Delhi District Court
Anil Kumar Ors vs Vivek Bhandari on 13 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA, SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, SHAHDARA
RC ARC E2/2016 554/16
Case Registration no. DLSH03-000046-2016
1. Sh. Anil Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Bholanath,
R/o H.No. 325, Opposite Geeta Bhawan,
BholaNath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-110032.
2. Sh. Kailash Chand,
S/o Late Sh. Bholanath,
R/o H.No. 334-335, Chhota Thakur Dwara,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
3. (a) Sh. Manish Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Chamanlal,
R/o H.No. 334-335, Chhota Thakur Dwara,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
3.(b) Sh. Anish Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Chamanlal,
R/o H.No. 334-335, Chhota Thakur Dwara,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ...Petitioners
Vs.
1. Sh.Vivek Bhandari,
S/o Sh. PranNath Bhandari,
R/o C-240, Jhilmil Colony,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032. ...Respondent
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.1/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.13
16:40:57 +0530
Application under Section 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (for
short, “DRC, Act“)
Date of Institution : 05.01.2016
Date of Reserving Judgment : 31.05.2025
Date of Decision : 13.06.2025
Decision : Allowed
Judgment:-
1) Relief sought:- Eviction order for ejectment of the respondent from the
tenanted premises i.e. shop bearing no.320/IV, Private no.1, Bhola Nath
Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32, which is built upon plot no.10, comprising of
one shop on the ground floor, shown in red color in the site plan be passed
in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent and possession of the
same be ordered to be delivered from the respondent or any other person
found in possession of the same to the petitioners.
2) Facts of the case: – The facts, as given in the present application, are
briefly stated as follows:-
i. The petitioners are the absolute owners and landlord of the shop
bearing no. 320/IV, Private no.1, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-32, (hereinafter also referred as, “tenanted premises “) as
shown in red colour in the annexed site plan. The tenanted
premises was owned by the father of the petitioners (Lt. Sh. Bhola
Nath). It is submitted that after the death of Sh. Bhola Nath
(father of the petitioners), the tenanted premises devolved uponRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.2/33Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:41:06 +0530
the petitioners and inherited by them and petitioners became the
owner of the tenanted premises. It is submitted that respondent
was inducted as a tenant in the tenanted premises on or about
01.08.1996 by the petitioners at the monthly rent of Rs.733/-.
ii. By way of this application, the petitioner is seeking eviction of
the respondent on the ground that the tenanted premises is
required by the petitioner no.3 bona fide for his son Sh. Anish
Kumar, who is running an institute namely, M-Xpert from shop
no .319, (part of shop no.320 and 332) together constituting the
area of around 53 square yards. It is submitted that the institute is
narrow from the front and broad from the back as front portion is
occupied by the respondent and one more tenant. It is submitted
that there are 40 students in the said institute as on date and the
present space is inadequate to run the said institute and due to
which new batches cannot be started. It is submitted that there is
no alternate vacant commercial accommodation.
3) Defence of respondents as per written statement :- (a) That the petition
of the petitioners are liable to be dismissed as they have concealed the facts
that they are already in occupation and possession of vacant shops bearing
no.319,322, 325, 327, 330, 331 & 332 which can be used by the son of
petitioner no.3. It is submitted that shop shop no. 325 measuring 150 sq
yards is adjacent to shop no.319 & 320 and son of petitioner no.3 can
comfortably run his business by amalgamating the said shops. Further, shop
no.327 can also be utilized by the son of the petitioner no.3 for projection
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.3/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
SHARMA
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.13
16:41:12
+0530
of the institute. (b) That the petitioners are not the owners of the tenanted
premises and they have no right to file the eviction petition. (c) That the
MCD had sent a letter to the respondent on 27.03.2002 with regard to suit
property bearing shop no. 320, D.S Block, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi-32 which indicates that the said premises belongs to the MCD by
virtue of deed dated 04.01.1978 and registered on 25.03.1998 at the office
of Sub-Registrar, Delhi and the respondent was required to perform the
necessary formalities and fill up the requisite proforma. (d) That the
petitioners have not filed any title documents which shows that their father
Sh. Bhola Nath was the owner of the tenanted premises in question. (e)
That the property was initially owned and possessed by Ministry of
Rehabilitation, Government of India, New Delhi and the same was declared
as evacuee property by the Government and the same was transferred to the
MCD by virtue of the Deed dated 04.01.1978 and registered on 25.03.1998
and now the EDMC is the absolute owner of the property in question. (f)
Petitioners have filed the incorrect site plan. (g) That the petitioners have
not filed any document which shows that there has been a steady increase
in the numbers of student and how many teachers have been employed by
son of the petitioner no.3 to run the said institute.
4) Replication:- Replication was filed on behalf of the petitioners, denying
the allegations/averments made by the respondent in their written
statement.
5) Evidence led on behalf of the petitioner : -In order to substantiate his
case, the petitioner has examined six witnesses as PW-1 Sh. Kailash Chand,RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.4/33Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:41:18 +0530
PW2 Sh. Anish Kumar, PW-3 Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Attendant, Govt.
of NCT, Department of Delhi Archives, PW-4 Sh. Naresh Kumar Soni,
Civil Nazir, PW-5 Sh. Jagdish Prasad, Ahlmad and PW6 Sh. Amit
Bharadwaj, JA, record room civil.
6) PW-1 Sh. Kailash Chand has tendered his examination-in-chief by way
of affidavit Exhibit PW-1/A and has relied upon and placed on record the
following documents:-
S.no. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Copy of site plan Exhibit PW-1/1,
2. Copy of partition deed Exhibit PW-1/2 (OSR)
registered in favour of
father of petitioner in
respect of suit property
3. The copy of rent Exhibit PW-1/3 (OSR)
agreement of the suit
property
4. Certified copy of Exhibit PW-1/4
judgment in earlier
case filed against the
respondent by the
petitioner
5. Copy of DR petition Mark A
filed by the respondentRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.5/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
SHARMA
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.13
16:41:25
+0530
6. Original photographs Exhibit PW1/7 (Colly)
7. Copies of the Exhibit PW1/8 (Colly) (OSR)
attendance register of (objected to mode of proof)
staff in the said
institute
8. Copies of the Exhibit PW1/9 (Colly) (OSR)
attendance register of (objected to mode of proof)
students in the said
institute
9. Copies of fees receipts Exhibit PW1/10 (Colly) (OSR)
of the students (objected to mode of proof)
studying inn the said
institutePW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
7) Next, the petitioner has examined PW2 Sh. Anish Kumar, who has
tendered his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit Exhibit PW-2/A and
relied upon all the documents which are already exhibited by PW1. PW2
cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
8) Next, the petitioner has examined PW3 Sh. Rajender Singh, as
summoned witness, who had brought on record the followings documents:-
S.no. Documents Exhibit/Mark 1. Registered partition deed (document Exhibit PW3/A RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16 Dated 13.06.2025 Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.6/33 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 16:41:31 +0530 no.14345, book no.1, volume no.636, page (Colly) (OSR)
no.168 to 182) dated 26.10.1966, Sub- (pages 21)
Registrar-II
9) Next, the petitioner has examined PW4 Sh. Naresh Kumar Soni, as
summoned witness, who had brought on record the followings documents:-
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. Certified copies of the Exhibit PW4/A
application under Section 27 (Colly) (pages 8)
of DRC Act, its affidavit,
and ordersheet dated
28.10.2015 and 08.01.2016
PW4 was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the respondent.
10) Next, the petitioner has examined PW5 Sh. Jagdish Prasad, as
summoned witness, who had relied upon the following documents:-
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark 1. Certified copies of the Exhibit PW5/A (Colly)
application/petition under Section (pages 1 to 23)
14(1)(e) of DRC Act (memo of
parties and first page), two site plans,
ordersheet dated 12.01.2022 and
order dated 12.01.2022
11) Next, the petitioner has examined PW6 Sh. Amit Bhardwaj, as
summoned witness, who had relied upon the following documents:-
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.7/33Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:41:37 +0530
S.No. Documents Exhibit/Mark
1. certified copy of eviction petition Exhibit PW-6/1 (Colly)
(OSR) (page no 1 to
no.329/2006 titled Kailash Chand
14),
vs. Vivek Bhandari, having
Goshwara no.608/ ARC/ East
2. Copy of certified copy of eviction Exhibit PW-6/2 (Colly)
petition no.327/2006 titled Kailash (OSR) (page no 15 to
Chand vs. Shakuntla Sharma and 28)
Ors., having Goshwara
no.366/RC/2011
3. Copy of certified copy of eviction Exhibit PW-6/3 (Colly)
petition no.328/2006, titled Kailash (OSR) (page no 29 to
Chand vs. Ashwani Kumar, having 38)
Goshwara no.105/RC/2010, East
4. Copy of certified copy of eviction Exhibit PW-6/4(Colly)
petition no.38/2009/1986 titled (OSR) (page no 39 to
Kailash Chand vs. Kapal Dev and 60)
Anr., having Goshwara no.369/RC/
East
12) On completion of petitioner’s evidence, opportunities were given to the
respondent to lead RE, however, Respondent did not lead any evidence andRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.8/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:41:43 +0530
opportunity of respondent to lead RE was closed on 01.07.2024 and matter
was listed for final arguments.
13) Final Arguments: – Final arguments were advanced on behalf of the
petitioner. Despite opportunity, no arguments were addressed on behalf of
the respondent.
14) Having heard the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and
having thoroughly perused the entire record of the case, it is to be
considered by this Court whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from
the tenanted premises/shop on the grounds under Section 14 (1) (e) of the
DRC Act.
15) Points Of Consideration: Essentials For Deciding The Present Case:-
The present application has been made under clause (e) of sub-section (1)
of section 14 of Act 59 of 1958, for commercial premises, which after
passing of judgment in Satyawati Sharma’s v. Union of India is to be read
as follows: (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 any court or 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 the
recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following
grounds only, namely:- (e) that the premises are required bona fide by the
landlord for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if
he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premisesRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.9/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
SHARMA
KUMAR Date:
SHARMA 2025.06.13
16:41:49
+0530
are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably
suitable accommodation;
16) In the light of the provisions of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of section
14 of Act 59 of 1958 , triable issues stated in the order allowing application
for leave to defend and the pleadings of the parties following points fall for
the determination of this court, namely,
i. Whether the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises?
ii. Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the
parties?
iii. Whether the premises are required bona fide by the petitioner?
iv. Whether the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation?
17) Arguments already heard and material on record is perused.
18) Whether the petitioner is the owner of the suit premises:-
i. As per the petition, the petitioners are the owners by virtue of inheritance
and partition deed. The tenanted premises was owned by the father of the
petitioners namely, Bhola nath S/o Chandu Nath, who expired on
28.03.1968. Thereafter, the tenanted premises devolved upon the
petitioners. As per the written statement, petitioners are not the owners.
EDMC is the owner of the tenanted premises.
ii. As far as deciding as to who is the owner of the tenanted premises, the
law is settled that cases under DRC do not require proving of absolute
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.10/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:41:56 +0530
ownership by the landlord. Landlord is only required to show that his legal
position on the suit property is more than that of a tenant. The suit will not
get defeated for the imperfectness of the title. Reliance is placed upon the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in PlastiChemicals
Company v. Ashit Chadha and Anr 114 (2004) DLT 408, 2004 (76) DRJ
654 . It says that if a landlord is able to show by producing a document of
his ownership on record, landlord is deemed to have discharged his burden
of ownership vis-a-vis the Rent Control Act and such a document can at
best be challenged by the heirs of the owner and not by the tenant.
Similarly, in the case of Ramesh Chand v. Uganti Devi cited as 157 (2009)
Delhi Law Times 450 it has been held by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
para no. 7 that “It is settled preposition of law that in order to consider the
concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see
the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen
by the court is that the landlord had been receiving the rent for his own
benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was
receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be
considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises
may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the
way of an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, neither
the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not
vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to
the landlord’. It is also well settled preposition of law that ‘for the purpose
of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, a landlord is not supposed to prove
absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property of Act. He is
required to show only that he is more than a tenant”.Hence, the issue of
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.11/33
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:42:02 +0530
ownership of the petitioner on the suit property will be decided in the light
of above stated position of law.
iii. Analysis of evidence:-
Petitioner has relied upon following documents to prove his ownership
i.e., copy of site plan Ex.PW1/1, copy of registered partition Deed in favour
of father of the petitioner Ex.PW1/2 (OSR), certified copy of judgment in
earlier cases filed by the petitioner against the respondent Ex. PW1/4,
certified copy of DR petition filed by respondent Ex.PW1/5.
Ex.PW1/2 is a copy of a partition deed registered in the favour of father
of the petitioners with respect to the suit property. Taqseem Nama i.e.,
partition deed executed between Sh. Amarnath, Sh. Bhola Nath, Smt.
Ganga Devi, Sh. Ram Narayan, Sh. Radhey Shyam, Sh. Sita Ram, Smt.
Sharda, Smt. Shakuntla.
During final arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioners
that petitioners has admitted the landlord tenant relationship qua the
tenanted premises in Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5. The petitioners have relied
upon the provision of Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act to show that the
respondent is estopped from questioning the ownership of the petitioners as
the respondent has admitted the tenancy of the petitioner in Ex.PW1/4.
Section 116 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is read as: ‘Estoppel of tenants
and of licensee of person in possession. — No tenant of immovable
property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the
continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of suchRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.12/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:42:08 +0530
tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable
property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the
licence of the person in possession there of shall be permitted to deny that
such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence
was given’.
Ex.PW1/4 is perused. Same is a judgment dated 11.09.2012 passed in
case bearing no.E-329/06 which is a case between the petitioners and
respondent under Section 14(1)(a) of DRC. The judgment is passed qua the
tenanted premises i.e., Shop no.320/IV, private no.1, Bhola Nath Nagar,
Shahdara, Delhi-110032. Certified copy of the judgment is filed. Contents
of the same are presumed to be genuine by virtue of Section 79 of Indian
Evidence Act. It is required to be assessed whether the aforesaid judgment
is admissible in the present case and to what extent it has bearing on the
facts of this case. Section 43 of Indian Evidence Act talks about the
relevance of the judgments in other court proceedings. Section 43:
Judgments, etc., other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42,
when relevant. –Judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned
in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such
judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other
provision of this Act. It is not disputed by the respondent that the present
judgment was passed in the case bearing no.E-329/06 in a case between the
petitioner and respondent under Section 14(1)(a) of DRC. Parties in both
the cases are same. Both the cases are are under DRC. Parties and the
tenanted premises are also same. In both the cases the ownership is
required to be seen on the basis of who has a better title qua the tenantedRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.13/33
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:42:14 +0530
premises. It is also not disputed that this judgment is not challenged till
date in any appeal or revision. In fact, the respondent in compliance of the
aforesaid judgment has deposited the rent in the court by filing a DR
petition which is Ex.PW1/4. Hence, the judgment is final. In the aforesaid
judgment as well as per the facts of the case, the same defence was taken
by the respondent that the ownership of the tenanted premises is transferred
in favor of EDMC and respondent is not the tenant of the petitioners.
However, as per the judgment since relationship of landlord and tenant is
proved between the parties and question of ownership of the premises is
immaterial.
Ex.PW4/A is copy of DR petition bearing no.203/2015 under Section 27
of DRC Act filed by the respondent (Vivek Bhandari) against the
petitioners (Anil Kumar, Kailash Chand and Chaman Lal). This document
is not disputed by the respondent. Certified copy of the order is proved by
summoning the court record. The order stands proved as primary evidence
is brought on record. The tenanted premises for which the rent is sought to
be deposited is one shop no.320, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi. As
per para 3 of the application, the name and address of landlord is stated “as
mentioned in the array of parties in the title of the case as respondents”.
Respondents in the memo of the parties of Ex.PW4/A are ((1) Sh. Anil
Kumar, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath, (2) Sh. Kailash Chand, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhola
Nath, (3) Sh. Chaman Lal, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath). This document is a
certified copy of the court proceedings and therefore admissible in the
evidence. Section 79 of Indian Evidence Act states that a presumption as to
genuineness of the certified copy is drawn.Nothing is brought on record toRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.14/33Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:42:19 +0530
prove that this application was not filed by the respondent or not filed by
the respondent. By virtue of the contents of this application, the respondent
clearly admits that he is a tenant on the tenanted premises and his landlords
are Sh. Anil Kumar, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath, Sh. Kailash Chand, S/o Lt. Sh.
Bhola Nath, Sh. Chaman Lal, S/o Lt. Sh. Bhola Nath, who are also stated to
be landlords in the present case. Hence, once the tenant admits the landlord
tenant relationship, the ownership of the landlord cannot be questioned by
the tenant. The respondent is estopped under Section 116 of the Indian
Evidence Act. Reliance is placed upon again in the case of Ramesh Chand
v. Uganti Devi cited as 157 (2009) Delhi Law Times 450 it has been held
by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court that ‘………… Section 116 of the
Evidence Act creates estoppels against such a tenant. A tenant can
challenge the title of landlord only after vacating the premises and not
when he is occupying them. In fact, such a tenant who denies the title of the
landlord, qua the premises, to whom he is paying rent, acts dishonestly. I,
therefore, find that there was no infirmity in the order of learned ARC in
this respect. As far as letting purpose is concerned, in view of the judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyawati Sharma (dead by LRs. v. U.O.I,
(2008) 5 SCC 287), this ground is not available to the petitioner.’
Considering the document Ex.PW1/4, the judgment clearly states that
respondent is the tenant of the petitioners qua the tenanted premises.
Further, in consequent of the judgment to protect his possession on the
tenanted premises, the respondent has deposited the rent by virtue of
Ex.PW4/A. This amounts to admission on the part of respondent qua the
landlord tenant relationshop with respect to the tenanted premises. Hence,
the respondent is estopped from challenging the ownership of the
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.15/33
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA 16:42:25
Date: 2025.06.13
+0530
petitioners qua the tenanted premises. Petitioner is able to prove the
ownership by way of a better title and existence of landlord tenant
relationship between the parties.
iv. Analysis of respondent’s evidence:-
Burden of proof is shifted upon the respondent to show that there is no
sufficient admission by virtue of Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW4/A qua the tenancy
on the tenanted premises. Respondent did not lead any defence evidence.
The documents Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW4/A are not disputed. Nothing is
brought out from the cross examination of PW1 with respect to the
genuiness of the aforesaid documents. Respondent has only given a
suggestion in the cross examination of PW1 that the respondent never
admitted the ownership in the petition filed under Section 14(1)(a). In the
opinion of this Court, even though the respondent did not admit the
ownership in the petition under Section 14(1)(a), separate finding in this
regard is given by the Ld. RC in Ex.PW1/4. Further, to protect the
possession, respondent himself has filed the petition under Section 27 of
DRC Act whereby petitioners are stated to be the landlords, respondent
stated to be the tenant qua the tenanted premises. This amounts to a
sufficient admission of landlord tenant relationship, hence operating as an
estoppel upon the respondent to question the ownership of the petitioners.
v. Findings:- Petitioners are able to prove the ownership qua the tenant
premises under DRC Act.
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.16/33
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:42:31 +0530
19) Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between
the parties?
i. Petitioners are relied upon the admissions made by the respondent in the
written statement, rent deed Ex.PW1/3 (OSR), petition filed under Section
27 DRC Act Ex.PW4/A to prove the existence of landlord tenant
relationship between the parties.
ii. Admissions made in written statement: As per para 3 (b) of the petition
the name and address of the tenant is Sh. Vivek Bhandari, S/o of Sh. Pran
Nath Bhandari, R/o C-240, Jhilmil Colony, Shahdara, Delhi-32. In the
corresponding paragraph of reply and merits, it is clearly stated ‘3 b the
para under 3 b of the petition is admitted’. Further, as per para 9 of the
application it is stated that ‘respondent is the sole tenant in the premises
having being inducted therein by present petitioners w.e.f 1 st August 1996.’
In the corresponding paragraph of reply and merits, it is clearly stated ‘that
para 9. the para under 9 of the petition is admitted’. Hence, by virtue of the
admissions in the written statement, the respondent has admitted the
tenancy on the tenanted premises and admitted petitioners as his landlord.
iii. Rent Deed Ex.PW1/3 (OSR): This Deed is dated 16.08.1996 executed
by Vivek Bhandari referred as tenant in favour of Kailash Chand, Chaman
lal and Anil Kumar referred as landlord with respect to one shop 14X5X7
forming party of property bearing no.320 (private no.1) situated at main
road, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32. The document is clearly
mentioned in para 14 of the application. In the written statement,
corresponding paragraph no.14 (reply on merits), it is stated that
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.17/33
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:42:37 +0530
“paragraph no.14 of the petition is not denied”. The respondent has not led
any independent evidence on this aspect. By virtue of the said admission in
the written statement, the respondent has admitted the rent agreement
Ex.PW1/3 executed between him and the petitioners. By virtue of this
admission, the respondent admits the ownership of the petitioners, date of
execution of the rent agreement, landlord tenant relationship and the
address of the property qua which the tenancy is created.
iv. Ex.PW4/A (DR petition), already discussed in para 18 of this judgment.
By virtue of this document as well, the respondent has admitted the
landlord tenant relationship between the parties qua the tenanted premsies.
v. Finding: landlord tenant relationship qua the tenanted premises exists
between the parties.
20) Bona fide requirement:-
i. In Krishan Lal vs R N Bakshi decided by our own Hon’ble High Court
that: ‘8. It is settled law that it is not for a tenant to dictate the terms to the
landlord as to how and in what manner he should adjust himself, without
calling upon the tenant to vacate a tenanted premises. While deciding the
question of bonafides of requirement of landlord, it is quite unnecessary to
make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted. When
the landlord shows a prima facie case, a presumption that the requirement
of the landlord is bonafide, is available to be drawn. It is also settled
position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for
residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.18/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:42:43 +0530
matter and it is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how, and
in what manner, he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard
of their own. The tenant cannot compel a landlord to live in a particular
fashion and method until and unless the requirement shown is totally mala
fide or not genuine’.
ii. As per the application, the younger son of the petitioner no.3, who is
dependent upon him, namely Mr. Anish Kumar aged about 30 years, is
running a institute in the name of “M-Xpert’ from: shop no.319, part of
shop no.320 and also from 332 (all of them are of small sizes, together
constituting the area of around 53 sq. yards which are owned by the
petitioners). Further, these all are joined together to form one premises
from where the son of petitioner no.3 is running a institute since 2009
which is more appropriately shown in blue colour in the site plan, out of the
said area shop no.319 was joined in October, 2013 by the petitioners. The
condition of the institute is such that it is narrow from the front and broad
from the back as front portion is occupied by the respondent and one more
tenant in part of shop no.320 (against whom eviction petition is also filed).
It is further submitted that the institute run by the son of petitioner no.3 in
the name of ‘M-Xpert’ is imparting education of mobile & computer
repairing to the students. There are around 40 students as on date in the said
institute of the son of petitioner no.3. The present space is miserably
inadequate to run the said institute. Further, the new batches cannot be
started due to shortage of space of study rooms with the said son of
petitioner no.3. Due to shortage of space there is no reception, waiting
room and conference room in the said institute. It is further submitted thatRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.19/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:42:50 +0530
the petitioners are in urgent requirement of space abutting to the institute
for meeting the urgent requirement of space for the running of institute
effectively and efficiently. There is urgent and immediate requirement of
space abutting to the institute for making reception, waiting room and
conference room in front of the institute and for adding more class rooms to
the institute. Further, the occupancy of the front portion of the institute by
the respondent has reduced the front portion of the institute reducing the
visibility of the institute to the prospective students from the road and also
resulting in space crunch for the purpose of reception and also for
conference room/waiting room and study room.
iii. In the written statement the respondent has denied that Anish Kumar
(younger son of petitioner no.3) is dependent upon the Petitioner no.3.It is
further stated that Petitioners have sufficient and reasonable commercial
accommodation in which Anish Kumar (younger son of petitioner no.3) can
run his business comfortably. It is further stated that Anish Kumar (younger
son of petitioner no.3)can make reception room, waiting room , study room
and conference room in Shop number 319,322,325,327,330,331 and 332
which are already lying vacant and in occupation and possession of the
petitioners. It is further stated that no document is filed to show that there is
a steady increase in the number of student being enrolled in the said
institute in the last few years and it is not stated as to how many teachers
have been employed by Anish Kumar (younger son of petitioner no.3) to
run the institute. The demand of bonafide requirement is not genuine one.
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.20/33
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:42:57 +0530
iv. Dependence: As per the written statement, Anish Kumar (younger sonof petitioner no.3) is not dependent on petitioners for his bonafide
requirement. The word dependent cannot be constructed in a narrow and
literal manner. The same have to be interpreted judiciously keeping in mind
the intent of the legislators. Reliance is placed on the case of Anil Kumar
Gupta V Deepika Verma, 14.10.2015, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in RC.Rev.
138/2015. It was observed in the said case that “Customarily or in common
parlance a dependent would be defined as any person who is relient on
another either for financial or physical support for sustenance of life. It is
pertinent to note that the word dependent or as to what constitutes a family
has nowhere been defined in the Delhi Rent Control Act. Rather, the
legislator consciously and deliberately have used the words “any member
of family dependent on the landlord” instead of defining a clear degree of
relations so as to construe a wider meaning to the aforesaid words as man is
a social creature and part of a complex societal system involving myriad of
relations from which he cannot be isolated. It is significant to understand
that the dependency is not restricted to financial or physical but will also
include emotional reliance on another person. Hence it is very clear that
dependency is not required to be analysis in the context of financial
dependency about beyond that. Family members can be dependent for the
purpose of availability of the property . In what situation a family member ,
in present case Anish kumar( son of Petitioner no.3) will be considered as a
dependent is to be analysed. Reliance is placed upon the case of Joginder
Pal Vs Nawal Kishore, (2002), the Hon’ble Supreme Court AIR 2002
SUPREME COURT 2256. While construing who is the member dependent
on the landlord held that keeping in view the social or socio religiousRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.21/33Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:43:03 +0530
milieu and practices prevalent in a particular section of society or to a
particular region to which the landlord belongs,it may be the obligation of
the landlord to settle a person closely connected with him to make him
economically independent so as to support himself and/or the landlord. To
discharge such obligation, the landlord may require the tenanted premises
and such requirement would be requirement of the landlord. The tests laid
down to be applied are :(1) Whether the requirement pleaded and proved
may properly be regarded as landlord’s own requirement (2) whether on the
facts and circumstances of a given case, actual occupation and user by
some other person would be deemed to be landlord’s own requirement. The
answer would in turn, depend on (I) the nature or degree of relationship and
or dependence between the landlord pleading the requirement as his own
and the person who would actually use the premises, (ii) the circumstances
in which the claim arises and is put forward, and (iii) the intrinsic tenability
of the claim. The court on being satisfied of the reason ability of the claim,
will grant leave to defend. In the present case it is not disputed that Anish
Kumar is younger son of Petitioner number 3. Nothing is brought on record
to show that the relations between the Petitioner no.3 and Anish Kumar are
not cordial. Hence, on the basis of cordial relations and the degree of
relations , Anish Kumar is dependent on Petitioner no.3 for requirement of
a property to expand his existing business.
v. In order to show the bonafide requirement, the petitioners have relied
upon a copy of attendance register of staff Exhibit PW1/8, copies of
attendance register of student in the institute of Anish Kumar Exhibit
PW1/9, copies of fee receipts of the students studying in the said instituteRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.22/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:43:09 +0530
Exhibit PW1/10. All the three documents are objected to the mode of proof.
The said documents were produced in original at the time of examination-
in-chief and the same was seen and returned. Hence, the objection raised to
mode of proof is declined. Documents Ex. PW1/8, Ex.PW1/9 and
Ex.PW1/10 are admissible in evidence. Ten photographs of the training
institute an expert are also filed which are Ex. PW1/7. Ex.PW1/8 is
perused. Copy of attendance register from April 2014 to November 2016.
From April 2014 to March 2015 only one staff member is there in the
institute. From April 2015 onwards, the total number of staff members are
three. Similarly, as per Ex.PW1/9, attendance register of the student, the
number of student studying in the institute have increased considerably
over the period of time. Ex.PW1/10 (Colly) is the fee receipt issued to the
students. Fee receipts are filed. During cross examination of the aforesaid
documents, suggestion is denied that Ex.PW1/8 to Ex.PW1/10 are forged
and fabricated documents. PW1 (Kailash Chand) has answered the question
with respect to the staff member in the institute, fees charged, amount
received by Anish Kumar per student. PW1 denied the suggestions that 40
students do not study in the institute. Petitioners are also examined Anish
Kumar as PW2. The witness stated that he is running the institute since
2009. Witness stated that no permission is required for running an institute
from the government. Witness stated that currently there is a practical lab,
software room, classroom and computer room, eight SMD machines to
provide eduction to the enrolled students. Salary of the teachers is also
stated in the cross examination. Witness also stated that he has shown the
income in the ITR. Suggestions were given to the witness is being run
without authorization, illegally, for the purpose of money laundering. TheRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.23/33
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:43:15 +0530
defence raised by the suggestion do not metiate the fact that a mobile
training institute is run by the son of petitioner no,.3 whereby 40 students
were persuing the training and three teacher are training them. This also
negates the suggestion that the institute is being run to create a false ground
of bonafide requirement. The documents clearly show that a training
institute is being run. PW2 stated that the institute is being run from
property no.319, part of 320 and 332. Further questions were asked to the
witness with respect to the ownership qua the property which are relevant
to the witness. The witness was also asked the question as to how much
space is required to run the institute properly and the witness denied the
suggestion that 53 sq yards is not sufficient to run the institute. It is a
settled law that tenant cannot question the landlord regarding the minute
details and precise nature of the business. Reliance is placed upon the case
of Anil Bajaj and Anr. v. Vinod Ahuja, (2014) 15 SCC 610: it is not for the
tenant to dictate to the landlord as to how the property belonging to the
landlord should be utilised 6. In the present case it is clear that while the
landlord (Appellant 1) is carrying on his business from a shop premise
located in a narrow lane, the tenant is in occupation of the premises located
on the main road which the landlord considers to be more suitable for his
own business. The materials on record, in fact, disclose that the landlord
had offered to the tenant the premises located in the narrow lane in
exchange for the tenanted premises which offer was declined by the tenant.
It is not the tenant’s case that the landlord, Appellant 1, does not propose to
utilise the tenanted premises from which eviction is sought for the purposes
of his business. It is also not the tenant’s case that the landlord proposes to
rent out/keep vacant the tenanted premises after obtaining possessionRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.24/33
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:43:22 +0530
thereof or to use the same is any way inconsistent with the need of the
landlord. What the tenant contends is that the landlord has several other
shop houses from which he is carrying on different businesses and further
that the landlord has other premises from where the business proposed from
the tenanted premises can be effectively carried out. It would hardly require
any reiteration of the settled principle of law that it is not for the tenant to
dictate to the landlord as to how the property belonging to the landlord
should be utilised by him for the purpose of his business. Also, the fact that
the landlord is doing business from various other premises cannot foreclose
his right to seek eviction from the tenanted premises so long as he intends
to use the said tenanted premises for his own business’. Further, in another
case titled as Raj Kumar Khaitan & Ors. vs. Bibi Zubaida Khatun & Anr.,
MANU/SC/0411/1995: AIR 1995 SC 576, it was observed that ‘It was not
necessary for the appellants-landlords to indicate the precise nature of the
business which they intended to start in the premises. Even if the nature of
business would have been indicated nobody would bind the landlords to
start the same business in the premises after it was vacated’.
vi. Hence, the legal position is quite clear. The landlord need not required to
prove the minute details regarding the proposed the expansion of the
business. Further, tenant will not dictate the landlord as to how the landlord
should adjust himself in his own property without disturbing the tenant.
vii. Respondent has not brought any evidence on record to show that a
training institute is not being run by PW2/ Anish Kumar from property
no.319, part of 320 and 332. Nothing contrary to the bonafide requirementRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.25/33Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:43:28 +0530
is brought out from the cross examination from the PW1 and PW2. The
photographs Ex.PW1/7 clearly show that one part is used for the entrance
of the institute and another part is being currently used as entrance of
office. The institute is on the main road and expansion by using the
tenanted premises will increase the overall visibility of the institute. The
respondent being the tenant cannot dictate that the area in which the
institute is already being run is sufficient and tenanted premises is not
required for expansion for construction of reception, waiting room and
conference room. The expansion is further to have more number of
students.
viii. Finding: The petitioner is able to prove that space is required to expand
the current training institute for the construction of reception, waiting room
and conference room.
21) Suitable alternate accommodation:
i. As per the application the occupancy of the front portion of the institute
by the respondent has reduced the front portion of the institute reducing the
visibility of the institute to the prospective students from the road and also
resulting in space crunch for the purpose of reception and also for
conference room/waiting room and study room. It is submitted that there is
only the shop in question and other part of shop no.320 which are abutting
to the institute which can be added to meet the urgent requirement of space
for the institute. The back side of the institute bearing no.333 have old
vintage tenant, protected by DRC, Which portion is not in possession of the
petitioners. It is further stated that there is no other alternate vacantRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.26/33Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:43:34 +0530
commercial accommodation, which is the premises abutting to the institute
of the said son of the petitioner no.3, available with the petitioners to meet
the urgent bonafide requirement of the said son of petitioner no.3. As the
requirement is of commercial space abutting to the institute, therefore, only
shop in question and part of shop no.320 are only alternate suitable
accommodations in the present case. Further, the shop no.322 is with the
petitioners and the petitioners only after getting the possession of shop in
question and part of shop no.320 would also be joining the said shop with
the institute to meet the requirement for the institute. After joining the said
three shops the said urgent bonafide requirement of the said son of
petitioner no.3 can be met. Due to shop in question and part of shop
no.320, the shop no.322 cannot be joined and used for the purpose of
institute as the said shops are coming in between. Further, although as per
the fact of the case, there cannot be any other shop which is situated away
from the said institute and is not abutting to it, as alternate suitable
accommodation. But to avoid any unnecessary objection, it is submitted
that there is part of shop no.479-480, Anaj Mandi, Shahdara, Delhi-32 with
the petitioners where the petitioners are running their business of
departmental/kirana store and the same is occupied by them.
ii. In the written statement the respondent has denied that the Petitioners do
not have any other suitable alternate accommodation for the bona fide
requirement. Shop number 319,322,325,327,330,331 and 332 can be
utilised by the Anish Kumar (younger son of petitioner no.3) for his bona
fide requirement. Shop number 325 measuring about 150b square yardsRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.27/33Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:43:39 +0530
which is adjacent to shop number 319 and 320 by amalgamating the said
shops.Shop no.19 is laying vacant which is also part of shop number 320.
iii. Anish Kumar (younger son of petitioner no.3) is already running is
already running another shop bearing number 327 which can be adjusted to
shop number 319 and 320 (half portion) and 325 and the same can be
amalgamated in shop number 322.
iv. The proposed alternate accommodation and statement of the petitioners
concerning the said accommodation is compared below:
Proposed Statement of the petitioners alternate accommodation Shop no. 319 It is denied that shop no.319 is lying vacant. Shop no. 322 Due to shop i.e. part of 320 and shop no.321, the shop
no.322 cannot be joined and use for the purpose of
institute as the said shops are coming in between which
can only be used after eviction of the respondent and
other tenant against whom eviction is filed. The
petitioner shall also joined 322 to meet urgent bonafide
requirement once part of 320 and 321 are vacated.
Shop no. 325 It is the residential unit, therefore it is not an alternate
suitable accommodation. It is far away from the institute.
It cannot be joined with the institute as shop no.323 and
324 lies in between which is occupied by tenant Mr.
Sushil Kumar and Suresh respectively.
Shop no. 327 It is denied that Anish Kumar, son of petitioner no.3, is
running shop no.327 or the same can be adjusted to shop
no.319, 320 or with premises bearing no.325 or the same
can be amalgamated to shop no.322.
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.28/33
Digitally signed
NIHARIKA by NIHARIKA
KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:43:44 +0530
Shop no.327 is on the other corner of the proeprty which
falls on the other road and is far away from the instute
and cannot be joined with the institute and therefore it is
not a suitable alternate accommodation.
This shop is used for running a shop of mobil
accessories/recharge by elder son of petitioner no.3,
namely, Manish Kumar.
Shop no. 330 Shop no.330 is on the other corner of the property which
falls on the other road and is far away from the institute
and cannot be joined with the institute and therefore it is
not a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 331 Shop no.331 is on the other corner of the property which
falls on the other road and is far away from the institute
and cannot be joined with the institute and therefore it is
not a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 332 It is already used for running the institute by Anish
Kumar Sharma, son of petitioner no.3.
v. The law with respect to the consideration of the reasonable suitable
accommodation is very settled. Landlord is the bese judge of its
requirements. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by HOn’ble
Supreme Court of India in Dhannalal v. Kalawatibai (2002) 6 SCC 16
whereby it was held that ‘an alternative accommodation’, to entail denial of
the claim of the landlord, must be ‘reasonably suitable’, obviously in
comparision with the accommodation whereform the landlord is seeking
eviction. It was further held that the availability of another accommodation
suitable and convenient in all respects as the accommodation from which
the landlord is seeking eviction may have an adverse bearing on the finding
as to bonafides of the landlord, if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the
available premises to satisfy his alleged need. It was yet further held that
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.29/33
Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:43:50 +0530
the bonafides of the need of the landlord for the premises or additional
premises have to be determined by the Court by applying objective
standards and once the Court is satisfied of such bonafide, then in the
matter of choosing out of more accommodation than one available to the
landlord, his subjective choice shall be respected by the Court. It was yet
further held that for the business which the landlord proposes to start, an
accommodation situated on the first floor cannot be said to be an alternative
suitable accommodation in comparison with the shops situated on the
ground floor; a shop on the first floor cannot attract the same number of
customers and earn the same business, as a shop situated on the ground
floor would do’. Further, in another case, titled as Adarsh Electricals and
others vs Dinesh Dayal, MANU/DE/2782/2010, it was held that ‘the
concept of alternate accommodation means that accommodation which is
reasonably suitable for the landlord, and the court would not expect the
landlord to sacrifice on his own comforts and requirements merely on the
ground that the premises is with a tenant . The problem had to be
approached from the point of view of a reasonable man and not that of a
whimsical landlord. The court would permit the landlord to satisfy the
proven need by choosing the accommodation which the landlord feels
would be most suited for the purpose; the court would not in such a case
thrust its own wisdom upon the choice of the landlord by holding that not
one but the other accommodation must e accepted by the landlord to satisfy
his such need’.
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16 Dated 13.06.2025 Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.30/33 Digitally signed by NIHARIKA NIHARIKA KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13 16:44:06 +0530
vi. Analysis and finding: On the basis of the discussion above, this Court
has arrived on the following findings with respect to the proposed alternate
accommodation:
Shop no. 319 It is already used for running the institute by Anish Kumar
Sharma, son of petitioner no.3. PW1 admitted in the cross
examination that he has opened this shop in his premises.
During cross examination, suggestion was given that the
premises is lying vacant, however, same is denied and not
independently proved by the respondent. Hence, this is not
a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 322 This shop do not share any common wall with the training
institute. The tenanted premises is between this shop and
the front portion of the training institute ie., shop nom.320.
This area will not provide a seamless connectivity of a
single institute. During cross examination, suggestion was
given that the premises is lying vacant, however, same is
denied and not independently proved by the respondent.
Hence, this is not a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 325 As per the site plan, this shop is far away from the existing
training institute, therefore, not a suitable alternate
accommodation. This shop do not share any common wall
with the training institute. During cross examination,
suggestion was given that the premises is lying vacant,
however, same is denied and not independently proved by
the respondent. Hence, this is not a suitable alternate
accommodation.
Shop no. 327 As per the site plan, this shop is far away from the existing
training institute, therefore, not a suitable alternate
accommodation. During cross examination, suggestion
was given that the premises is lying vacant, however, same
is denied and not independently proved by the respondent.
Hence, this is not a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 330 As per the site plan, this shop is far away ( in the opposite
direction) from the existing training institute, therefore, not
a suitable alternate accommodation. During crossRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.31/33Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:44:12 +0530
examination, suggestion was given that the premises is
lying vacant, however, same is denied and not
independently proved by the respondent. Hence, this is not
a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 331 As per the site plan, this shop is far away ( in the opposite
direction) from the existing training institute, therefore, not
a suitable alternate accommodation. During cross
examination, suggestion was given that the premises is
lying vacant, however, same is denied and not
independently proved by the respondent. Hence, this is not
a suitable alternate accommodation.
Shop no. 332 It is already used for running the institute by Anish Kumar
Sharma, son of petitioner no.3, therefore not a suitable
alternate accommodation. During cross examination,
suggestion was given that the premises is lying vacant,
however, same is denied and not independently proved by
the respondent. Hence, this is not a suitable alternate
accommodation.
22) Final Order: On the basis of discussion able, this court has come to a
finding that the Bona fide need of the landlord is justified, the averments of
the respondent regarding alternative accommodation are vague, the title of
the Petitioner cannot be questioned and landlord tenant relationship exists
between the parties. Thus, having found that the defence set up by the
respondent is only a moonshine, the application filed seeking leave to
defend was accordingly rejected.
23) Eviction order is passed in favour of petitioners and against the
respondent thereby directing the respondent to vacate the tenanted premises
i.e. 320/IV, Private no.1, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-32, which isRC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.32/33Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
NIHARIKA KUMAR
KUMAR SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.06.13
16:44:18 +0530
built upon plot no.10, comprising of one shop on the ground floor, shown
in red color in the site plan and red lines in the site plan filed by the
petitioner in terms of section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
However, as per Section 14 (7) DRC Act, the Petitioner shall not be entitled
to obtain possession thereof before the expiry of a period of six months
from the date of this order. File be consigned to record room. File be
consigned to record room after due compliance.
NIHARIKA Digitally signed
by NIHARIKA
Pronounced in Open Court KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
on June 13, 2025 SHARMA Date: 2025.06.13
16:44:24 +0530
(NIHARIKA KUMAR SHARMA)
Senior Civil Judge-cum RC
KKD/SHD/DELHI/13.06.2025
RC ARC E2/2016 & 554/16
Dated 13.06.2025
Anil Kumar Ors v. Vivek Bhandari Pg no.33/33