Delhi District Court
Manoj Kumari @ Manju vs Ram Prakash on 18 October, 2025
Digitally
signed by
MANSI
MANSI MALIK
MALIK Date:
2025.10.18
14:02:23
+0530
IN THE COURT OF MS. MANSI MALIK, ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL
JUDGE/ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER : NORTH-WEST
DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
RC ARC No. 5385/2016
CNR No. DLNW03-000294-2013
Sh. Manoj Kumari @ Manju,
S/o Sh. Satish Kumra,
R/o 36/426, Trilopuri,
Delhi-110091. ... Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Ram Prakash,
R/o Q-9/165-166, Mangolpuri,
Delhi-110083. ... Respondent
Date of Institution 04.06.2013
Under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25-B, Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958
Date of Judgment 17.10.2025
Decision Eviction Petition allowed
JUDGMENT
(1) This is an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (or in short the "Act" or "DRCA") filed by the petitioner/landlord against the respondent/tenant seeking eviction order with cost in favour of petitioner and thereby directing the respondent to RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.1/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:02:27 +0530 vacate the tenanted premises i.e. Q-9/165 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83.
CASE OF THE PETITIONER (2) It is submitted that the petitioner is the daughter of the lawful owner of the tenanted premises bearing no. Q-9/165 Mangolpuri, Delhi. It is further stated that the owner of the abovesaid property namely Vijay Kumar gave the tenanted premises to his sister Usha Rani for residential purpose. The owner of the above said tenanted premises namely Vijay Kumar expired on 02.07.1979 and the present owner has continued the tenanted premises to the said tenant/respondent due to family relationship of the owner/petitioner. That in between the said Usha Rani also expired on 13.04.2013 and the tenanted premises is occupied by her husband/respondent in the present case. It is also stated that the tenancy was an oral tenancy and there was no written rent agreement executed between the parties.
(3) That the petitioner having no alternative residential accommodation and plot in her own name at Delhi and in any where in India for earning livelihood for herself or her children and has no any source of income from any corner.
The petitioner is an unemployed lady and intends to run the business in the above said tenanted premises and reside in that premises. The plaintiff is in need of the tenanted premises for her bonafide requirement for earning her livelihood and for livelihood of her children.
(4) That the respondent has not paid the rent of the tenanted premises since RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.2/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 14:02:29 2025.10.18 +0530 2008 @ Rs. 2,000/-per month. It is therefore prayed that an eviction order U/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Sec. 25-B D.R.C Act qua the the property bearing no. Q-9/165 Mangolpuri, Delhi be passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent/tenant along with the cost of this petition.
LEAVE TO DEFEND (5) After service of summons, the leave to defend was filed on behalf of the respondent which was allowed vide order dt. 09.05.2014.
CASE OF THE RESPONDENT (6) In the written statement filed by the respondent, he has denied all the averments made by the petitioner. It is stated that the proceeding of the present eviction petition has been instituted by one Ms. Manoj Kumari @ Manju by invoking jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Controller in terms of Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi rent Control Act 1958 whereas this Hon'ble Controller has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and adjudicate upon the alleged claim of the petitioner as the property which is subject matter of present proceeding is not governed under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. That the property has been allotted by the SLUM and JJ Department and Rules and laws relating to SLUM and J.J are applicable to the property. Moreover permission under Section 19 of SLUM Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act 1956 is required if there is any proceeding on property situated in Slum Area and considering the above submission & factual position of law, the present petition deserves to be dismissed in limina.
RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.3/22Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:02:32 +0530 (7) It is further stated that the petitioner is neither owner of the property in question nor there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent and the petitioner has not filed a single document on record in order to show that she is having any right, title and interest over the property/or to show that the answering respondent tenant, in such circumstances when two basic requirements of Section- 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act are missing in the present case, the petition instituted by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed on the ground of having no locus standi to institute the present petition against the respondent.
(8) It is further stated that the petitioner has not provided the details of acommodations available to her as required under form A. That the petition has mentioned the address of one property i.e. 36/426, Trilokpuri, Delhi-91 as mentioned in memo of parties as her residential address, however, in para 8 she has not disclosed the said available accommodation or any other accommodation, in all the petitioner has failed to place the required facts in terms of FORM A of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Controller and in order to proceed further in terms of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 and the whole claim of petitioner is based upon assumption and presumption. That the petitioner has failed to disclose her status over the accommodation mentioned in memo of parties and also failed to disclose in her entire petition as to the numbers of family members dependent on her for accommodation.
(9) That the petition under reply is not maintainable under the law as the RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.4/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.10.18 14:02:35 +0530 issues in relation to ownership and title of the property cannot be adjudicated upon by this Hon'ble Controller and only Civil Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the alleged claim of ownership rights over the property and the jurisdiction Controller can only be invoked when there is any interse dispute between the landlord and tenant. That a dispute between family members is outside the jurisdiction of Controller acting in terms of provisions of DRC Act 1958, and as such this Hon'ble Controller has no jurisdiction and as such the eviction petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground as well.
(10) The respondent also stated that he is the owner of the property having all rights, titles and interest thereof and that the respondent along with his family members is in possession of property in question since 1978-79 and the existing construction on the property/land has been raised by the respondent being its lawful owner. That the respondent is in continuous possession, occupation and use of property in question since 1978-79 without any kind of interruption, interference, obstruction, objection and claim of any person and the petitioner is a stranger to the property having no concern whatsoever as alleged by her in the present eviction petition.
(11) It is also stated that the petitioner is claiming the right over the property on the basis of law of succession whereas she has not placed a single document to show that her rights have been identified and acknowledged by any court of law on the basis of alleged claim of succession. That the petitioner is neither the owner of the property bearing no. Q-9/165, Mangolpuri Delhi-83 nor the respondent has ever given any rent to the petitioner instead the respondent is the owner of the property in question and RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.5/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:02:38 +0530 hence there is no question for payment of rent to the petitioner.
(12) It is further submitted that the property in question is a residential property and no commercial activity can be carried out from the property in question. That the petitioner failed to give the description of work she wants to start from the property in question or that how the property is required for livelihood of her children. That the petitioner has failed to averred a single word that how the father of the petitioner was the owner of the property question and under what capacity property has been given to the respondent or his wife (deceased). That the entire petition is silent as to whether the said premises was given to Usha Rani on rent or as a licensee or in any other capacity. It is therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed.
REPLICATION (13) The petitioner filed a replication wherein the petitioner denied the contentions raised by the respondent in the Written Statement and reiterated the submissions made in the petition. In addition, the petitioner stated that in para no. 9 of affidavit of respondent, he himself has admitted that the premises was allotted in the name of father of the petitioner and hence there is no question of petitioner being stranger to the property and therefore petitioner has legal right over the property. It is also stated that the respondent himself has not placed on record any document pertaining to his alleged ownership and the petitioner has placed on record various documents to show her succession/title over the property.
RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.6/22Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:02:40 +0530 EVIDENCE LEAD BY PETITIONER (14) In order to prove her case, petitioner examined herself as PW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/1 wherein she reiterated the contents of the petition and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Birth certificate of the deponent i.e. Ex. PW1/A(OSR);
(ii) School Transfer Certificate i.e. Ex. PW1/2 (OSR);
(iii) Copies of passbook of PNB Ex. PW1/C(OSR);
(iv) Copy of passbook of pension account of Sh. Vijay Kumar i.e. Ex. PW-1/D(OSR);
(v) Death certificate of Sh. Vijay Kumar i.e. Ex. PW-1/E(OSR);
The witness was duly cross-examined by counsel for the respondent.
(15) No other witness was summoned or examined by the petitioner, thus, PE was closed on 19.01.2019 and matter was listed for Respondent Evidence.
(16) In order to prove the case of the respondent, Smt. Bindu Chauhan/SPA Holder of the respondent stepped in witness box as RW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit, which is Ex. RW-1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
1. Copy of SPA Ex. RW1/1 (OSR);RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.7/22
Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.10.18 14:02:43 +0530
2. Copy of Adhar Card of respondent and RW-1 Ex. RW1/2 (OSR) and Ex. RW1/3 (OSR),
3. Copy of Electricity Bill Ex. RW1/4 (OSR).
4. Copy of Gas Connection Card Ex. RW1/5 (OSR),
5. Unique Property Identification Card Ex. RW1/5A (OSR),
6. Copy of Adhar Card, Voter Card and Death certificate of Usha Rani Ex. RW1/6, Ex. RW1/7 and Ex. RW1/8 (OSR),
7. Ration Card of daughter in law, National Population Register Acknowledgment slips and Report card of grand daughter of respondent Ex. RW1/9A, Ex. RW1/9B, Ex. RW1/9C and Ex. RW1/9D (OSR).
The witness was duly cross-examined by counsel for the petitioner.
(17) No other witness was summoned or examined by the respondent, accordingly RE was closed vide order dated 03.06.2025.
(18) During the trial of the present case, the Court has also examined Sh. Loha Singh, LDC, on behalf of DUSIB as court witness. The said witness produced the original possession slips bearing no. 4541 and 4542. The possession slip 4541 is in the name of Vijay Kumar with respect to plot no. Q-9/165, Mangolpuri dt. 21.05.1976. The said slip is Ex. P-1(OSR). The other possession slip bearing no. 4542 is in the name of Ram Prakash with respect to plot no. Q-9/166, Mangolpuri dt. 21.05.1976. The said slip is Ex. P-2(OSR). The witness further deposed that as per the said possession RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.8/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:02:45 +0530 slips, the original allottees of the properties mentioned therein are Vijay Kumar and Ram Prakash.
(19) Final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties and matter was reserved for judgment. Judgments were also filed by the parties in support of their contentions which have been duly considered by the Court.
FINDINGS (20) Proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is a special provision which has been enacted by the legislature for the class of landlords who require the premises genuinely and their requirement is bona-fide and they do not have any suitable accommodation. In order to succeed in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord/petitioner is required to establish three conditions:-
i. The petitioner must be the owner/landlord of the suit premises ii. The tenanted premises must be bonafidely required by the landlord either for himself or for his family members iii. There is no other alternate suitable accommodation available with the landlord.
(21) The thresholds herein above are to be satisfied conjunctively in order to attract the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) and the absence of even RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.9/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:02:48 +0530 one of the said ingredients clearly makes the said provision inapplicable.
LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP (22) In the present matter, petitioner has contended that her father namely Sh. Vijay Kumar was alloted property bearing no. Q-9/165 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 by DUSIB/DDA. Thereafter, her father expired and that she has now become the absolute owner of the aforesaid property. The said contentions of the petitioner stand proved by the witness who appeared on behalf of DUSIB and produced the relevant record. Sh. Loha Singh, LDC, DUSIB was examined as a court witness. The said witness produced the original possession slips bearing no. 4541 and 4542. As per the witness, the slip bearing no. 4541 which is Ex. P-1 (OSR), is in the name of the Sh. Vijay Kumar with respect to plot no. Q-9/165, Mangolpuri dt. 21.05.1976. Further, the other possession slip bearing no. 4542, which is Ex. P-2(OSR) is in the name of Ram Prakash with respect to plot no.
Q-9/166, Mangolpuri dt. 21.05.1976. The witness further deposed that as per the said possession slips, the original allottees of the properties mentioned therein are Vijay Kumar and Ram Prakash.
(23) From the testimony of the said witness it is amply clear that the tenanted premises in question i.e. Q-9/165, Mangolpuri, Delhi was alloted to one Sh. Vijay Kumar. Thereafter, the said Vijay Kumar expired on 02.07.1979 and his death certificate is on record as Ex. PW-1/E. The petitioner submits that she is the daughter of Sh. Vijay Kumar and on basis of the said relation, she inherited the right of her father over the suit RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.10/22 Digitally signed MANSI by MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:02:50 +0530 property. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the daughter of the Sh. Vijay Kumar. Infact, RW-1 in her cross-examination has admitted that Manoj Kumari is the daughter of Sh. Vijay Kumar. The petitioner has also placed on record number of documents to show that her father is Sh. Vijay Kumar like her birth certificate, which is Ex. PW-1/A (OSR) and her school transfer certificate, which is Ex. PW-1/B (OSR). Therefore, it can be inferred that the rights of Sh. Vijay Kumar over the property in question have been inherited by the petitioner.
(24) At this stage, it is crucial to mention that absolute ownership is not required for an eviction petition to succeed under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act. The word "ownership" used in Section 14(1)(e) DRC includes all those persons who though may not be absolute owner but they exercise rights over the property which are more than of a tenant. In this regard it is necessary to mention the law laid down in the judgment titled as Rajender Kumar Sharma vs. Smt. Leela Wati reported as 155 (2008) DLT 383, wherein the the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as follows:
".....It is settled law that for the purpose of section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than a tenant. In this case, the landlady had placed on record the documents by which she became owner. The attornment given by the erstwhile landlord in her favour as well as an admission made by the tenant by filing petition under section 27 of Delhi Rent Control Act acknowledges the landlordship of landlady. Thus, the conclusion arrived at RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.11/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.10.18 14:02:53 +0530 by the ARC regarding ownership and relationship of landlord and tenant were based on sound legal position and the cogent material before it....... "
(25) In the instant case also, it is clear that the rights of the petitioner are of more than that of a tenant in the property in question and that she has the right to exclude everyone holding a title lesser than his own. Reliance in this regard is placed on judgment of M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal AIR 1981 SC 1113.
(26) Moving on to the aspect as whether landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties. It is seen that the father of the petitioner as discussed above is the allottee of the tenanted premises and the petitioner avers that her father had inducted Smt. Usha Rani/his sister as tenant in the premises in question. Thereafter, her father as well Smt. Usha Rani expired but the husband of Smt. Usha Rani/respondent continued residing in the property as a tenant. It is further averred in the evidence affidavit of the petitioner that the respondent has not paid rent @ Rs. 2,000/- per month since 1995. However, no written rent agreement has been placed on record by the petitioner as it is contended that the tenancy was an oral tenancy. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has argued that the cross- examination of the petitioner has number of contradictions. One of them being that the petitioner in her evidence affidavit has deposed that rent @ Rs. 2,000/- has not been paid by the respondent since the year 1995 whereas in her cross-examination she has stated that rent @ Rs. 2,000/- has not been paid to her since 2008. Pressing upon this contradiction, the RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.12/22 Digitally signed MANSI by MANSI MALIK MALIK 14:02:56 +0530 Date: 2025.10.18 counsel argues that no landlord-tenant relationship exists between the parties.
(27) The Court is of the view that even though the testimony of the petitioner might have minor contradictions, however, it is consistent throughout on the point that the status of the respondent has been that of a tenant since the beginning. It is duly noted that no rent agreement or rent receipts have been placed on record by the petitioner but that cannot be the sole ground to disregard the testimony of the petitioner, moreso, when the respondent has himself not been able to prove his status in the property in question.
(28) The respondent in his Written Statement has submitted that the petitioner is not the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and that the respondent has been residing in the property in question since 1978/79 and that the existing construction on the property has been raised by the respondent as its lawful owner. The respondent has further stated that he is the owner of the property in question. As can be seen, only vague averments have been made by the respondent in his Written Statement, stating himself to be the owner of the suit property while denying the right of the petitioner over the suit property but how and on what basis has not been mentioned in the entire Written Statement. In the evidence affidavit of the SPA holder/daughter of the respondent, the same averments have been reproduced denying the ownership of the petitioner and claiming that her father is the owner of the suit property. Even when the cross-
RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.13/22Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI Date:
MALIK MALIK 2025.10.18 14:02:58 +0530 examination of the said witness was started she deposed before the Court that her mother/Late Smt. Usha Rani was the owner of the suit property and that allotment letter issued by DDA was also in her name. It was only during the course of cross-examination of the SPA holder of the respondent that the witness from DUSIB was summoned to place on record the allotment details of the property in question i.e. Q-9/165 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 and Q-9/166 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83. The said witness was examined as a Court witness as has already been discussed above, who placed on record the allotment letter of the property in question i.e. Q-9/165 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 showing that the said property was infact alloted to the father of the petitioner/Vijay Kumar. It was only after the said documents were produced by the witness that the SPA holder of the respondent in her remaining cross-examination admitted that the property in question was alloted in the name of Sh. Vijay Kumar.
(29) It is also pertinent to mention here that in the cross-examination of the SPA holder of the respondent as RW-1, she has stated that "It is correct that I have not paid rent to Manoj Kumari from 2008 till date." The implication of the said statement being that she has admitted the factum of tenancy. However, even if the said statement is not considered, it is seen that the respondent has miserably failed to show his status in the suit property. It is clear that false averments were made by the respondent as to the ownership of the property in question, which were falsified by the record produced by the official from DUSIB.RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.14/22
Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:03:01 +0530 (30) After perusing the entire testimony of the SPA holder of the respondent, the Court is of the view that except challenging the ownership of the petitioner and claiming that her father is the owner of the suit property, no other defence has been raised therein. It was only during the course of final arguments that the Ld. Counsel for the respondent argued that the respondent has become the owner of the tenanted premises by way of adverse possession. Once this contention is advanced, it is then clear that the respondent is admitting that he was not the owner of the property in question from the outset but became the owner at a later point of time.
However, the status of the respondent as to when he was inducted in the property has not been made clear by him in his entire pleadings or evidence. It appears that the respondent has only made vague pleadings in order to deny the title of the petitioner over the property in question. At this stage, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ravi Prakash Garg vs. Jaswant Singh Jaiswal (27.04.2012 DELHC) : MANU/DE/2880/2012. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as follows:
"In 1995 RLR 162 Jiwan Lal Vs. Gurdial Kaur & O Rs. a Bench of this Court while dealing with the concept of ownership in a pending eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA had noted as follows:
There is a tendency on the part of tenants to deny ownership in cases under Section 14(1)(e). To test the substance of such a plea on the part of the tenants the Courts have insisted that they should state who else is the owner of the premises if not the petitioner. In the present case it is not said as to who else is the owner. Further these cases under Section 14(1)(e) are not title cases involving disputes of title to the property. Ownership is not RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.15/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:03:04 +0530 to be proved in absolute terms. The respondent does not claim the owner of the premises."
(31) Further, when the respondent has not pleaded the defence of adverse possession in his Written Statement or his Evidence way of affidavit and has not cross-examined the petitioner on this aspect, he cannot at a later stage bring in this contention. Be that as it may, even if the defence that the respondent is the owner of the tenanted premises by way of adverse possession is considered, the same cannot succeed. The reason for the same being that though, the respondent is claiming to be the owner of the property in question at present, in his entire pleadings he has failed to state as to how he came into the possession of the same and what was the nature of the possession. He has also not stated as to who was the true owner of the premises against whom he is claiming to have acquired title through adverse possession. Here, it would be beneficial to referred to judgment of Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, (2004) 10 SCC 779 , wherein it was held that:
"Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: (a) on what date he came into possession, (b) what was the nature of his possession,
(c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, (d) how long his possession has continued, and (e) his possession was open and RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.16/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:03:07 +0530 undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession."
Reliance is further placed on the judgement of T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa, (2006) 7 SCC 570, wherein it was held that it is incumbent upon the person claiming adverse possession to plead as to who was the true owner. It was observed that "plea of adverse possession inherently presupposes that the person claiming title by adverse possession acknowledges the title of the true owner and claims acquisition of title through adverse possession against such true owner."
(32) Thus, a simple statement in the present case that the respondent has been in exclusive, continuous and uninterrupted possession of the premises in question since the year 1978-79, without stating as to who was the true owner against whom the objector is claiming adverse possession and without even stating as to how he came into possession, would not be sufficient pleadings for the plea of ownership through adverse possession. It is thus clear that the respondent has not been able to disclose any independent, right or interest in the property in question. As already discussed, since the material particulars relating to the plea of adverse possession have not been pleaded, such pleas is not legally tenable and cannot be entertained.
(33) From the aforesaid discussion, it can be inferred that the father of RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.17/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:03:09 +0530 the petitioner was the allottee of the suit property and that the petitioner has inherited the rights of her father over the same. Further, she has remained constant in her stance that the respondent is a tenant in the suit property throughout the course of the proceedings. On the other hand, the respondent started with the defence that he is the owner of the suit property, which was allotted in the name of his wife. The said defence was falsified by the record produced from by the official from DUSIB. Thereafter, the plea of adverse possession came in which as already discussed is not legally tenable.
(34) The only other contention of the respondent is that there is no single property bearing no. Q-9/165 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 and that there is one joint property bearing no. Q-9/165-166 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83. Various documents have been placed on record by the respondent like the Aadhar Card, Voter Card of deceased Smt, Usha Rani which are Ex. RW-1/6 and Ex. RW-1/7, wherein the address is mentioned as Q-9/165-166 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83. The respondent also placed reliance on a property survey of MCD, which is Ex. RW-1/5A (OSR) wherein also the address is mentioned as Q-9/165-166 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83. The Court is of the view that the property has been allotted by DUSIB/DDA and the record produced by them clearly shows that property bearing no. Q-9/165 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 was allotted to Sh. Vijay Kumar whereas property bearing no. Q-9/166 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 was alloted to Sh. Ram Prakash. When the allotting authority has deposed that Q-9/165 and Q-9/166 are separate properties, then no question of them being one single property arises. MCD only conducted a survey where it stated that there is RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.18/22 Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:03:12 +0530 a single property bearing no. Q-9/165-166 but the Court is of the view that when officially they are separate properties then any other documents or surveys cannot change the status of their allotment.
(35) Accordingly, it can be said that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the tenanted premises and that the respondent is the tenant in the premises in question. Thus, the first ingredient for succeeding in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act stands fulfilled.
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT AND ALTERNATIVE ACCOMODATION (36) Moving forward, in order to succeed in his petition, the petitioner is required to establish his bonafide need as well as that there is no other suitable accommodation. Since, both the issues are inter-connected, they shall be dealt with simultaneously for consideration. In respect of bonafide need of the petitioner, it has been duly settled by a catena of judgments including Mrs. Meenal Eknath Vs. Traders & Agencies (1996) 5SCC 344, R.C. Tamrakar Vs. Nidhi Lekha (2001) 8 SCC 431 and Raghvendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. (2001) 1 SCC 679 that once a landlord has stated that he/she requires the tenanted property for a particular use, the Courts are obliged to believe the statement to be true and genuine, unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical.
RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.19/22Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:03:14 +0530 (37) In any event, it is a settled law that the Court must presume the bona fide requirement of the landlord. Additionally, the burden to refute the said presumption squarely lies on the tenant and the mere assertion on part of the tenant is insufficient. Reference can be made to Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119 and Baldev Singh Bajwa v.
Monish Saini, (2005) 12 SCC 778. Tenant is to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary material. A mere assertion of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption, that the need is real and genuine, in the landlord's favour.
(38) In view of the above-stated position, the Court shall now proceed to discuss the case in hand. The petitioner in her petition has submitted that the premises in question is required for earning livelihood for herself and her children and that she intends to run a business from the said premises. However, in her cross-examination as PW-1, she has stated that intends to be in the business of letting out the property on rent and earn income from it. The Court is of the view that whatever the use the petitioner wants to put the property in question to, the same is required bonafidely by her for fulfilling her needs. Further, it is not incumbent upon the landlord to plead or prove the specific business which he wants to run from the tenanted premises as long as his requirement is genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. (H.S Banka v Mohan Lal RC. REV. 49/2018). The respondent has not placed on evidence to rebut the presumption that the property in question is not required bonafidely by the petitioner. Infact, not a single suggestion has been put to the petitioner in her cross-examination that the property is not required bonafidely by her.
RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.20/22Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 14:03:17 +0530 (39) Accordingly, it can be said that the petitioner bonafidely requires the tenanted premises for letting it out on rent to earn her livelihood from the same. Thus, the second ingredient for succeeding in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act stands fulfilled.
(40) With regard to the contention that the petitioner has alternative accommodation, it is well settled proposition of law that it is not sufficient that any kind of property be available to the petitioner/landlord to rule out the benefit of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. Rather, the property available with the petitioner/landlord should also be a reasonably suited property keeping in mind the needs of the petitioner/landlord. In light of the above, the contentions of the respondent shall now be considered.
(41) The respondent is his WS or in his evidence by way of affidavit has not mentioned the details of any additional accommodation, which is available with the petitioner to fulfill her bonafide need. The petitioner has also not been cross-examined on this aspect. Thus, it is crystal clear that no material has been brought on record by the respondent to raise a suspicion that the petitioner has alternative accommodation in her ownership, which can be used by her for her bonafide need. Accordingly, it can be said that no other alternate suitable accommodation is available with the landlord fulfilling her bonafide need. Thus, the third ingredient for succeeding in a petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act stands fulfilled.RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.21/22
RELIEF (42) In view of the discussion above, the eviction petition is consequently allowed and it is directed that the respondent/tenant shall handover the vacant possession of tenanted premises i.e. Q-9/165 Mangolpuri, Delhi-83 to the petitioner.
(43) No order as to costs.
(44) In view of the provisions of Section 14 (7) DRC Act, 1958, this order for recovery for possession shall not be executed before expiration of a period of 6 months from this date.
(45) Since nothing else survives, file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by MANSI MANSI MALIK MALIK Date:
2025.10.18 Announced in Open Court (Mansi Malik) 14:03:21 +0530 on 17.10.2025 ACJ/ARC/(North-West) Rohini District Courts/ Delhi RC ARC 5385/2016 Manoj @ Manju Vs. Ram Prakash Page No.22/22