Delhi District Court
Smt. Kamlesh Aggarwal vs Vijay Wool Store on 23 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR,
ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE CUM ADDITIONAL RENT
CONTROLLER (CENTRAL) : DELHI
E122/17 (Old), 78128/16 (New)
In the matter of :
Smt. Kamlesh Aggarwal,
W/o Late Sh. Naresh Chand Aggarwal,
R/o H.No. 3512, Gali No.6,
Regharpura, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005. ......Petitioner
Versus
Vijay Wool Store
through its partners namely,
1. Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain,
2. Sh. Virender Kumar Jain,
3. Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain,
4. Sh. Parmod Kumar Jain,
Shop in property no. 3512,
Gali No.6, Regharpura,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005.
2nd address
3/3348, Christen Colony,
Opposite Karol Bagh, Police Station,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
3rd address
258687, Outside Gali No.5,
Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi110005. ....Respondent
E78128/16 Page 1/17
Date of Institution : 30.04.2014 Date of order when reserved : 31.03.2018 Date of order when announced : 23.04.2018 J U D G M E N T:
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present eviction petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents/ tenants U/s 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act'), in respect of shop on the ground floor bearing Municipal No. 3512, Gali No.6, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, as shown in red colour in the site plan.
2. The averments as mentioned in the petition are reproduced in brief here as under :
(a) That the petitioner who is a widow lady of aged about 61 years, is one of the owners/ landlords of the tenanted shop situated in property bearing Municipal No. 3512, Gali No. 6, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005. That originally Smt. Sharbati Devi, W/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal Gupta (motherinlaw of petitioner) was the owner of the property bearing no. 6/3512, situated at Gali No. 6, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Smt. Sharbati Devi died intestate on 02.05.1984 at New Delhi, leaving behind the following legal heirs : S.No. Name Relationship with deceased
1. B.L. Gupta Husband
2. Vidya Devi (now deceased) Daughter
3. Ramesh Chand Aggarwal (now deceased) Son
4. Devesh Chand Aggarwal Son
5. Sheela Devi (now deceased) Daughter
6. Satish Chand Aggarwal Son
7. Mahesh Chand Aggarwal (now deceased) Son
8. Naresh Chand Aggarwal (now deceased) Son That the husband of Smt. Sharbati Devi, Sh. B.L. Gupta had died E78128/16 Page 2/17 on 03.08.1988. The legal heirs of deceased have inherited the aforesaid property bearing no. 6/3512, situated at Gali No. 6, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The present petitioner is the widow of Sh. Naresh Chand Aggarwal, son of the original owner.
(b) That the respondent i.e. Vijay Wool Store through Sh. Gyan Chand Jain was inducted as a tenant in respect of the premises in question. After the death of Sh. Gyan Chand Jain, Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, Sh. Virender Kumar Jain, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain and Sh. Parmod Kumar Jain became the partners of Vijay Wool Store and Vijay Wool Store is a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 125/.
(c) That the suit premises under the tenancy of the respondent/ tenant is required bonafidely by the petitioner Smt. Kamlesh Aggarwal, W/o Late Sh. Naresh Chand Aggarwal, who was the son of Smt. Sharbati Devi, for running her own business of hardware and paints, with the help, support and advice of other legal heirs and with the help of her relative namely Sh. Lakshaman Kumar Gupta, who is carrying the same business, under the name and style of Fine Paints and Chemicals at Ghaziabad, Sector11, G.T. Road, Ghaziabad. It is further submitted by the petitioner that she has no other suitable commercial accommodation with her for running her business to earn livelihood for herself and she does not want to depend upon others including her son and daughter. That the property in which the tenanted premises is situated, is having three shops, which are shown in red, green and yellow colours in the annexed site plan, apart from residential portion. In the other shop shown in yellow colour, son of the petitioner Sh. Narender Aggarwal is carrying the business of stationery and in third shop, shown in green colour, the other legal heir namely Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal (son of E78128/16 Page 3/17 Smt. Sharbati Devi) is using the same for godown purposes. Except the three shops mentioned above rest of the premises is residential property, which is shown in blue colour in the site plan. Further, it is averred by the petitioner that the other legal heirs have no objection, if the shop in question is got vacated by the petitioner from the tenant.
3. Summons were served upon the respondent and the application for leave to defend was allowed vide order dated 14.01.2016.
4. Written statement was filed on behalf of the respondent. The claim of the petitioner has been challenged by the respondent on the following grounds :
(a) That the petitioner has falsely alleged in the petition that the premises are residential in nature as the premises in dispute are commercial and was let out for commercial purpose. That the petitioner has also falsely alleged that the respondent is not using the tenanted premises and the same is lying locked since long. It is submitted that the premises in dispute is being utilized by the respondent as a godown. The site plan filed by the petitioner is not correct.
(b) That the premises was let out to Vijay Wool Store which is a partnership firm of Sh. Gian Chand Jain and Sh. Mohinder Chand Jain. It is stated that Vijay Wool Store was never a proprietorship concern. It is stated that presently, four sons of Sh. Gian Chand Jain namely Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, Sh. Virender Kumar Jain, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain and Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain are the partners in the same.
(c) That after the death of Smt. Sharbati Devi, there has been inter se E78128/16 Page 4/17 dispute between her heirs as a result of which nobody came forward to demand rent from the respondent since her death. The petitioner has falsely alleged in the petition that the other legal heirs have no objection if the shop in question is got vacated by the petitioner. The petitioner has never become the sole landlady qua the premises in dispute.
(d) That the petitioner has always been a housewife and has never been engaged in any business at any time. Even after the death of her husband, she has always remained as a housewife till date. The petitioner has no intention of starting or running any business. Since there are disputes between other legal heirs, no question of helping, supporting and advising the petitioner by them arises. The petitioner has also not disclosed her alleged relationship with Sh. Lakshaman Kumar Gupta. Sh. Lakshaman Kumar Gupta is gainfully employed in Ghaziabad and is a resident of Ghaziabad and cannot is any way help the petitioner in carrying on the alleged business and has no such intention. The son of the petitioner has been maintaining the petitioner since the death of his father.
(e) That the petitioner is in exclusive possession of the entire property no. 3512, Gali No. 6, Regharpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The entire ground floor of the said property is commercial. The first and second floors of the said property are being used by the petitioner as residence for herself and her family members. The shop adjoining to the premises in dispute towards the west is being used by the son of the petitioner for his business. Besides, the premises in dispute and the said shop of the son of the petitioner, the remaining portion of the ground floor is lying vacant and unutilized and the same is also in possession of the petitioner. Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal is not in possession of any portion of the property in E78128/16 Page 5/17 dispute. It is submitted that the space on the ground floor which comprises of three shops which are been lying locked and unutilized by the petitioner is sufficient and suitable for the alleged business. There are five shops on the ground floor of the suit property, out of which one is the tenanted premises and the other is being used by the son of the petitioner. The remaining three shops are in possession of the petitioner and are lying vacant and unutilized.
5. Replication to the written statement was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has denied the allegations of the respondent and has reiterated the same facts as averred in the petition.
6. During trial petitioner amended the plaint to the effect that Vijay Wool Store earlier shown as proprietorship concern is amended to be partnership concern and name of all the partners namely Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, Sh. Virender Kumar Jain, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jain and Sh. Pramod Kumar Jain have been added in the same.
7. In order to prove her case, the petitioner has examined herself as PW1. She reiterated the contents of her petition and also exhibited on record site plan as Ex. PW1/1; four rent receipts as Ex. PW1/2 (Collectively); registered sale deed in favour of Smt. Sharbati Devi as Ex. PW1/3; death certificate of Sh. B.L. Gupta, husband of Smt. Sharbati Devi as Ex. PW1/4; death certificate of Sh. Naresh Chand Aggarwal, son of Smt. Sharbati Devi and husband of present petitioner as Ex. PW1/5, ten photographs of the property as Ex. PW1/6 (Collectively), four photographs of property with newspaper as Ex. PW1/7. In her crossexamination, the photographs Ex. PW1/6 & Ex. PW1/7 were marked as MarkB and Mark C and photocopy of Income Tax Return of Sh. Lakashaman Kumar Gupta as E78128/16 Page 6/17 MarkA. Death certificate of Smt. Sharbati Devi is also MarkA. In her crossexamination, it is stated by her that earlier her motherinlaw used to take rent and after her death present petitioner started receiving the rent. It is accepted by her that she was always being a housewife. She denied the suggestion that premises shown in green colour is not in possession of Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal. It is stated by her that the portions X and Y in the site plan are in her possession which were used to be used by her as baithak. It is accepted by her that after death of her husband, her son is maintaining her. It is accepted by her that she is residing with her family on the first and second floors of the property in question.
8. No other witness was examined and petitioner's evidence was closed.
9. In support of their case, the respondents have examined respondent Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain as RW1. RW1 reiterated the contents stated in written statement. No document was filed by him. In his cross examination, it is stated that he has paid the rent since 1984 in respect of the suit property. It is stated that there are five shops on the ground floor of the suit property i.e. three on the front side and two on the back side. It is stated that he has not filed any site plan in respect of the suit property. During crossexamination site plan filed by petitioner, Ex. PW1/1 was shown to him. It is accepted by him that there is a verandah on the back side of the property i.e. in front of portion marked as Y in Ex. PW1/1. It is stated by him that all the portions above ground floor are residential in nature. This witness denied all the photographs of the suit property shown to him. It is stated by him that he has not filed any photograph of the suit property on record. This witness has shown his ignorance to the fact if petitioner is E78128/16 Page 7/17 owning any other commercial, or residential property. It is stated by him that he is maintaining the tenanted premises as godown. It is stated by him that he knows Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal, who is one of the legal heir of Smt. Sharbati Devi. Again, photographs MarkB (Collectively) were shown to him wherein he failed to recognize Sh. Satish Chand, however he do recognize the lady standing in the same to be the daughterinlaw of the petitioner. He denied the suggestion that he has purposely and deliberately not filed the site plan and photographs of the suit property.
10. No other witness was examined and respondent's evidence was closed.
11. I have heard the arguments and perused the record carefully.
12. The essential ingredients which a landlord/ petitioner is required to prove for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide needs are
(i) the petitioner is the owner/ landlord of the suit premises (ii) the suit premises are required bona fide by the landlord for himself and any of his family members dependent upon him (iii) the landlord or such other family members has no other reasonable suitable accommodation.
Ownership as well as existence of landlordtenant relationship :
13. The contention of the respondent is that after the death of original owner Smt. Sharbati Devi, there is an inter se dispute between the legal heirs of Smt. Sharbati Devi, hence the petitioner never became sole landlord/ owner of the premises in question. It is admitted position that present E78128/16 Page 8/17 petitioner is one of the legal heir of Smt. Sharbati Devi being her daughter inlaw (wife of her son Sh. Naresh Chand Aggarwal). It is admitted position of law that one cosharer/ coowner can file eviction petition against the tenants, reliance being placed upon the judgment in case titled as M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Ct. & Ors. Vs. Bhagabandel Agarwalla (dead) by LRs & Ors., AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1321 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that one of the coowners can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property generally owned by the coowners. This principle is based on the doctrine of agency. One coowner filing a suit for eviction against the tenant does so on his own behalf in his own right and as an agent of the other coowners. The consent of other coowners is assumed as taken unless it is shown that the other coowners were not agreeable to eject the tenant and the suit was filed inspite of their disagreement.
14. Since no objection has been filed by any of the other legal heir of deceased Smt. Sharbati Devi, hence it is assumed that they have consented for filing of present petition. Admittedly, petitioner is one of the coowner being one of the legal heir of Smt. Sharbati Devi. Since respondent was a tenant under the original owner, Smt. Sharbati Devi, hence there exists a relationship of tenant and landlord between respondent and petitioner.
Nonavailability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation in Delhi
15. The main contention of the respondent in the present case is that the petitioner is having three vacant shops on the ground floor of the E78128/16 Page 9/17 property in her possession apart from tenanted shop in question as well as the another shop which is in occupation of her son. It is stated that two shops are on the back side of the property and three shops are on the front side of the property.
16. Per contra, it is stated by the petitioner that the alleged two shops at the back side of the property are infact two rooms and not shops. It is further stated that the third shop on the front side is in the possession of Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal who is running a godown from there. It is admitted position that Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal is also a legal heir of original owner, Smt. Sharbati Devi.
17. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for respondent that the leave to defend application was granted to the respondent mainly on the ground that no document has been filed on record to show that the third shop in the front portion is in the possession of Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal. It is further contended that no such document has been filed even during evidence, infact even Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal was not examined as a witness to prove his possession. On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that petitioner has filed on record photographs of the suit property from which it is apparently clear that the alleged two shops on the back portion are infact rooms, further son of Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal can be seen standing in the third shop of the front side which is in the possession of Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal. It is pointed out by Ld. Counsel for respondent that none of the said photographs have been duly proved, or exhibited in the evidence.
18. It is well settled that the standard of proof in civil cases and criminal cases is quite different. The plaintiff in a civil suit has to merely E78128/16 Page 10/17 establish his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. As per Section 3 of the Evidence Act, a fact is said to be proved when the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. The Court has to weigh the conflicting probabilities and decide whether the preponderance is in favour of the fact asserted by the plaintiff. Thus, if the evidence of the plaintiff outweighs that of the defendant and persuades the Court to believe the same to be more probable and true than that of the defendant then it can be held that the plaintiff has proved his case by preponderance of probability. Reference may be made to the judgments titled as N.G. Dastane, Dr. v. S. Dastane, reported as AIR 1975 SC 1534 and Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka reported as AIR 1979 SC 1848.
19. Coming to the facts of the present case, in the present matter the respondent has not filed any site plan, or any photographs of the suit property. There is only oral testimony of the respondent on record alleging that the third shop on the front side is not in possession of Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal. On the other hand, there is oral testimony of the petitioner that the said third shop is in the possession of Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal. Now, this Court has to decide if the contention of petitioner is more probable, than the contention of the respondent. The following facts shows that the preponderance of probability is in favour of the petitioner :
(i) There is a site plan on record filed by the petitioner, no counter site plan has been filed by the respondent. Infact during his cross E78128/16 Page 11/17 examination the respondent admitted the rooms/ shops shown in the site plan. Furthermore, in "R.K. Bhatnagar Vs. Sushila Bhargava", 1986 RLR 232, it was observed by Hon'ble High of Delhi that "if a tenant does not file a site plan showing that site plan filed by the owner is incorrect, then the owner's plan would be assumed to be correct". Thus, the site plan has been duly proved on record. This site plan categorically shows that the alleged godown which is in possession of Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal as per petitioner or is lying locked as per respondent is 12' X 12' in dimension while the shop from which the son of the petitioner is running stationery shop is only 4' X 12' in dimension. A shop of 4 feet width has to be considered a very small shop by any standard. Such a shop cannot be deemed appropriate for running any business, had the shop with the dimension 12' X 12' would have been lying vacant, the son of the petitioner should have started his business from there and should not have to squeezed himself to the smaller shop which is only 1/3rd of the other shop.
(ii) The respondent has simply said that the third shop is lying vacant. He could not tell if earlier someone was using that shop, or not, or since when its lying locked. On the other hand, petitioner has categorically stated that Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal is using that shop as godown.
20. The abovestated facts establishes existence of the fact of occupation of third shop by Sh. Satish Chand Aggarwal so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.
21. Similarly, qua alleged two shops on the back side of the property E78128/16 Page 12/17 no photograph, or site plan has been filed by the respondent. Infact during his crossexamination it is accepted by the respondent that there is verandah in front of the alleged shop at Point Y. It is nowhere claimed by respondent if any person ever carried out any commercial activity from the said shops. From perusal of the site plan of the property, it is apparent that the said two rooms X and Y on the back side of the property are not constructed as shops. Infact there is verandah wherein there is a latrine and store and also staircase going to upper floors from that verandah which is in front of alleged shop at point Y. This construction clearly shows that room Y was never constructed as a shop, rather it is a room only. Similarly, the other room X though having door opening towards gali, however it is not the contention of the respondent if this room was ever used by anyone for commercial purpose. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the alleged two shops in the back portion are not shops, rather they are rooms is more probable.
22. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Udai Shankar Upadhyay Vs. Naveen Maheshwari, (2010) 1 SCC 503 and Dhanna Lal Vs. Kalawatibai, (2002) 6 SCC 16 that it is in common knowledge that commercial premises have different value depending upon the location and the floor at which they are situated and shops situated at an inconvenient location do not attract customers and no lucrative business can be carried on therefrom as from a shop located strategically. A perusal of the site plan shows that while the shop in the tenancy of the petitioner has its opening on the main road which has a flourishing market, the alleged two shops (which are infact rooms) have their opening in a narrow lane/ gali. It is obvious that the shop situated at the main road is more convenient and suitable for lucrative business, than the shop situated at the back portion/ towards narrow E78128/16 Page 13/17 street of the premises. The respondent being the owner/landlord of the premises has all the right and choice to start his own business in the premises more suitable and convenient to him. It was held in Anil Bajaj and Anr. Vs. Vinod Ahuja, 2014 (6) SCALE 572 that if the landlord is carrying on business in a shop which is located in a narrow lane, he is entitled to evict the tenant of the tenanted premises which is situated on the main road. While in the present case, no commercial activity are being carried from those back portions. It is settled law that the landlord is the master of his choice and tenant or the Court cannot compel a landlord to choose a particular place against his choice.
23. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has been able to establish that she does not have any reasonably suitable alternative commercial accommodation in Delhi for herself, except the tenanted premises.
Bonafide Requirement
24. In Sarwan Dass Bange Vs. Ram Prakash, 167 (2010) DLT 80 = 2010 IV AD (Delhi) 252, observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh Bajwa Vs. Monish Saini, VIII (2005) 12 SCC 778, have been quoted as under : "it was held that the legislative intent is of expeditious disposal of the application for ejectment of tenant filed on the ground of requirement by the landlord of the premises for his own occupation; a special category of landlords requiring the premises for their own use has been created; if there is any breach by the landlord, the tenant is given a right of restoration of E78128/16 Page 14/17 possession; the landlord who evicts a tenant on the ground of own requirement is not only prohibited from letting out the premises or disposing of the same but also required to use the same for his own residence only. It was held that these restrictions and conditions inculcate in built strong presumption that the need of the landlord is genuine; the conditions and restrictions imposed on the landlord make it virtually improbable for the landlord to approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant, unless his need is bonafide no unscrupulous landlord in all probability, under this section, would approach the Court for ejectment of the tenant considering the onerous conditions imposed on him. It was further held that this inbuilt protection in the Act for the tenants implies that whenever the landlord would approach the Court his requirements shall be presumed to be genuine and bonafide. It was further held that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove that the requirement is not genuine. The tenant is required to give all the necessary facts and particulars supported by documentary evidence if available to prove his plea in the affidavit itself so that the Controller will be in a position to adjudicate and decide the question of genuine or bona fide requirement of the landlord; a mere assertion on the part of the tenant would not be sufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord's favour that his requirement of occupation of the premises is real and genuine."
25. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dattatraya Laxman Kamble Vs. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde, (1999) 4 SCC 1 held that the phrase "reasonably and bona fide required by the landlord" is not to be tested on par with "dire need" of a landlord because the latter is a much greater need. Similarly, in Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. Chaganlal Sundarji & Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1 it was held that the word "reasonable" connotes that the E78128/16 Page 15/17 requirement or the need is not fanciful or unreasonable but need not also be a "compelling" or "absolute" or "dire necessity". A reasonable and bonafide requirement was held to be something in between a mere desire or wish on the one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity on the other hand.
26. The contention of the respondent is that the petitioner has always been a housewife even after death of her husband till date. It is contended that she has never been engaged in any business at any time. This contention of the respondent is not tenable as a person can start a new business at any point of life, in the present day life, there is no age of retirement. Merely the applicant is having old age, ipso facto, would not mean that her need is not bonafide. Reliance being placed upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case titled as Shyama Bai, widow of Late Mulayam Vs Murlidhar, decied on 19.02.2008 and also on judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Abdul Qadir Versus smt. Prakash Rani Bhalla, decided on 06.08.2012. It is also to be noted that the Court cannot compel the petitioner to remain on the mercy of her son and not to start any business of her own.
27. Even if landlord has no experience in the new business that does not mean that his/ her claim for starting new business must be rejected on the ground that it is a false claim. Many people start new business even if they do not have experience in the new business and sometimes they are successful in the new business also. The same has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ram Babu Vs. Jay Kishan Das, (2010) 1 SCC 164.
E78128/16 Page 16/1728. In these circumstances, the contention of the petitioner that she wish to start business with the advise of her relative Sh. Lakshaman Kumar Gupta (nephew) deemed to be bonafide. On the other hand, the contention of the respondent that Sh. Lakshaman Kumar Gupta is working from Ghaziabad, hence cannot aid and advise in the business of the petitioner is only hypothetical.
29. Moreover, if the petitioner does not use the property for the purposes claimed in the petition, the respondent has a statutory remedy available U/s 19 of the DRC Act to seek reentry.
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has proved all the necessary ingredients of Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
31. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed U/S 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of shop on the ground floor bearing Municipal No. 3512, Gali No.6, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, as shown in red colour in the site plan. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/s 14 (7) of DRC Act. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR)
on 23.04.2018 Administrative Civil Judge cum
Additional Rent Controller (Central)
Delhi/23.04.2018
(This judgment contains 17 pages in total)
E78128/16 Page 17/17
E78128/16
23.04.2018
Present : None.
Vide separate order, the present eviction petition of the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent in respect of shop on the ground floor bearing Municipal No. 3512, Gali No.6, Regarpura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi110005, as shown in red colour in the site plan. However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six months from the date of this order as provided U/s 14 (7) of DRC Act. Parties to bear their own costs File be consigned to Record Room.
(Gajender Singh Nagar) ACJcumARC (Central) Delhi/23.04.2018 E78128/16 Page 18/17