Delhi District Court
Pritam Singh vs Shri Man Mohan Aneja on 10 November, 2025
RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja
IN THE COURT OF VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL
ADDITIONAL RENT CONTROLLER-2 (CENTRAL), TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
RC ARC No: 79640/2016
Pritam Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Phami Shah,
R/o T-19, Moti Nagar,
Gaushala Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi.
........Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Shri Man Mohan Aneja (Deceased)
Through Legal Heirs:-:
i. Smt. Yogita Wife
ii. Shri Shivanu Aneja Son
iii. Shri Chetanya Aneja Son
All R/o: 8577, Katra Shanti Devi,
New Rohtak Road, New Delhi.
2. Smt. Sneh Malhotra,
W/o Late Shri Joginder Malhotra,
R/o 7/2, Old Double Storey,
Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi.
........Respondents
***********
Date of Filing of petition : 11.03.2016
Date of reserving judgment : 15.09.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 10.11.2025
Decision of petition : Eviction Petition
Allowed
***********
Page no. 1 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
10.11.2025
RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja
JUDGMENT
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 14 (1)
(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'DRC Act') for eviction of the respondent in respect of premises i.e. premises at property bearing no. 8577, Katra Shanti Devi, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi as shown in red color in site plan (hereinafter referred to as 'subject premises').
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COURT: -
2. It is pertinent to mention that present petition was filed u/s 14(1) (e) r/w section 25 B of DRC Act. The application for leave to defend was filed on behalf of the respondent, which was allowed by the court vide order dated 26.09.2017 and thereafter WS was filed and matter was fixed for evidence.
EVICTION PETITION:-
3. As per the contents of eviction petition, the case of petitioner is that the premises in question is a very old construction prior to partition of India and same was allotted by Custodian of evacuate property, Govt of India, Ministry of Rehabilitation for the residence of the original tenant namely Mulkh Raj. That the premises in question consisting of two rooms only was let out to Late Shri Mulkh Raj, the father of the respondent No.1 and 2 for his residential purposes by Ministry of Rehabilitation office of Custodian of Evacuate property. That Shri Mulkh Raj expired and his widow Smt. Mahindrawati deposited Page no. 2 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja rent under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act vide DR No. 163 of 1981 in the Court of Shri V.B. Gupta ARC Delhi alleging herself as tenant of residential premises and after her death respondent No.1 used to deposit rent under Section 27 of DRC Act, who was residing in the part of premises and also illegally and unauthorisedly constructed kitchen, bath and carrying on commercial activities in one room of the premises which is against the letting purpose of residence.
3.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner is owner/landlord of the tenancy premises and premises in suit was let out for residential purposes are required bonafide by the petitioner landlord for his married sons and his family members who are the family members of the petitioner and are dependent for residence on the petitioner. The petitioner and his sons have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It is submitted that the petitioner is presently residing at his house No. T-19, Moti Nagar, Gaushalla Road, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi consisting of ground floor and first floor. There are three rooms, one bath-cum-toilet one kitchen and lobby at ground floor and at First Floor there is one room, kitchen, one store, one bath cum-toilet and open courtyard at first floor as shown in site plan in green colour. It is further stated that the petitioner is aged 69 years old and his wife Smt. Harbans Kaur is aged 61 years old (suffering from breast cancer and under treatment of Rajiv Gandhi Cancer Hospital) and is occupying only one room at Page no. 3 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja ground floor through one maid servant who is employed for looking after her during the day time and there is no separate room for the maid servant and one room is being used as drawing room and third room is being used as dining room which is also being used by younger son Shri Gurpreet Singh aged 31 years old and his wife Smt. Sarabjit Kaur and one son, six month old at the ground floor of house No. T-19 Moti Nagar. The First floor is being used by Shri Jaspal Singh aged 36 years old and his wife Smt. Kanwaljit Kaur, aged 31 years and one son aged 4 years old studying at St. Michael School and one daughter more than two years old going to play school are dependent upon the petitioner for the residence and are the family members of the petitioner and shown in ration card of the petitioner.
3.2. It is further stated that the petitioner is income tax assessee and running business of confectionary, cold drink, chips etc. under the name and style of M/s. Maya & Sons at Shop No.11263, Kela Korthi, Gaushala Road, New Delhi alongwith his son Shri Jaspal Singh and is also having Sales Tax Vat No. 07340316796 at the shop and also storing his goods at godown No. 8577, Katra Shanti Devi owned by the petitioner after vacation order against the tenant by Rent Controller, Delhi in 2008. The second son Shri Gurpreet Singh is also carrying on business of confectionery at Shop No. 3549-A, 3549-G, Pan Mandi, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and is also storing his goods at the premises adjacent to tenanted premises as owned by the Page no. 4 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja petitioner.
3.3. It is further submitted that the respondent No.1 is residing in the tenanted premises in one room and had also been occupying adjoining to tenanted property as his residence and tenancy premises is in the occupation of the respondent No.1 is shown in site plan in red colour and adjoining to tenanted property which is in the residence of the respondent No.1 and is shown in site plan in blue colour. The respondent No.1 is in occupation of tenanted premises and another adjoining property to tenanted premises. The respondent No.1 is also owning first floor, 2nd floor residential quarter No.22, Rattan Nagar, Back Side of Petrol Pump, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, which are being let out to tenants from time to time.
3.4. It is further stated that the petitioner's daughter Smt. Gurmeet Kaur married to Shri Tarlochan Singh Arora and two sons aged 9 years and 7 years and at Faridabad and daughter and her two children often visit petitioner's wife who is suffering from cancer and sometimes they are staying with the petitioner's but there is no separate guest room with the petitioner's for the stay of daughter. It is stated that the two sons of the petitioner are married at Ambala and Faridabad and sons-in-laws relatives are also on visiting terms with petitioner and visit the petitioner and sometimes stay at the residence of the petitioner but there is no separate guest room for the visiting relatives of the petitioner and Page no. 5 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja his sons and separate guest room is required. That petitioner and his family members are residing with great difficulty and hardship due to non-availability of separate room for his younger son Shri Gurpreet Singh and his family and no separate guest room and also no separate study room for the school going children is there. Hence, the present eviction petition has been filed seeking eviction of the respondent from the tenanted premises.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:-
4. In the WS filed by the respondent, preliminary objections have been taken stating about the maintainability of the petition that the Petitioner does not require the premises in occupation of the Respondents bonafide for the residence of any member of his family. That the petition is actuated by malafide and has been filed with ulterior objects to pressurize the Respondents to concede or succumb to the demand of the Petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises so that the Petitioner may on handsome premium re-let the same or to put undue pressure upon the Respondents to pay enhanced/escalated rental at the rate commensurate with the market rate. It is stated that the petition has been filed with a view to earn Pugree from a commercial area which has enormous potential for Pugree and intellectual property right. That in case the Petitioner is in bonafide requirement of additional premises for the residence of Page no. 6 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja his sons as alleged in the petition, the Petitioner could occupy the adjoining premises as shown in the Green colour in the site plan filed along with application for seeking leave to defend. That the Petitioner got the possession of the said premises from the tenant therein in the year 2007 and since then the same is kept under lock and key by the Petitioner. The portion shown in Green colour in the site plan is much bigger than the premises under the tenancy of the Respondents and non occupation of the said portion clearly reflects the malafide on the part of the Petitioner.
That the Petitioner has not filed the site plan of the entire property bearing No. 8577 Katra Shanti Devi, Rohtak Road, New Delhi allegedly owned by the Petitioner thereby has concealed the actual accommodation available and exist in the property. In order to create a false ground of bonafide requirement the Petitioner has falsely stated that he is using the adjoining property as Godown. That the premises shown in the Green colour in the site plan is lying vacant and no Godown exist therein.
4.1. That the Petitioner is having a Godown at 67/8A, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi and also at 8614 Gaushala Marg, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. That the Petitioner has alleged about the number of family members including children of married sons and has also stated that the daughter and son in law visit the Petitioner and stay along with him whereas the Petitioner is in occupation of sufficient accommodation in property bearing No. T-19, Moti Nagar, Gaushala Marg, New Rohtak Road, New Page no. 7 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja Delhi wherein all the family members can be accommodated. That the Petitioner in order to create a false ground of requirement has intentionally shown a store and kitchen on the first floor in the site plan whereas both are rooms and there is a common kitchen on the ground floor of the property. That the Petitioner along with his family members has been residing in the said property since many decades and the petition has been filed with ulterior motives to get the same vacated under Section 14(1)
(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act which is not available to the Petitioner as the premises were let out for residential cum commercial purposes The need of the Petitioner is imaginary and the petition is liable to be dismissed. That the Petitioner owns property bearing No. 11263, Kela Kothi, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi which comprises three rooms and the Petitioner has disclosed that he is running a shop in the said property whereas in the earlier proceedings between the parties the Petitioner has shown his residential address of the said property. That the rooms in the said property is available with the Petitioner and in case the Petitioner is in need of any additional accommodation the Petitioner can very well settle his son(s) in the said premises as the Petitioner is keeping two rooms in the said property vacant and in one of the rooms the Petitioner is running a shop. 4.2. It is further stated that the premises in question were let out to the father of the Respondents in the year 1947 for residential cum commercial purposes and in the front portion of the premises the father of the Respondents started his business Page no. 8 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja and since then the premises are being used for residential cum commercial purposes which fact is within the knowledge of the Petitioner but in order to mislead this Hon'ble Court the Petitioner has stated that the premises were let out for residential purposes only. The Petitioner is bent upon to get the tenanted premises vacated and for this reason the Petitioner never accepted the rent tendered personally and the Respondents have been compelled to send the rent through postal money orders which too have not been accepted by the Petitioner and the Respondents have been compelled to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The reason for not accepting the rent when tendered personally was that the Petitioner was insisting the Respondents to increase the rent many folds from Rs.13.31 per month to Rs.2,000/- per month to which the Respondents did not agree and in order to put pressure upon the Respondents the Petitioner has filed the present petition on the false ground of bonafide requirement.
4.3. It is further stated that the sale deed on the basis of which the Petitioner claimed to become owner of the property is not valid in the eyes. of law. That the respondents have been paying the rent to the Petitioner but in order to succeed in an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Petitioner must be the owner of the property. The Respondents have come to know in the present proceedings about the invalidity of the sale deed and as the sale deed is not valid in the eyes of law, the Petitioner is not entitled to maintain the Page no. 9 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja present petition and the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
4.4. It is submitted that the Petitioner has no intention to occupy the tenanted premises and the adjoining portion of the property in question as the main intention of the Petitioner is to sell the entire tenanted premises and the prospective buyer keep on visiting the property and in case the Petitioner obtains the vacant possession of the tenanted premises, then the entire property would fetch more sale consideration than the tenant in occupation therein. The present petition has been filed with ulterior motives to earn more sale consideration and the need as projected in the petition is neither genuine nor bonafide. That the son of the Petitioner Shri Jaspal Singh is owner of property bearing No. 11255/8, (New) Ward No.XIV comprised in Khasra No. 163/81-88 in Block No. A. Doriwalan, Shidipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and in case the Petitioner or his son (s) are in need of any accommodation, then the Petitioner can accommodate his son Shri Jaspal Singh in the said property. hence the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed. 4.5. In reply on merits, the para no. 1 to 3 of the petition with respect to the details of the premises, details of landlord and tenant are not disputed. Again para no.6-7, 9-10, 12b, 13, 15 and 16 of the petition have not been replied. It is stated that the premises are situated on a main road and were let out to the father of the Respondents for residential cum-commercial purposes. The nature of the premises is residential cum commercial. It is denied Page no. 10 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja that the Respondent No. 1., his wife and two sons are residing in the tenanted premises and also are residing in the adjoining property to tenanted premises. That the front portion of the premises was being used as a shop by the father of the Respondents and after his death, the Respondent No. 1 has been running a shop in the front portion and also residing along with his family members in the other portion of the premises. The Respondents have nothing to do with the adjoining property of tenanted premises. It is submitted that the Petitioner has not described the tenanted premises correctly and the site plan is not correct according to site. That the Respondent No. 1 has not constructed the bathroom illegally, it is also submitted that the rent includes house tax. However, it is wrong to allege that the premises allotted by the Custodian of Evacuee Property for the residence of Shri Mulkh Raj. The father of the Respondents immediately after occupying the premises started a shop therein in the front portion. It is admitted that Shri Mulkh Raj was inducted as a tenant but it is absolutely wrong to allege that he was inducted as a tenant for his residence. The father of the Respondents was inducted as a tenant for using the premises as residence cum commercial purposes. It is wrong to allege that the Respondents have unauthorizedly and illegally constructed one kitchen and one bathroom. It is wrong to allege that the premises were let out two rooms only to late Shri Mulkh Raj for his residential purposes or that Shri Mulkh Raj expired and his widow deposited rent under Section 27 of the Delhi Rent Control Page no. 11 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja Act in the Court of Shri V.B. Gupta, ARC, Delhi, alleging herself as tenant of residential premises and after her death the Respondent No. 1 used to deposit rent under Section 27 of DRC Act who was residing in the part of premises and also illegally and unauthorizedly constructed kitchen, bath and carrying on commercial activities in one room of the premises which is against the letting purpose of residence. The premises were let out for the residential cum commercial purposes and the same are being used for composite purposes since the date of inception of tenancy. It is admitted to the extent that the petitioner is the landlord of the tenanted premises but it is absolutely wrong to allege that the premises were let out for residential purposes and require bonafide by the Petitioner for his married sons and his family members who are dependent for residence on the Petitioner.
4.6. It is further denied that the Petitioner and his sons have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. It is submitted that the premises were let out for residential cum commercial purposes and the Petitioner or any of his family members require the tenanted premises for residence. The Petitioner is having sufficient accommodation and owns various properties and in case the Petitioner has any need for additional accommodation, then the same can easily be met from the other property owned by the Petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner is not correctly describing the accommodation available with him in House No. T-19 Moti Nagar Gaushala Page no. 12 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja Road, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi and also filed incorrect site plan. The accommodation available at the first floor comprises three rooms, bath cum toilet and open court yard whereas the Petitioner is describing kitchen and store room instead of rooms on the first floor of the property. It is denied that the Petitioner is aged 69 and his wife is aged 61 and suffering from breast cancer and is occupying only one room at ground floor though one maid servant is employed for looking after her during the day time and there is no separate room for the maid servant and one room is being used as Drawing Room and third room is being used as Dining Room which is also being used by younger son, his wife and one son at the ground floor of House No. T-19, Moti Nagar. It is further wrong to allege that the first floor is being used by Shri Jaspal Singh, his wife and children who are dependant upon the Petitioner for residence. That the Petitioner is having sufficient accommodation in House No. T-19, Moti Nagar, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi wherein Petitioner and his family members have been residing for the last many decades and are comfortably living therein.
4.7. It is further stated that the Petitioner has not shown any change in circumstances and are living comfortably as one family unit. No maid servant has been employed by the Petitioner for looking after his wife. The Petitioner in order to create a false ground of bonafide requirement has been falsely alleging that he is storing his goods at Godown No. 8577, Katra Shanti Devi and his son Gurpreet Singh is also storing his goods in the said Page no. 13 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja property. The portion of property bearing No. 8577 Katra Shanti Devi, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, is lying vacant and the Petitioner kept the same locked after getting it vacated from the tenant and no portion of it is being used as a Godown. The Petitioner can use the portion of the property for his residence in case the Petitioner is in need of any additional accommodation. It is admitted that the Respondent No. 1 is residing in the tenanted premises but it is wrong to allege the Petitioner is occupying adjoining property No. 8577, Katra Shanti Devi, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi as his residence. The Respondent No. 1 has no concern whatsoever with the aforesaid portion and has been residing in the tenanted premises only. The Respondent No. 1 has been running a shop in the front room/portion of the tenanted premises after the death of his father and when the father was alive he was running the shop. The site plan filed by the Petitioner is not correct according to site and is denied. It is denied that the Respondent No. 1 is also owning first and second floors of residential quarter No. 22, Padam Nagar, backside of Petrol Pump, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi which are being let out to tenants from time to time. The Respondent No. 1 does not own adjoining property number 8577, Katra Shanti Devi, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi nor first and second floors of residential quarter No. 22 Rattan Nagar, Back side of Petrol Pump, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi. The Petitioner is falsely alleging that the Respondent No. 1 has also being occupying adjoining property number 8577, Katra Shanti Devi, New Rohtak Road, Page no. 14 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja New Delhi. The Respondent No. 1 has been residing in the tenanted premises along with his family members. It is denied that Petitioner's daughter Simt. Gurmeet Kaur married to Shri Trilochan Singh Arora having two sons aged 9 and 7 years is residing at Faridabad. It is further denied that the daughter and her two children often visit Petitioner's wife who is suffering from cancer and sometimes they are staying with the Petitioner but there is no separate guest room with the Petitioner for the stay of daughter. It is stated that the Petitioner is in occupation of sufficient accommodation in property bearing No. T-19, Moti Nagar, Gaushala Marg, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi to accommodate all the family members. In view of the accommodation available with the Petitioner, the present petition has been filed on flimsy grounds which do not exist as the Petitioner is not in need of any additional accommodation much less the tenanted premises. It is stated that the Petitioner is trying to 'stretch the alleged bonafide requirement and is leaving no stone unturned in getting the tenanted premises vacated on the false ground of bonafide requirement. It is admitted to the extent that the sons of the Petitioner are married but it is denied that they are married at Ambala and Faridabad and son-in-laws relations are also on visiting terms with the Petitioner and visit the Petitioner sometimes stay at the residence of the Petitioner but there is no separate guest room for the visiting relations of the Petitioner and his sons and separate guest room is required and the Petitioner and his family members are residing with great Page no. 15 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja difficulty and hardship due to non-availability of separate room for younger son and his family and no separate guest room and no separate study room for the school going children. All the other averments of petition are denied. It is, therefore, prayed that the Petition may be dismissed with costs.
REPLICATION :-
5. In pursuance of WS of the respondent, the petitioners filed the replication in which the averments of WS are denied and averments of the eviction petition are reiterated. It is further stated that the adjoining green colour property bearing no.
8577 was being used by petitioner as a godown and same was also mentioned in the record of Delhi VAT, as being the godown of the shop of the petitioner at 11263, Kela Khoti since 10.11.2015. It is denied that petitioner has any godown at 667/8A, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi, and it is stated that said basement was owned by two sons of petitioner and they had let out the same to the tenant after purchasing the same in 2010. Again that petitioner was using property no. 8614, Guashala Marg, as his small unauthorized godown measuring 16 x 12 ft which was without any electricity connection and same was not sufficient for storage of goods of the business of petitioner and petitioner started using the green adjoining property as godown since 2008. It is further stated that the son of petitioner Sh. Jaspal Singh was residing alongwith his family at first floor and kitchen with gas connection in his name was being used for the bare Page no. 16 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja necessities of milk, foods etc. of the small children at all odd hours and another room is being used as store room for luggage of family in Almirahs as well as puja room of the family as there is no separate puja room with petitioner. It is denied that premises were let out for residential cum- commercial purposes 5.1. It is further stated in reply to para 5, in the eviction petition that the petitioner is the owner of property No.11263, Kela Kothi, New Delhi Rohtak Road, New Delhi and is running his business under the name and style of M/s. Maya & Sons. Originally the petitioner was tenant in one shop with shutter said property No.11263 since 1952 under the landlord of Smt. Sushila Devi and the said shop was purchased by the petitioner from Smt. Sushila Devi by registered sale deed dated 18.6.1965 and petitioner became owner thereof. That the third shop with shutter in property No.11263, Kothi Kela was owned by Smt.Ved Prakash and the said shop was purchased by his wife Smt. Harbans Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 27.02.1989 as private shop No. 3 which was under the tenancy of Shri Charan Singh who was doing business which was got vacated from the tenant Charan Singh in 1995 and the said shop is also being used by the petitioner for his business with the consent of his wife Smt. Harbans Kaur who is the owner of the said third shop. That the second shop with shutter was owned by Smt. Rajwanti Rawal and the petitioner was also tenant of Smt. Page no. 17 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja Raiwanti Rawal and was paying rent to Smt. Rajwant Rawal. That the said 2nd shop was purchased by wife of the petitioner Smt. Harbans Kaur from Smt. Rajwanti Rawal vide registered sale deed dated 13.03.1990 and petitioner was using the said shop with the consent of his wife. The petitioner was carrying on business at property No.11263, Kela Kothi, New Roahtak Road, New Delhi as tenant under different landlord as stated above and one shop was purchased by the petitioner and two shops are in the ownership of his wife Smt. Harbans Kaur and are being used for the business of the petitioner and there is no vacant shop as falsely alleged by the respondents. It is falsely alleged that said shop had been shown as his residence. The said shops are used for the business of the petitioner. MCD has also issued License Health Trade in the name of M/s. Maya & Sons on 25.03.2010 and Adhoc Registration Certificate No.1510046697 was issued on 09.01.2007 by MCD in the name of the petitioner. The said three shuttered shop No. 11263, Kela Kothi has also been shown in Form DVAT 06 vide registration No. 107340316796 under Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 since 4.08.2006. That the petitioner has disclosed the said shop in Para No. 18(i)(v) of the eviction petition for running his business.
Page no. 18 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal)
(JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC),
10.11.2025
RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja
EVIDENCE OF THE PETITIONER:-
6. To prove his case, petitioner examined himself as AW1 and tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. AW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. certified copy of the survey report Ex. AW1/1, site plan Ex. AW1/2, copy of sale deed Ex. AW1/3(OSR), another site plan Ex. AW1/4 and two copies of sale deeds Ex. AW1/7 & AW1/8(OSR), document which is dealer profile Ex. AW1/R1.The documents Ex. AW1/6, Ex. AW1/10 & Ex. AW1/11 are de- exhibited and the same were Mark A, B & C. There were no document Ex. AW1/5 & AW1/9. Thereafter petitioner also examined his son Sh. Jaspal Singh as AW2 who tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. AW2/A. The witnesses were duly cross examined. Thereafter, PE was closed on 11.12.2024.
THE RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE:-
7. To prove his case, LRs of the respondent examined the wife of deceased respondent as as RW-1 Ms. Yogita Aneja and she tendered her evidence affidavit as Ex. RW1/A and relied upon the documents i.e. Site plan Ex. RW1/1, RTI application Mark- RW1/2, Reply of RTI application dated 23.06.2016 Ex. RW1/3, Original Reply of office value added tax officer dated 11.07.2016 Ex. RW1/4 (Colly), Certified copy of eviction petition against Smt. Gurdeep Kaur Ex. RW1/5, Certified Site plan of eviction petition against Smt. Gurdeep Kaur Ex. RW1/6, Certified copy of order dated 12.12.2007 Ex. RW1/7, Certified copy of application and affidavit filed by petitioner in suit titled as Pritam Singh Vs. Page no. 19 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja ManMohan Aneja & Ors." Ex. RW1/8 (Colly), Original Water bills Ex. RW1/9 (Colly) and Original Electricity Bills Ex. RW1/10 (Colly) (02 pages). Thereafter one Mr. Kulbhushan Kohli, s/o Vishvamitra Kumar was examined as RW-2 who tendered his evidence affidavit as Ex. RW2/A. The witnesses were cross-examined and thereafter DE was closed on 08.08.2025 by court order.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
8. Final arguments advanced by ld counsel for respondent have been heard at length. File has been carefully and minutely perused and the findings with reasons thereof are given in the succeeding paragraphs.
REASONING AND ANALYSIS:-
9. At the outset, it is expedient to reproduce Section 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act which is as under-
"Section-14. Protection of tenant against eviction- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by court or any controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant:
Provided that the controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely: "That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself or for any member of his Page no. 20 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable accommodation."
10. As such, followings are the ingredients of Section 14 (1)(e) of D.R.C. Act:-
(I) There should be a relationship of landlord and tenant between the petitioner and respondent.
(II) Landlord should be the owner of the tenanted premises. (III)That the premises are required bonafide by the landlord for himself/herself or for any member of his/her family dependent upon him/her.
(IV)Landlord/petitioner should not have other reasonably suitable accommodation.
11. Let us now discuss the ingredients of Section 14 (1)
(e) of DRC Act one by one as applicable to the present facts and circumstances.
Ownership Of The Subject Premises And Relationship Of Landlord And Tenant:-
11.1 In regard to ownership of the petitioner in the subject premises, it is observed that to prove his ownership in the property in question, the petitioner has placed on record the copy of sale deed Ex. AW1/3. The genuineness of said document has not been disputed in any manner in the cross examination of AW1 and no single question has been asked with respect to the genuineness and execution of the said document. Now on perusal Page no. 21 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja of said document, it is clear that property in question was purchased by the petitioner from one person namely Ram Nath by way of registered sale deed. The document being a registered document carries the presumption of genuineness . 11.2 Now on the other hand though the respondent in his WS has denied the validity of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, however, LRs of respondent / RW1 in a cross-
examination duly admitted that subject premises were acquired by the petitioner.
11.3. Again the respondent in his WS has duly admitted the relationship of land-lord and tenant between both the parties and have specifically stated that previously the subject premises was let out to father of respondent and again it is also an admitted fact that rent was being deposited by the respondents in the court in the name of petitioner. Again RW1 has duly admitted in a cross-examination that rent was also deposited by her son in the bank account of the petitioner. Accordingly, the relationship of land-lord and tenant is not in dispute in any manner and therefore, even otherwise the respondent has no right to challenge the ownership of the petitioner in the subject premises in view of provision of Sec 116 IEA (S 122 BSA).
11.4. It is also pertinent herein that as per the case of plaintiff, the defendant has raised illegal construction of one kitchen and bathroom alongwith the two rooms, which were let out to the father of the respondent. On the other hand, the respondent in their WS have specifically stated that said Page no. 22 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja bathroom and kitchen was the part of tenanted premises only. Once the respondent / tenants themselves have admitted the said bathroom and kitchen being the part of tenanted premises, the petitioner is certainly entitled to seek the eviction of the respondents from the said bathroom and kitchen. Even otherwise, if it is taken that construction of said bathroom and kitchen was illegal and without consent of the land-lord, the petitioner can seek the eviction from the said premises in view of the provision of S 108 of TPA.
11.5. In view of aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that the ownership of petitioner in subject premises and relationship of landlord and tenant between both the parties is not matter of dispute in any manner.
BONAFIDE REQUIREMENT OF THE PETITIONER 11.6. Regarding the bonafide requirement of the subject premises by the petitioner, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that as stated in the eviction petition as well as in the evidence affidavit of AW1 and AW2, the tenanted premises are required to be vacated as petitioner needs the separate room for the family of his younger son Gurpreet Singh and also for the purpose of separate guest room and separate study room for school going children in the family. It is submitted that the respondent / RW1 has admitted in her cross-examination that she is not aware about the family members of the petitioner and accordingly the bonafide requirement of the petitioner is not Page no. 23 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja in dispute.
11.7. On the other hand, counsel for respondent has submitted that the requirement of petitioner is not bonafide and case has been filed without any grounds.
11.8. It is to observe that the law is very well settled that the requirement of the landlord has to be presumed by the court as being bonafide. Regarding the bonafide requirement of the petitioner, it is to observe that the law is very well settled that the requirement of the landlord is to be presumed as genuine and in this regard, reference can be also made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Abid-Ur-Islam Vs Indersen Dua dated 07.04.2022, wherein it was observed as follows :-
".........when a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bonafide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that requirement of the landlord is bonafide......".
Again, it is further observed that the legal position is very well settled that it is not the tenant but the landlord himself who has to decide the suitability of his requirement with respect to the tenanted premises. In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-landlord wanted eviction of the tenant Page no. 24 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
11.9. In view of this legal position, the requirement of the petitioner has to be presumed, as being bonafide, by the present Court. Now, it can be observed that as per the case of the petitioner, he required the premises in question for residence of the family of his son and also for purpose of guest room and separate study room for school going children, however, on the contrary, the respondent has not made any specific denial of the said requirement. Even, in the cross-examination of AW1 and AW2, no specific questions has been asked with respect to the said requirement and most of the cross-examination pertains to the availability of alternate accommodation. Therefore, the respondents have failed to lead any material on record to rebut the presumption in favour of the petitioner. 11.10. It is further observed that the petitioner / AW1 has specifically deposed in his evidence affidavit with respect to the requirement of the tenanted premises for purpose of the family of his son namely Gurpreet Singh and also for purpose the guest room so as to accommodate the stay of her married daughter and other relatives, as and when they visit and also for the purpose of the separate study room for the school going children. Now, as admitted in the cross-examination of RW1, tenanted premises are not far away from the home of the petitioner. Accordingly, the requirement of petitioner for tenanted premises is certainly bonafide. It is further observed that the land-lord has every right Page no. 25 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja to live in his property with comfort and it is not for the respondent / tenant to dictate to the land-lord how he should use his own property and in what manner. Accordingly, in view of aforesaid discussion, it is concluded that petitioner has successfully established the bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises.
ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION AVAILABLE WITH THE PETITIONER 11.11. In this regard, it has been argued by counsel for respondent that as reflected from the site plan Ex.AW1/1, the petitioner has not disclosed about the availability of the space in the adjoining property. That as per the said site plan there was sufficient space including rooms alongwith kitchen at the ground floor as well as the room at the mezzanine floor of the adjoining property to the tenant premises and accordingly the requirement of the petitioner could be fulfilled by use of the said premises, whereas the petitioner has not been using the same and said premises have remained locked as deposed by RW1 in her cross- examination. It is further submitted that AW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the portion shown in green in the site plan Mark R1(ExRW1/1) was let out to three tenants for residential purposes and accordingly it is contented that the tenants would not have been residing without kitchen, toilet and bathroom and therefore, the version of the petitioner that said portion was being Page no. 26 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja used for purpose of godown was not believable. It is further submitted that petitioner had also sufficient space at the place of his residence at Moti Nagar, Rohtak Road.
11.12. On the other hand, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that AW1 in his evidence affidavit has specifically stated that the portion of property no. 8577 was being used by the petitioner for purpose of storage of goods of the business being run by him under the name and style of M/S Maya and Sons at shop no. 11263, Kela Kothi, Guashala Road, New Delhi. In this regard attention is also drawn to the document Ex.RW1/4, which is the reply of RTI application filed by the respondent himself to the department of VAT, wherein the property in question bearing no. 8577 was mentioned as additional place of business by M/S Maya and Sons. It is further submitted that said fact was disclosed by the petitioner in the replication itself. It is further submitted that property bearing no. T-19, Moti Nagar, was not having sufficient space for the purpose of comfortable accommodation of the family of the petitioner and said facts have been deposed on oath by petition / AW1 as well as byt his son examined as AW2.
11.13. Heard. It is observed that as rightly submitted as counsel for petitioner the document relied upon by the respondent himself as Ex.RW1/4 clearly shows that the address of 8577 was mentioned as additional space of the business being run in the Page no. 27 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja name and style of M/S Maya and Sons. It is not a matter of dispute that said business was being run by the petitioner himself. Same has been deposed in the evidence affidavit of AW1as well as in the cross-examination of AW1 and also in the evidence affidavit and cross-examination of AW2. On the other hand the respondent has not led any evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, I am duly satisfied that petitioner has led the evidence to the standard of preponderance of probabilities that the portion in possession of the petitioner in the property no. 8577 was being used by the petitioner for purpose of his godown of his business. It is further observed that the site plan Ex.RW1/1 has not been admitted by the petitioner / AW1 and only some questions with respect to the tenancy in the portion shown in green colour in the said site plan were answered by the petitioner / AW1 in his cross-examination. On the other hand, apart from his own self serving statement of RW1, no evidence has been led to prove if the portion shown in green colour in the site plan Ex.RW1/1 was consisting of kitchen, toilet and bathroom so as being fit for purpose of accommodation / stay. Regarding the testimony of RW2, it is observed that he has not deposed if the said portion in green colour in Site Plan RW1/1 was fit for purpose of the requirement of petitioner. Accordingly, I am of the view that the respondent has failed to prove his version that said portion in green colour in Ex.RW1/1 was shown correctly and again if it was fit for being used by the petitioner for purpose of his requirement , as mentioned above and Page no. 28 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja consequently, it is to be concluded that said premises were not suitable as an alternate accommodation against the tenanted premises. Even otherwise, it is not for the tenant to dictate to the land-lord that which of the properties should be used in what manner.
11.14. Regarding the availability of space at the residence of the petitioner himself at T-19 Moti Nagar, the petitioner has deposed in detail the status of availability of the space at the said premises in his evidence affidavit and his version is further corroborated by testimony of his son / AW2 to the effect that all the rooms available in the said property were not sufficient for comfortable living of the petitioner and his family. On the other hand, nothing has been extracted in their cross-examination on behalf of respondent so as to impeach the credibility of their version.
11.15. Now as respondent has failed to plead or to prove if the petitioner was having any other alternate property available with her for the requirement of her sons , it is further established that the petitioner has no other suitable alternate accommodation against the tenanted premises to fulfill the bonafide requirement as mentioned above.
CONCLUSION
12. Hence, in view of the discussion made above, it is concluded that petitioner has been able to prove all the ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act. Accordingly, Page no. 29 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent under section 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for recovery of the tenanted premises i.e. premises at property bearing no. 8577, Katra Shanti Devi, New Rohtak Road, New Delhi as shown in red color in site plan i.e. Ex.AW1/2. However, the petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for recovery of the possession of the tenanted premises before expiration of six months from today in view of provisions of Section 14 (7) of the Act.
12.1. It is further observed that the present eviction petition was filed in the year 2016 and the was pending before the court for more than 9 years. As reflected from the ordersheets the delay was caused for the reasons to be assigned to both the parties, however, the fact remains that for more than 9 years, the petitioner was deprived of the enjoyment of his own property. It is the case where the respondent falsely pleaded the availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner. Accordingly, I am of the view that it is a fit case where realistic amount of cost should be imposed upon the respondent. Even otherwise, the imposition of cost goes a longway in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings by the litigants. In this regard, reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Ram Rameshwari Devi & Ors Vs. Nirmala Devi and Ors dated 04.07.2011 and also on the celebrated case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India Page no. 30 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025 RC ARC No. 79640/2016 Pritam Singh Vs. Sh. Man Mohan Aneja AIR 2005 SC 3353. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent is imposed the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- ( Rupees One Lac Only) to be paid to the petitioner. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedVIVEK by VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.10 16:50:06 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/10.11.2025 (Announced in open court On 10.11.2025 ).
Note: This judgment contains 31 pages and all the pages have been checked and signed by me.
Digitally signed byVIVEK VIVEK KUMAR KUMAR AGARWAL Date: 2025.11.10 AGARWAL 16:50:20 +0530 (VIVEK KUMAR AGARWAL) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-Guardian Judge-02, West,THC) (Previously posted as ARC-02, Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi/10.11.2025 Page no. 31 of 31 (Vivek Kumar Agarwal) (JSCC-cum-ASCJ-cum-GJ-02, West,THC), 10.11.2025