments from his residence, situated in gali namely Chhipi Wara, Gali Guliyan, near Jama Masjid, Delhi. He explained that his said residence is not appropriate place for carrying on the business of gold, silver and diamond ornaments. In such situation, where his bonafide need is challenged by respondent it becomes a triable issue, as to why petitioner is finding his residence not appropriate for running the business of gold, silver and diamond ornaments. It becomes all the more relevant, when petitioner in his reply to application for leave to defend, stated that he wants to expand his said business. Now the aspect of expansion of his business, is such that it needs to be tested on the touchstone of evidence so that this court can conclude that it is the bonafide need of petitioner and not his mere desire.RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 6 of 43
12. Coupled with the same, availability and nonavailability of shop no. 1728, at ground floor, Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi6, is such that it needs trial.
13. Lastly, it remains to be appreciated, as to how petitioner wants to utilize shop in question when he is running his business from his property at Chhipi Wara and from his tenanted shop no.19, Red Fort Bazar, Red Fort, Delhi.
5. Thereafter, a written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent.
6. In his written statement, opposing the petition, it is submitted that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed, the following preliminary objections were raised by the respondent:-
i) That the present suit is the subsequent suit and is, therefore, barred by law, on account of res-judicata. It was pointed out that previously too a suit was filed by Late Smt. Prasanna Nolkha on the same ground and the same was dismissed in default.
ii) That the suit property was owned by the former petitioner Smt. Prasanna Naulakha who died on 03-08-2014 leaving behind no Will/Gift and, therefore, the present petitioner is not an absolute owner, as after the death of Smt. Prasanna Naulakha, the following were become the co-parceners and co-owners in the RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 7 of 43 undivided suit property:-
(a) Shri Rajmal Naulakha (Husband)
(b) Shri Rajnish Naulakha (Son)
(c) Smt. Neelam Bohra (Daughter)
(d) Smt. Ritu Chordia (Daughter)
(e) Smt. Reena Chopra (Daughter); and
(e) Smt. Rajita Bhansali (Daughter)
iii) It is stated that each one of above had 1/6th undivided share in the suit property, however, Shri Rajnish Naulakha, Smt. Neelam Bohra, Smt. Ritu Chordia, Smt. Reena Chopra and Smt. Rajita Bhansali could not have renounced or relinquished their undivided share in the property in favour of Shri Rajmal Naulakha as individual. It is stated that the suit property still belongs to HUF and not to Shri Rajmal Nulakha as petitioner herein, therefore, the present case is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone also.
iv) That the respondent is regularly paying rent and is in no default whatsoever.
v) It is averred that besides this, the petitioner is having several alternate accommodations and the same can be used by the petitioner/his LRs, if the need is bonafide.RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 8 of 43
vi) That the petitioner/LRs rare in occuption of property at Chippiwara, Jama Masjid, Delhi-06, wherein they have 3 shops on the ground floor and therefore the avered requirement can be fulfilled from the said three shops and the petitioner's stand that a customer cannot reach there with his car and cannot reach alone is totally false.
vii) That Late Smt. Prasanna Nolakha had sold out one shop No.1727A out of the three shops to Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar Jain, and Dharnender kumar Jain on 28-04-1999, which depicts that late Smt. Prasanna Nolakha did not require the suit property bonafide and the same is the case with the present petitioner/LRs.
viii) That the petitioner has falsely claimed that the first and second floor over the above said three shops bearing no.1727A, 17278 and 1728, are not appropriate for running the said business and has falsely alleged that the said property is infested with the tenants but the facts is that there is separate stairs at one side of the shops to ascend upper floors.
ix) That the petitioner also have several alternative commercial accommodation/shops at property no. 1972-73 in Katra Khushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi 06, which shops/property the petitioner had not disclosed deliberately in his RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 9 of 43 pleadings for the malafide intention.
7. A replication was also filed by the petitioner to the WS of the respondent wherein the averments of the WS were refuted and the claim of the petitioner was reiterated. It was pointed out that the respondent has taken new pleas in the written statement, beyond the pleadings in the leave to defend.
8. Upon completion of pleadings, the matter was fixed for petitioner's evidence.
9. During petitioner's evidence, the petitioner has examined total 10 (ten) witnesses. The list of PWs is as under:-
i) PW-1 Sh. Rajmal Naulakha, PW-2 Sh. Satbir, PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar Rana, PW-4 Sh.
Dinesh Kumar, PW-5 Sh. Kuldeep Rana, PW-6 Ram Kishan Verma, PW-7 Sh. Praveen Kumar Rana, PW-8 Sh. Satish Sharma, PW-9 Ms. Pooja and PW-10 Sh. Rajnish Nolkha.
10. Before proceeding further, I deem appropriate to take on record a gist of the testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses.
a) PW-1 is the petitioner himself, who appeared in the RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 10 of 43 witness box and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has relied upon the following documents:-
i) Ex.PW1/1 : Eviction petition.
ii) Ex.PW1/2: Title deed of Chippiwara property.
iii) Ex.PW1/3: Title deed of three shops.
iv) Ex.PW1/4: Sale deed of first and second floor over three shops.
v) Ex.PW1/5: House Tax Receipts and Mutation Letter in the name of Prassna Devi (colly.).
vi) Ex.PW1/6: Document of the property 19, Lal Qila Shop, issued by Land & Estate Department of MCD, North.
vii) Ex.PW1/7: Rent receipts
viii) Ex.PW1/8: Already exhibited as Ex.PW1/4.
ix) Ex.PW1/9: Sale Deed of three shops in the name of Ms. Prasanna Devi.
x)Ex.PW1/10: Sale Deed by Ms. Prassana Devi of one shop.
a1). His testimony is on the lines of the eviction petition.
b) PW-2 Sh. Satbir, LDC, Land & Estate Department, North DMC is a summoned witness, who deposed that Shop No. 19, Lal Quila Market is under the department of Archeology Survey of RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 11 of 43 India.
c). PW-3 Sh. Praveen Kumar Rana, UDC, O/o Sub-
Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, being summoned witness, produced the following records:-
1. Record pertaining to Sale Deed dated 15.07.1989 of property no. IV/2432, Chhipiwada, Delhi, registered on 24.07.1989, has been transferred to Department of Delhi Archives, GNCT of Delhi, 18-A, Satsand Vihar Marg, Special Institutional Area, New Delhi.
2. Record pertaining to Sale Deed dated 10.06.1993 of Shop No. 1727A, 1727B, 1728 and 1729, Main Dariba Kalan, dated 10.06.1993, has been transferred to Department of Delhi Archives, GNCT of Delhi, 18-A, Satsand Vihar Marg, Special Institutional Area, New Delhi.
3. Complete details of requisite document Le.
Sale Deed 23.04.1999 in respect of Shop No. 1727A, Dariba Kalan, Delhi, has not been furnished to this department.
4. Record pertaining to Sale Deed dated 10.06.1993 in respect of Shop No.1727A, 1727B, 1728 and 1729, has also been transferred to RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 12 of 43 Department of Delhi Archives, GNCT of Delhi, 18-A, Satsand Vihar Marg, Special Institutional Area, New Delhi.
5. The document in this regard issued by Sub-
Registrar-I, is marked asEx.PW2/1.
d). PW-4 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, JJA, Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts, being summoned witness, produced the following records:
1) Record of case bearing No. E-187/2013 decided on 08.01.2018.
e). PW-5 Sh. Kuldeep Rana, JSA, Estate Office, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Civic Centre, being summoned witness, brought the record of shop No.19 Red Fort, from Estate Office of North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Civic Centre. As per him, an eviction case was filed against Prasnna Devi (Treasurer House) for eviction of the shop in question and according to record, it was disposed off in the year 2003, at present, there is no case pending regarding shop no. 19, Red Fort, against the tenant.
f). PW-6 Ram Kishan Verma, Billing Clerk, ZRO Office, Pratap Nagar, Delhi Jal Board, being summoned witness, brought the RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 13 of 43 record of property no. 2432, Chippiwara, Gali Guliyan, Jama Masjid, Delhi and stated that as per the record, there were three domestic water connections and out of them, two have been disconnected and one is continuing in the name of Prasanna Devi. The copy of record history of said disconnected connections are marked as Ex.PW6/1 & Ex.PW6/2. Copy of record history of said presently running water connection is marked as Ex.PW6/3.
g). PW-7 Sh. Praveen Kumar Rana, UDC, O/o Sub-
Registrar 1, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, was a summoned witness, however, he did not bring the relevant record and deposed that the relevant record has been deposited with Delhi Archives.
h). PW-8 Sh. Satish Sharma, APO, BSES, Town Hall, Near Mewa Hotel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, being summoned witness, brought the following records:-
1). Record of electricity bills pertaining to H. No. 2432, Chippliwara, Gali Guliyan, Jama Masjid, Delhi, in the name of Smt. Prasanna Devi, W/o-
Rajmal Nolkha.
2. As per him, there are three electric domestic connections in the name of Smt. Prasanna Devi.
He proved the documents Ex.PW8/1 to
Ex.PW8/3.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 14 of 43
i) PW-9 Ms. Pooja, W/o Sh. Rajnish Nolkha, tendered her
evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW9/A and proved document Ex.PW9/1 to Ex.PW9/6. In her affidavit, she has stated that she is a proprietor of a jewellery business, in the name and style of Pooja Arts, which is being run from the residential address of Chippiwara and that she, alongwith her husband, needs the tenanted premises in question for the said jewellery business.
j) PW-10 Sh. Rajnish Nolkha, S/o Sh. Rajmal Nolkha, tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW10/A and proved document Ex. PW-10/1 and Ex.PW10/2.
11. All the witnesses of the petitioners were duly cross- examined by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
12. Upon conclusion of PE, due opportunity was granted to the respondent to lead evidence. The respondent examined two witnesses.
13. RW-1 is Nirmal Kumar Jain and RW-2 is Sh. Mahender, Record Keeper.
14. Before proceeding further, I deem appropriate to take on record a gist of testimony of the respondent's witnesses:
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 15 of 43a). RW-1 is Nirmal Kumar Jain, who is the proprietor of the respondent firm i.e. Nanumal Jain & Sons. His deposition is on the lines of the WS and he proved the following documents.
(1) Copy of summons alongwith documents of former suit bearing no.E-187/2013 titled as Smt. Prasanna Naulakha Vs. M/s. Nannumal Jain & Sons is Mark-A. (2) Copy of Court Cash Receipt dated 01.06.2013 passed in DR bearing no.329/2013 for the period of 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2014 is Mark-B. (3) Copy of Court Cash Receipt dated 23.04.2014 passed in DR bearing no.380/2014 for the period of 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2016 is Mark-C. (4) Photographs of property bearing no.1972-73 in Katra Kushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Chandani Chowk, Delhi-110006 are Mark-D (Colly.) (5) Copy of registered Sale Deed dated 12.09.2014 having Regn. No.8247 in Book No.1, Volume No.5476 on pages 183 to 192 registered on 15.09.2014 before Sub-Registrar-I, Delhi of half undivided share portion on ground floor RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 16 of 43 (except four shops on ground floor) and entire first floor second floor with its roof upto sky forming part of property no.1972 to 1973, Katra Kushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 is Mark-E. (5) Copy of registered Sale Deed dated 02.06.2016 of property bearing Reg. No.8247 in Book No.1, Volume No.5476 on pages 183 to 192 registered on 15.09.2014 before Sub-Registrar-I, Delhi of half undivided share of four shops bearing no.4,5,6 and 7 on ground floor and entire first floor, entire second floor with its roof rights upto sky forming part of property no.1972 to 1973, Katra Kushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 is Mark-F. (6) Copy of registered Sale Deed dated 29.07.2015 of half undivided share only one shop on ground floor upto ceiling without any roof rights forming part of property no.1972 to 1973, Katra Kushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 is Mark-G. (7) Copy of Sale Deed dated 18.08.2017 of one shop private no.7, on ground floor without roof/terrace right forming part of property RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 17 of 43 no.1972 to 1973, Ward No.V, Katra Kushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 is Mark-H. (8) Copy of Sale Deed dated 23.08.2017 of one shop private no.4, on ground floor without roof/terrace right forming part of property no.1972 to 1973, Ward No.V, Katra Kushal Rai, Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 is Mark-I. a1) He has relied upon the documents i.e. photographs of the shop, as shown in yellow colour in the site plan, of different dates, which are Ex.PW1/R1 and Ex.RW1/R11.
b. RW-2 Sh. Mahender, Record Keeper, From the office of Sub- Registrar-I, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, being summoned witness, brought the following record:-
a) Ex.RW2/1 is sale deed dated 12.09.2014.
b) Ex.RW2/2 is sale deed dated 02.06.2016.
c) Ex.RW2/3 is sale deed dated 29.07.2015.
d) Ex.RW2/4 is sale deed dated 18.08.2017.
e) Ex.RW2/5 is sale deed dated 23.08.2017.RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 18 of 43
15. After completion of the respondent's evidence, the matter was taken to the stage of final arguments. Ample opportunity was granted to both the parties to argue the matter.
16. It was argued by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that by way of the testimonies of the petitioner's witnesses and by way of documents placed on record, the petitioner has successfully proved his case i.e. his bonafide requirement on the scales of preponderance of probabilities. It was argued further that the tenanted premises in question is needed for the bonafide requirement of the LRs of the deceased petitioner and that no suitable alternate accommodation is available with the said LR to satisfy the projected need.
17. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner argued further that the concept of res-judicata is not applicable to a petition u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act. As per him, the respondent has admitted the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and has not pleaded any plausible material which would disentitle the claim of the LRs of the petitioner, or which would challenge the bonafides thereof.
18. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the present matter be disposed off on following grounds:-
i) That the petitioner has expired and after him the 'requirement' also does not survive.RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 19 of 43
ii) That the petitioner/LRs are not absolute owner of the tenanted premises in question and therefore the present eviction petition is bad in law.
iii) The present eviction petition is barred by res-judicata on account of previously instituted litigation between the parties, qua tenanted premises in question.
iv) That the projected need of the petitioners is not bonafide.
v) That the petitioners/LRs have sufficient alternate accommodations, in form of three shops at Chippiwara and another shop adjacent to tenanted premises in question.
vi) That the petitioner has two shops in Kinari Bazar, Chandni Chowk.
vii) That the son of the petitioner is already running a shop at Red Fort.
viii) That in the year 2019 the petitioner has sold a shop adjacent to the tenanted premises in question, which shows that the projected need is not real.
ix) That the petitioner has failed to prove his expertise/experience/the required capital to start the business of jewellery.
19. Having heard the Ld. Counsels for both the sides and having perused the entire record, including the authorities filed by both the sides, I shall now proceed to decide the matter on its merits.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 20 of 4320. The present petition is an eviction petition filed under Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act, whereby the petitioner is seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of bonafide need. Hence, before proceedings to appreciate the contentions of the contesting parties in the light of evidence lead during the trial, it is appropriate to reproduce the bare provision of Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act. It reads as under;-
"14. Protection of tenant against eviction, - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by and court or Controller in favor of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely:-
(a) ***
(b)***
(c)***
(d)***
(e) That the premises are required bona fide by the RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 21 of 43 landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation;
Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause, "premises let for residential purpose" include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, without the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;"
21. In order to establish the grounds for eviction of the tenant/respondent under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the petitioner must establish the following essentials, viz.
i)Landlord - tenant relationship between the parties; and
ii)Petitioner requires the premises bonafide for himself, or for any member of his family dependent upon him; and
iii)That the petitioner does not have any other reasonable alternate suitable accommodation.
22. For appropriate adjudication, I shall proceed to critically analyze each of the aforesaid three ingredients/requirements individually, however, even before that it needs to be seen whether by RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 22 of 43 the death of the petitioner, the cause of action for the present eviction petition has abated, as has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent. It also needs to be seen that if the matter at hand is barred by res judicata.
23. It is a thumping argument of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that in the matter at hand, eviction was sought by citing the bonafide requirement of the petitioner Sh. Rajmal Naulakha, however, the petitioner himself has expired the requirement does not survive and therefore, the present eviction petition should be disposed off as dismissed.
24. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that originally too the petition was filed for the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and his son and other family members. Even otherwise, as per the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has died after many years of long litigation and therefore, no prejudice should be caused to him/LRs on account of system's slow pace.
25. It has been observed in plethora of cases, by the Hon'ble Constitutional Courts that the 'requirement' of the landlord has to be seen by keeping in mind the fact that the need of the family is never RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 23 of 43 static, family members keep changing, there are births and deaths. Reference is made to observations in Jagdish Chandra Gulati Vs. Kanta Devi, 1996 (36) DRJ 654.
26. At this juncture, I deem appropriate to refer the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kedarnath Aggarwal (Dead) Vs. Dhanraji Devi (Dead), (2004) 8 SCC 76, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court said as under:
"In our opinion, by not taking into account the subsequent event, the High Court has committed an error of law and also an error of jurisdiction. In our judgment, the law is well settled on the point, and it is this:
The basic rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the date of institution of the suit or proceedings and the suit/action should be tried at all stages on the cause of action as it existed at the commencement of the suit/action. This, however, does not mean that events happening after institution of a suit/proceedings, cannot be considered at all. It is the power and duty of the court to consider changed circumstances. A court of law may take into account subsequent events inter alia in the following circumstances:
(i) The relief claimed originally has by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or
(ii) It is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in the order to shorten litigation; or RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 24 of 43
(iii) It is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice between the parties".
27. In Sakuntala Bai & Ors. VS. Narayan Dass & Ors., (2004) 5 SCC 772, it was held that the death of the landlord during the pendency of the proceedings will not make difference to the heirs. The similar view was expressed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ramesh Chand Vs. Uganti Devi, 2008 (2) RCR (Rent) 567.
28. The question that arises before the court is whether the death of the petitioner will cause the proceedings to fail and that is to say whether the death of the petitioner in itself is a ground to dismiss the eviction petition. In the considered opinion of this court, the answer is resounding 'NO'.
29. To begin with, it is absolutely necessary to mention herein that in the eviction petition itself, the petitioner has mentioned that the tenanted premises in question is needed for the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and his son i.e. Rajnish Naulakha and other family members. The son is very much alive. In the evidence even the daughter-in-law has deposed that she too wishes to use the tenanted premises in questions, alongwith her husband. With the same in mind, it cannot be said that 'the need' does not survive.
30. At this juncture, I deem appropriate to refer to the RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 25 of 43 observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gaya Prasad Vs. Pradeep Srivastva, (2001) 2 SCC 604.
"The judicial tardiness, for which unfortunately our system has acquired notoriety, causes the lis to creep through the line for long long years from the start to the ultimate termini, is a malady afflicting the system. During this long interval many many events are bound to take place which might happen in relation to the parties as well as the subject- matter of the lis. If the cause of action is to be submerged in such subsequent events on account of the malady of the system it shatters the confidence of the litigant, despite the impairment already caused".
31. The landlord/original petitioner died during the pendency of the present petition, more precisely, after years of litigation; the question that arises here is whether any negligence/mistake/lack of bonafides can be imputed upon the landlord, the answer would be again a resounding NO.
32. If any one is to be blamed, it is slow pace of system, eventually every one will die and cause of action cannot be allowed to be defeated on account of the system which failed to deliver results in time, by reasons of its pace only. A person cannot be prejudiced on account of something which is nobody's fault.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 26 of 4333. Next, the question qua the bar of res judicata needs to be decided.
34. As per the Ld. Counsel for the respondent since the eviction petition qua the tenanted premises in question was filed previously too and since the said eviction petition was dismissed in default, the present eviction petition is barred by the rule of res judicata.
35. What is res judicata need not be reiterated.
36. One of the maxims which governs all judicial or quasi- judicial proceedings is nemo debet his vexari prouna et eadem causa, i.e. no man should be vexed twice over the same cause of action. The provisions contained in Section 11, Order II Rule 2 etc. are, inter alia, the various manifestations of the same maxim.
37. It is trite law that if an earlier petition under Section 14(1)(e) is dismissed, then a 2nd application under Section 14(1)(e) for a subsequent genuine requirement is not barred by res judicata.
38. If any ejectment suit is dismissed in default, the tenant does not become tenant in perpetuity, nor does he become owner of RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 27 of 43 the tenanted premises. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in AIR 2008 (Delhi) 110.
39. In plethora of cases, it has been held by the Hon'ble Higher Courts that once the question of necessity is decided against the plaintiff it cannot be assumed that he will not have a bona fide and genuine need ever in future. A landlord who fails earlier on the ground of personal requirement, can file another petition on the same ground on change of circumstances. If the landlord's claim is genuine, he cannot be denied relief.
40. Thus, it is clear that eviction petition on the ground of bonafide requirement is not barred by res judicata. If an eviction petition is dismissed in default still the landlord is entitled to file fresh proceedings, the same is the case in the matter at hand, ergo, the court finds no force in argument of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
Landlord-tenant relationship
41. Even though, the respondent herein has argued that the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the tenanted premises in question, the respondent herein has not disputed the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 28 of 4342. The respondent has admitted the title of the wife of the petitioner Smt. Prasanna Devi Nolkha, over the tenanted premises in question and has further admitted that the petitioner herein Sh. Rajmal Naulakha and his son Sh. Ranish Naulakha are co-owners of the tenanted premises in question. With the said admission in the background, the argument that the petitioner is not the absolute owner of the tenanted premises and he is only a co-owner, is of no value.
43. It is settled law that the tenant cannot question the title of co-owners. In the matter at hand, the tenancy has been admitted. It is also admitted that the present petitioner is the co-owner of the property in question, in such situation there are no merits in saying that being a 'co-owner only', the petitioner cannot initiate eviction proceedings.
44. A landlord can be said to be the owner if he is entitled in his own legal right as distinguished from, and on behalf of someone else, to evict the tenant and then to retain, control, hold and use the premises for himself. In a landlord-tenant dispute, the owner is one who has better rights than that of the tenant and it is not incumbent upon him to prove beyond shadow of doubt that he is the owner of the property as he is contesting a suit challenging his title. Reliance is placed on Sheela & Ors. Vs. Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, (2002) 3 SCC SCC 375/ AIR 2002 SC 1264.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 29 of 4345. It is trite law that the landlord has only to show that he is one who has right to exclude everyone holding a lesser title than him. Reliance is placed on MM Quasim Vs. Manohar Lal, AIR 1981 SC 1113.
46. In light of the aforesaid discussion, it can be said that there exists a jural relationship of landlord-tenant between the parties. Accordingly, the first requirement stands satisfied in favour of the petitioner/LR and against the respondent.
Bonafide requirement
47. At this juncture, it is necessary to understand what exactly is meant by a 'bonafide' requirement.
48. The phrase 'required bonafide' is suggestive of legislative intent that a mere desire which is outcome of whims or fancy is not taken note of by the rent control legislation. A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a sincere, honest desire, in contradistinction with a mere pretense or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 30 of 4349. The question to be asked for deciding the bonafide by a judge of facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer is in positive, the need is bonafide. The concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
50. The Court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his need.
51. The full bench of Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh distinguished between the genuine requirement and the reasonable requirement. It was held in case of Damodar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Nandram Deviram that:
"It is wrong to say that "genuinely requires" is the same as "reasonably requires." There is distinction between the two phrases. The former phrase refers to a state of mind; the later to an objective standard. "Genuine requirement" would vary according to the idiosyncrasy of the individual and the time and RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 31 of 43 circumstances in which he lives and thinks. Reasonable requirement belong to the "knowledge of the law" and means reasonable not in the mind of the person requiring the accommodation but reasonable according to the actual facts. In my opinion, in this part of section 4(g), the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises. His claim would no doubt fall if the court came to the conclusion that the evidence of "want" was unreliable and that the landlord did not genuinely intend to occupy."
52. In the matter at hand, the need projected by the petitioner, in the eviction petition, was that the petitioner and his son required the tenanted premises in question for starting jewellery business. It was asserted heavily that the father-son duo is already having knowledge and expertise of jewellery business since a shop of artificial jewellery is being run at Lal Qila.
53. The petitioner has expired. The son of the petitioner, who has actively pursued the present matter now requires the tenanted premises in question for the same purpose i.e. for the jewellery business. It is also averred before the court that the wife of the son of the petitioner i.e. Smt. Pooja Naulakha is also actively involved in the RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 32 of 43 business of import and export and she too would man the tenanted premises in question, alongwith her husband.
54. It is admitted case of both the sides that tenanted premises in question is situated in Sarafa Bazar i.e. a recognized market, which is largely famous for gold and silver jewellery and activities ancillary thereto. The projected need is also qua the business of gold and silver jewellery. It is worth mentioning here that currently too the respondent is doing the same business in the tenanted premises in question.
55. Whereas the respondents have not denied that the son of the petitioner is already engaged in similar business of artificial jewellery at Lal Qila, it is disputed that he has any further requirement i.e. the tenanted premises in question is needed for additional shop. It is the argument of the respondents that the son of the petitioner cannot look after businesses at two places and, therefore, the projected need is not bonafide.
56. Having heard the submissions and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the requirement projected by the petitioner is bonafide. By way of evidence on record i.e. the testimony of the PWs and the corresponding documents, the RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 33 of 43 petitioner/the son of the petitioner have successfully demonstrated before the court, on the scale of preponderance of probability, that the tenanted premises in question is needed for the aforesaid business of gold and silver jewellery.
57. The arguments put forth by the respondent that the son of the petitioner cannot look after business at two places cannot be held to be meritorious. If that is to be believed, there is no scope of expansion of business; a man can never expand his business by way of multiple offices/outlets/ventures; which definitely is not the case. Merely because a person is engaged into one venture or activity does not mean that he cannot start another business/activity/venture for better financial gains in future. Freedom as to trade and business is not only a fundamental right, it also is a natural desire of any businessman. A person can start a business activity or a venture and can hire skilled persons for effective management/assistance. In economics, it is generally said that there are four factors of production i.e. land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship; wherein no one factor can be called superior to other. In the present case as well, the petitioner wants to put in his capital, his entrepreneurial skills and land i.e. tenanted premises in question to start a venture, dealing in gold and silver jewellery, in a place which otherwise is famous for jewellery articles. Taking the whole background in mind, there is no reason for the court to doubt the bonafides of the projected need.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 34 of 43Apart from harping upon the fact that the petitioner is having other shop and is also engaged in silver business from his house at Chippiwara, no other ground is pleaded to disbelieve or doubt the projected need. No evidence has been lead which could successful show, on the scale of preponderance of probabilities, that the projected need is not bonafide.
58. Time and again, it has been held by higher constitutional courts that it is the prerogative of the landlord as to how he wants to use his property and the tenant cannot dictate terms.
59. Qua question of expertise and experience to run the business as projected, it is the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that the petitioners have not proved expertise and experience. There is no merit in the said argument, as in M/s. Adarsh Electricals & Ors. Vs. Dinesh Dayal, 25.10.2010, RC Rev. No. 195/2010 and CM No. 14898/2010", the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that tenant cannot question the qualification of the landlord.
60. In the considered opinion of this court, under the term bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, the landlord is made the sole arbiter of his own requirements but he must prove that he, in fact, wants and genuinely intends to occupy the premises. In the matter at hand, the petitioner in the eviction petition, in clear RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 35 of 43 and unequivocal terms has mentioned about his requirements. It is not only the "mere desire" of the petitioner/his son to get the premises vacated but he needs the same for above stated requirements i.e. for starting of a business of gold and silver jewellery. The pleas made by the respondents appear to be bald pleas unsupported by any plausible evidence, so as to dislodge the case of the petitioner.
61. No material has been brought on record and no proof has been made by the tenant by any positive material that the demand of the petitioner is neither genuine nor bona fide or reasonable but a mere excuse to get rid of the tenant. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents failed to point any material inconsistencies etc. in the course of the cross-examination of the petitioner's witnesses and therefore this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner/LRs have successfully pleaded that the need projected is bonafide.
62. At the cost of repetition, it is again specified here that the question to be asked for deciding the bonafide, by a judge of facts, is by placing himself in the place of the landlord, is, whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If the answer is in positive, the need is bonafide. The concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 36 of 4363. In the matter at hand, having in mind the aforementioned discussion, it can be said that the scales of justice are tilting in favour of the petitioner.
Availability of the alternate suitable accommodation.
64. It has been argued by the respondents that the petitioner already has three shops on the ground floor of the residence at Chippiwara, one shop adjacent to the tenanted premises in question, shop No.19 at Red Fort Market and another commercial property at Kinari Bazar.
65. Each of these properties will be discussed individually for effective adjudication.
Three shops at Chippiwara & shop adjacent to the tenanted premises in question
66. It is averred by the respondent that there are three shops on the ground floor of the house of the petitioner and the same can be used as a suitable alternate accommodation qua the projected need. As per the respondent, the said property at Chippiwara and the tenanted premises in question are separated by a distance of a few hundred meters only and, therefore, the said property at Chippiwara is an ideal alternate.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 37 of 4367. The petitioners have denied the aforesaid and have pleaded that there are rather three rooms at the ground floor.
68. Furthermore, as per the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner, the property at Chippiwara is the residence of the petitioner and the same cannot be confused with a place of business, for it is every person's desire to have a clear demarcation between 'home' and office.
69. Similarly, it is pleaded on behalf of the respondent that the shop adjacent to the tenanted premises in question is lying vacant and similarly the same can be used by the petitioner.
70. The same has been denied by the petitioner and it has been stated that the said shop bearing No. 1728 is under tenancy and the name of the tenant is Vineet Seth.
71. At this juncture, having heard both the sides, I deem appropriate to first refer to the testimony of PW-10 Rajnish Nolakha i.e. the son of the petitioner. In the course of the cross-examination, the said witness was categorically asked about the aforementioned property at Chippiwara and the said adjacent shop bearing No.1728.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 38 of 4372. Whereas PW-10 specifically replied that shop No.1728 is under tenancy of one Vineet Seth and that there are no shops at the residential property at Chippiwara, rather there are rooms on the ground floor. Against the said reply, there is no specific suggestion to the contrary by the Ld. Counsel for the respondent, it has not been controverted by way of contrary suggestion. There is no suggestion to say that the said witness is deposing falsely qua the tenancy of shop No.1728 and qua absence of shops in Chippiwara property.
73. Furthermore, the respondents have averred that the floors above the tenanted premises in question are also lying vacant and are in possession of the petitioner and the same can be used as an alternate to tenanted premises in question. I find no merit in the said submissions as tenanted premises in question, being on ground floor, in the Sarafa Market, is more viable, both in terms of economics and in terms of ease of access, in comparison to the upper floors. Time and again it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court that tenant cannot dictate terms and ultimate choice is that of the landlord.
Shop No.19 Red Fort Market
74. The testimony of PW-2 and PW-5 make abundantly clear that shop No.19, Lal Qila market, is under Archaeological Survey of India and is not owned by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the petitioners have clearly stated that the said market at Lal Qila is a RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 39 of 43 market for handicrafts and artificial jewellery and is not suited for gold and silver jewellery business. In absence of any evidence to the contrary by the respondent, there is no reason for the court to disbelieve the version of the petitioner.
Property at Kinari Bazar
75. As per the respondent, the petitioner has purchased property No.1972 to 1973 in Kinari Bazar, however, the respondent has himself stated that the petitioner has sold out the said property, the same has not been disputed by the respondent. Even otherwise, the said properties were in Kinari Bazar, which is admitted to be a famous market for beeds and therefore cannot be called an alternate to the projected need.
76. At this juncture, it is necessary to mention herein that time and again, the Hon'ble Higher Courts have guided that the requirement of the petitioner must be judged with practical approach. The petitioners have sought a shop for the business of gold and silver jewellery and have pleaded that for the said purpose i.e. for business of gold and silver jewellery, the most suitable location will be sarafa Bazar, Chandni Chowk, which is widely famous for gold and silver jewellery shopping. Merely because the respondent pleads that the petitioners have many alternate properties, the petitoiners cannot be deprived of the fruits of their own property and consequently their RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 40 of 43 demand cannot be called malafide.
77. A question which arises here is whether the respondent/tenant can dictate which property should be used by the landlord/petitioner. The answer is a resounding NO. In plethora of judgments, it has been held time and again that it is not for the tenant to dictate term and the landlord is absolutely free to enjoy the fruit of the property without being guided by the tenant.
78. In the matter at hand as well, since the aforesaid properties i.e. the alternate suggested by the respondent are not viable qua the projected demand, they cannot be called a suitable alternate accommodation. In Jagdish Chand Gulati VS. Kanta Devi, 1996 (36) DRJ 654, it was held that the court has to take into consideration the facts which exist at the time of passing of the judgment.
79. The court finds no force in the argument that the petitioners should utilize the ground floor of their residence for their projected need. It is a natural desire of every person to have a segregation in work and life and accordingly a landlord cannot be forced to utilize the residence itself for commercial purposes, even if the residence is situated in a commercial lane. It is not for the tenant to guide the landlord or dictate terms.
RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 41 of 4380. It is trite law that the court would permit the landlord to satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other accommodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his need. Therefore, it can be said that even the third requirement i.e. non-availability of alternate accommodation has been duly proved by the petitioners on the scales of preponderance of probabilities.
81. The fact that the respondent is in occupation of the tenanted premises in question since long is of no consideration. It is clear that once the landlord establishes its bonafides, the hardship of the tenant cannot be taken into consideration for declining an eviction. If it is accepted that tenancy should be protected either on the ground of long residency or because of non-availability of house with the tenant, no landlord will ever be able to get an eviction order. Even otherwise, the law contemplates a buffer period of 6 months for the tenant in which he can arrange for a shelter.
82. To conclude this discussion, it can be said that the petitioner/LRs, in clear and unequivocal terms have demonstrated their requirements. It is not only the "mere desire" of the petitioner/LRs to get the premises vacated but they need the same for RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 42 of 43 above stated requirements. The pleas made by the respondent are sans merits.
83. In view of all the above findings, the present eviction petition is allowed. Hence, an eviction order is passed against the respondent in respect of the tenanted premises i.e. Shop No. 1727 B IV, Dariba Kalan, Main Road, Chandi Chowk, Delhi, more particularly shown in red in the site plan marked A, B, C, D attached with the petition.
84. The petitioner, however, would not be entitled to obtain possession of the tenanted premises before the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this order in terms of section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
85. File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of order be given dasti to both the sides on request.
Announced in the open Court (Harjeet Singh Jaspal) on this day of 30th day of March, 2024 SCJ-cum-RC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi RC ARC No. 480454/2016 Rajmal Nolkha Through his LRs Vs. M/s. Nannu Mal & Sons Page 43 of 43