Delhi District Court
Pawan Kishore vs Subhash Nagpal Ans on 30 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHILPI SINGH
ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC, SOUTH
DISTRICT COURTS COMPLEX, SAKET, NEW DELHI
RC ARC No. 18/2016 & 6285/2016
CNR No. DLST03-000364-2016
Shri Pawan Kishore
S/o Late Sh. Sher Singh
R/o Flat no.2, Satguru Apartment,
29E/D, Ward no.1,
Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030
..............Petitioner
Versus
1. Subhash Nagpal
Deceased Through LRs
a) Smt. Lalita Nagpal (wife)
W/o Late Subhash Nagpal
b) Ms. Geeta Nagpal (Daughter)
D/o Late Subhash Nagpal
c) Ms. Kavita Nagpal
W/o Late Subhash Nagpal
2. Joginder Nagpal S/o Late Sh. Nanak Chand
Deceased Through LRs
a) Smt. Kiran Nagpal (wife)
W/o Late Joginder Nagpal
b) Mr. Geetansh Nagpal (Son)
S/o Late Joginder Nagpal
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 1 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:12:23
+0530
c) Mr. Amit Nagpal
S/o Late Joginder Nagpal
All Residents of:
Private shop no.9,
Prop no.514, ward no.5,
Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030
Also at:
450 B/3, Ward no.3,
Mehrauli,
New Delhi-110030.
....Respondents
Date of Institution : 04.05.2016
Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026
Decision : Petition Allowed.
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 2 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:12:29
+0530
PETITION FOR EVICTION OF TENANT UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (e)
OF THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT, 1958.
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Succinctly, the case of the petitioner is that he became the owner of
premises bearing private no. 9 in property no. 514, Ward No.5, Mehrauli,
New Delhii-110030 (hereinafter called the tenanted premises) by virtue of
a relinquishment deed registered vide registration number 7858 in Book
No.1, Volume No. 3543, Page 50 to 57, dated 06.09.2003 (hereinafter
called the relinquishment deed). The Petitioner submits that the father of
the respondent, Sh. Nanak Chand (hereinafter called the original tenant)
was inducted as a tenant at rent of Rs. 50/- per month on oral tenancy and
rent receipts were also issued under his name. As per the petitioner, no
fitting was provided by him and electricity charges were not paid by him
and neither any amenity like light, water sanitation etc. was provided by
him. The Petitioner further submits that after the death of the original
tenant, both the respondents, being in possession and occupation of
tenanted premises became his tenants and they also tendered the rent in his
favour, thereby acknowledging the petitioner as their Landlord. He has
also said that the tenanted premises is used by the respondents for selling
Milk products and vegetables. The petitioner has explained that his family
consists of his 54 year old wife, who is gainfully employed as a
government servant and he is himself working at a bank; one son, Sh.
Pankaj Kishore, aged about 31 years who is married and has a 2 year old
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 3 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:12:33
+0530
child and has studied computer hardware, store management and graphic
designing, is earning his livelihood from another shop of the petitioner
bearing no.10, in property no. 514, Ward No.5, Mehrauli, New Delhi-
110030. The Petitioner submits that previously, shop no.10 was in illegal
occupation of one Sh. Darshan Lal Malik for which he had filed a suit
bearing no.569/2012 before the Ld. Civil Judge for possession, recovery of
damages and injunction and, the same was decreed in his favour on
24.08.2013 and, the appeal of the said suit was also dismissed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in SLP (c) bearing no. 1461/2015. The petitioner has said
that possession of shop no.10 was handed over to him on 10.02.2015 in
execution petition no. 79/2013. He has further submits that his younger
son, namely Sh Pulkit Kishore Gupta (hereinafter called the younger son)
completed his diploma in Architectural Assistantship and the petitioner
now requires the tenanted premises for his younger son who intends to
start his business. As per the petitioner, the tenanted premises is the
suitable accommodation for his younger son as it is situated adjacent to the
shop of his elder son and is in main commercial market of Mehrauli. He
has further said that the tenanted premises is also suitable as it is situated 5
minutes away from the residence of his younger son and he has no other
reasonable alternate accommodation in Delhi for the said purpose. As per
the petitioner, legal notice dated 30.09.2015 was also sent to the
respondents, asking them to pay the arrears and vacate the tenanted
premises but they have not vacated the same. The petitioner prays that the
petition be allowed and the respondents be evicted from the tenanted
premises as per the provision under section 14 (1) (e) read with 25B of
Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called DRC).
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 4 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:12:38
+0530
2. Respondent no.1 and 2 filed their leave to defend submitting that the
petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as all the heirs of the
original tenant and of the predecessor in interest of the petitioner have not
been added. They have further alleged that the petitioner did not supply
legible copies of the relinquishment deed, which recites release of a
property shown in the plan in orange colour but the said plan itself has not
been provided, making it impossible for the respondents to file a
conclusive reply. It is further alleged that the petitioner has not filed the
title deeds of his predecessor in interest, Sh. Din Dayal and the
relinquishment deed being a self serving document is inadmissible. The
respondents have alleged that the petitioner has also suppressed material
facts as he has not disclosed about the other premises in his possession and
as per them, the petition is filed with the modus to evict the respondents
and later, sell the premises/generate higher rentals from it. The
respondents have further alleged that by way of usual practice, the
tenanted premises were let out to their predecessor in interest through
pagri system. They further alleged that apart the tenanted premises, the
petitioner has 16 other shop which he has not disclosed about. They also
alleged that the tenanted premises is not owned by the petitioner but was
rather the property of Late Sh. Din Dayal, however all his legal heirs are
not added as a party even though they are claiming rights over the tenanted
premises. It is also said that the first floor and second floor of the tenanted
premises are also commercial space and in possession of the petitioner but
he has not disclosed the same. It is further alleged that the respondents
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 5 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:12:44
+0530
never acknowledged the petitioner as the landlord or paid any rent to him
and as per them, after the death of Sh. Din Dayal on 11.05.1975, no one
ever realized rent from them due to which they did not pay rent to anyone.
The respondents denied having paid rent to Sh. Sher Singh or to the
petitioner or that the same was claimed from them. The respondents have
also alleged that Sh Din Dayal’s title documents have not been filed and
therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be the owner of the tenanted
premises. They also alleged that no partition could have taken place for the
tenanted premises as the heirs of Sh. Din Dayal were co-owner. As per the
respondents, the alleged relinquishment deed is inadmissible as it is
neither related to the tenanted premises nor the releasor had any right, title
or interest in the tenanted premises in order to relinquish their alleged
share. The respondents said that Late Sh. Din Dayal and after him, the
members of his family used to collect rent from the respondents but they
never issued any rent receipt to the original tenant or to them and out of
good faith, they did did not object. The respondents have explained that no
such alleged legal notice dated 09.11.2015 was served upon them nor did
they send any reply through advocate, Sh. Joginder Singh Garkal, as relied
by the petitioner. As per them, once the petitioner, who is also the
neighbor of the respondents, approached them for some financial help and
the respondents signed certain documents but since they are not that
literate, they were not aware what exactly these documents were. The
respondents have alleged that they were informed that signatures are
required for issuance of a Bank Draft from the bank and in furtherance of
the same, the petitioner got a Demand Draft issued from the respondents
for a sum of Rs. 1,900/- and out of a friendly gesture, they signed it. The
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 6 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:12:56
+0530
respondents however denied that the said draft was issued as payment of
rent by them. The respondents further submit that the alleged bona fide
need is not genuine as the relevant information for education, salary and
job of the younger son is deliberately concealed by the petitioner. It is also
alleged that the said younger son is already gainfully employed and
therefore, there is no such alleged need in existence. The respondents have
denied the rent receipts relied by the petitioner with his petition and they
have also alleged that shop no.10 along with Balakhkhana above it and
second floor above it, are all in the possession of the petitioner but the
same is also concealed. The respondents relied on the judgments in
Prakash Chand Gupta vs K.S Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2241; Santosh Devi
Soni vs Chand Kiran, 2001 (1) SCC 255; Ahmed vs Habeeb ur rehman,
AIR 2000 SC 2470 and Ramesh Kumar Aggarwal vs Rani Ravindran,
AIR 2009 SC 2462 to show that triable issues have arise and therefore,
leave to defend should be allowed.
3. The petitioner filed the reply to the leave to defend application wherein he
denied the allegations made and reiterated his need for the tenanted
premises as a bona fide requirement, in consonance with what is explained
in the petition. He further said that the leave to defend should be dismissed
as the respondents failed to make complete denial and no triable issue has
been raised. As per the petitioner, complete legible copies were given to
the respondents and all the properties in his possession have been
disclosed by him. He further said that the respondents have admitted that
they are the tenants and therefore, their leave to defend application should
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 7 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:13:01
+0530
be dismissed. He also denied that all the legal heirs of his predecessor in
interest are necessary parties as by virtue of relinquishment deed, he
became the absolute owner of tenanted premises and the said fact is also
corroborated by the respondents as they admittedly paid rent to him. The
petitioner clarified that he is the owner of shop no. 9 and 10 only and
neither him nor his family own any other commercial premises in Delhi or
elsewhere. The petitioner alleged that all the allegations made in the leave
to defend are unsupported and the reason behind it is that the allegations
are false and baseless. He further said that the respondents have not filed
any site plan and thus, the site plan filed by him is to be taken as the
correct site plan. The petitioner admitted that the tenanted premises was
owned by Late Sh Din Dayal but he denied there being any dispute among
the heirs for the tenanted premises after his death. The Petitioner said that
the father of the respondents was paying rent to his father and the rent
receipts filed are not denied by the respondents thus proving his
submission that he is the landlord. The petitioner submits that by virtue of
payment of rent to him and his father by the respondents and their father
till November 2015, principle of estoppel is applicable on the respondents
and they can’t question the title of the petitioner qua the tenanted
premises. The petitioner reiterated that the legal notice was sent to the
respondents and they replied to the same through their advocate and he
also denied the allegation of financial help advanced to him, as alleged by
the respondents. He further said that the demand draft was issued by the
respondents to pay the rent and now a false submission is being made by
them qua the Demand draft only to escape liability. The petitioner submitsRC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 8 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:13:06
+0530
that the judgments relied by the respondents are not applicable to the facts
of the case and therefore, the application should be dismissed.
4. Vide order dated 15.11.2018, the leave to defend application was allowed
on the ground of landlord tenant relationship, availability of alternate
suitable accommodation and the bona fide need of the petitioner. During
the course of proceedings, respondent no.1 and 2 passed away and their
LR’s were also impleaded.
5. On 15.12.2018, Written statement was filed by the respondent no.1 &
LR’s of respondent no. 2 submitting that the petition is bad in law for non
joinder of necessary and proper parties I.e LR’s of Lat Sh Din Dayal, Late
Sh Ishwar Dass and Late Sh Sher Singh; for non supply of requisite
documents I.e title documents of the heir who have allegedly relinquished
their share in the tenanted premises and the site plan of the area
relinquished has not been filed; for non disclosure on the part of petitioner
qua the other alternate accommodation available with him I.e Shop no. 1
to 16 in Property No. 514/12, Ward no.3, Mehrauli Main Market, Delhi.
The respondents reiterated the submissions made in the leave to defend
application and for the sake of brevity, they are not repeated herein. The
respondents further alleged that the petitioner, his wife and both his sons
and daughter are gainfully employed and the sons are also income tax
assesses. They have further alleged that the elder son of the petitioner is
married and stays with his family separately and none of the children of
the petitioner are dependent on him and thus, there is no such alleged bona
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 9 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:13:12
+0530
fide need. As per the respondents, the tenanted premises is being used by
them as their only means of livelihood and the intention of the petitioner
behind filing this petition is to get the premises vacated and sell it off at a
hefty price with the adjoining premises, which is also in his possession.
The respondents denied all the allegations made in the petition and prayed
that the petition be dismissed.
6. Reply was filed by the petitioner to the WS wherein he denied the
allegations made against him and reiterated the submissions made by him
in reply to the leave to defend application filed by him. The same is not
repeated herein for sake of brevity. The petitioner further said that his
younger son left his job in the year 2016 and if the respondents fear that
the need alleged is not bona fide, they always have the option to exercise
the benefit given to the tenant under 19 (2) DRC. He also said that the
ITR’s are irrelevant to the facts of the case and therefore not filed. The
petitioner said that it is not a pre requisite for someone to leave the job and
then file the petition u/s 14 (1) (e) DRC and therefore, alleged that the
reply filed is inadmissible and irrelevant.
7. During evidence, 9 witnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioner.
PW-1 is the petitioner himself who tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit I.e Ex PW-1/A wherein he reaffirmed the allegations made in the
petition; that he has no other suitable accommodation and the bona fide
need for which he requires the tenanted premises. He further relied on the
following documents:
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 10 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:13:23
+0530
i. Ex PW-1/1 (OSR) I.e copy of sale deed with translated copy
dated 05.04.1950. (objected on the mode of proof)
ii. Ex PW-1/2 (OSR) I.e copy of registered partition deed with
translated copy dated 05.05.1960. (objected on the mode of
proof)
iii. Ex PW-1/3 (OSR) I.e copy of relinquishment deed dated
06.09.2003.
iv. Ex PW-1/4 I.e Original site plan
v. Ex PW-1/5 (Colly-OSR) I.e copy of relinquishment deeds
dated 06.09.2003.
vi. Ex PW-1/6 (OSR) I.e Copy of rent receipts dated 08.01.1992,
03.04.1991, 02.10.1990. (objected on the mode of proof)
vii. Ex PW-1/7 I.e Original Legal notice dated 30.09.2015.
viii. Ex PW-1/8 I.e Original reply of legal notice dated
09.11.2015. (objected)
ix. Ex PW-1/9 I.e certified copy of judgment dated 24.08.2013
passed by Ld. CJ, Tis Hazari Court.
x. Ex PW-1/10 I.e certified copy of order dated 15.10.2014 passed
by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi.
xi. Ex PW-1/11 I.e certified copy of order dated 09.02.2014 passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
8. During cross examination, PW-1 said that he graduated in science from
Delhi university but he cannot read and write Urdu language. He admitted
that he cannot read contents of Ex PW-1/1 and Ex PW-1/2 as they are in
Urdu language but he explained that Ex PW-1/2 was executed during the
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 11 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:13:34
+0530
lifetime of his father, when he was 3 years old and the property in question
was partitioned between his father and uncle. He further explained that his
grandfather, Late Sh Din Dayal was owner of two properties I.e property
bearing no. 514, ward no.5, Mehrauli, constructed on a plot measuring
approx 350 sq. Yds with a double storey building and, property bearing
number 29E, ward no.1, Mehrauli, Delhi, constructed on a plot measuring
approx 11,000 sq yds with a four storey building. He said that his grand
father had two sons I.e his father and uncle and both the properties were
divided equally among them. He further said that his father had five sons
and six daughters and out of the said property, two shops bearing private
number 9 and 10 in property bearing no. 514, ward no.5, Mehrauli came
into his possession. He further said that he also got a 764 sq yds residential
property in property bearing number 29E, ward no.1, Mehrauli, Delhi.
PW-1 said that property bearing private no. 9 and 10 are double storey
building I.e shop on the ground floor, first floor, second floor and one semi
pucca small room on the terrace and except the tenanted premises, all the
other floors in both these properties are in his possession. He explained
that his elder son is doing his business from shop no.10 and that, there may
be shops in property no. 29E, Ward No.1, Mehrauli but he denied that any
of these alleged shops are in his possession. He denied the suggestion that
his elder son is not using property no.10 and first floor of tenanted
premises and property bearing no. 10 for his business or that second floor
of both these shops is lying vacant. PW-1 explained that his old household
articles are kept by him there. He also denied the suggestion that second
floor at property no. 9 and 10 can be used for commercial purpose and
explained that first floor of both these properties are commercial space. He
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 12 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:13:40
+0530
admitted that he did not mention about property no. 29E in the petition but
his counsel objected the same saying that it is a matter of record. PW-1
said that tenanted premises was let out to Sh Nanak Chand before his birth
due to which he did not know who let it out and when. He further said that
the rent was @ Rs. 50/- per month and he saw Sh Nanak Chand pay the
rent to his father in the year 1991 and twice in the year 1992 but he did not
know how much amount or what period the rent was paid. He denied the
suggestion that Sh Nanak Chand never paid any rent to his father or Ex
PW-1/6 was forged and fabricated. The witness was confronted with rent
receipts and he said that he can read it and as per him, receipt dated
03.04.1991 and 08.01.1992 mentions property bearing no. 514, Ward No.
5 but he admitted that the same does not mentions property no.9. PW-1
said that the Hindi translation of Ex PW-1/6 was filed by him and name of
Sh Nanak Chand can be seen but he later said that the translation. PW-1
further denied that relinquishment deed I.e Ex PW-1/3 and Ex PW-1/5
(colly) were only created to get shop no.10 vacated. PW-1 admitted that he
did not show second floor in Ex PW-1/4 to be in his possession but he
explained that the same was not done as the said floor is not required and
the same is residential. PW-1 reiterated that legal notice was sent to both
the respondents but he admitted that postal receipt and tracking report is
not filed by him with the explanation that since reply was sent by the
respondents, he did not file it. PW-1 however denied the suggestion that
the said reply I.e Ex PW-1/8 was prepared by Adv Joginder Singh Garkal
on his instructions and the respondents never sent it. For bona fide need,
PW-1 explained that his younger son is doing petty work like service
provider and since he graduated in mechanical engineering and has a
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 13 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:13:46
+0530
diploma in architecture, he requires the tenanted premises for his use. He
denied the suggestion that his younger son is earning handsomely. PW-1
also admitted that no site plan is annexed with partition deed I.e Ex PW-
1/2. PW-1 denied the suggestion that Manager’s cheque dated 04.11.2015
along with reply dated 09.11.2015 was not sent by the respondents or that
the respondents are occupying the tenanted premises in their own right.
PW-1 denied the remaining suggestions put to him along with the
suggestion that he did not disclose about the property that his grandfather
kept for himself with an ill motive.
9. PW-2 is the younger son of the petitioner whose bona fide need is alleged
by the petitioner. PW-2 said that he he has done diploma in Architectural
Assistantship and is interested in doing business, therefore requires the
tenanted premises. He further said that due to non availability of
commercial space, he is constrained to do service providing work. PW-2
said that his elder brother is doing business under the name and style of
Child Care from the shop adjacent to the tenanted premises. His evidence
by way of affidavit was exhibited as Ex PW-2/A.
10. During his cross examination, PW-2 explained that he completed his
Architectural Assistantship from Rao Tularam college in the year 2010 but
he did not get campus placement. He further said that he joined service
with K2 in India in 2011 as a project co-ordinator but he could not
remember the year of tenure. PW-2 said that he then started with some
petty jobs and he was also working from home but he is interested in
starting his own business as per market demand. PW-2 agreed that he
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 14 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:13:52
+0530
signed the affidavit in the office of his counsel after it was prepared but he
said that he read the contents of the affidavit before signing it. PW-2
denied the suggestions put to him including that there is alternate
accommodation available to start the alleged business.
11. PW-3 was a witness called to produce the soft copy of Judicial File in
RSA bearing no. 215/2014, titled Sh Darshan Lal vs Sh Pawan Kishore,
along with requisite certificate u/s 65B Evidence Act. CD and affidavit
was exhibited as Ex PW-3/1. During his cross examination, PW-3 said that
the CD was prepared by him.
12. PW-4 was summoned to get the record of judgment and decree in civil suit
bearing no. 569/2012, titled Pawan Kishore vs Darshan Lal Malik. The
same was exhibited as Ex PW-1/9. Nothing material was extracted in his
cross examination.
13. PW-5 was summoned to get the record of Sale Deed dated 05.04.1950
registered vide registration no. 786, Book No.1, Volume no. 150, Page no.
268-273 and, partition deed dated 05.05.1960 registered vide registration
no. 946, book no.1, volume no. 436, page no. 271-281. The documents
were exhibited as Ex PW-5/1 (OSR) and Ex PW-5/2 (OSR). Nothing
material was extracted in his cross examination.
14. PW-6 was summoned to prove the site plan. The witness said that Ex PW-
1/4 was prepared by him after he visited the tenanted premises and
measured it. During his cross examination, the witness explained that he
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 15 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:13:57
+0530
completed his bachelor in Architecture in the year 2019. He could
however not remember how many stories existed in the tenanted premises
but he denied the suggestion that Ex PW-1/4 was prepared by him while
he was sitting in his office or that he never visited the tenanted premises.
15. PW-7 was summoned to get the record of relinquishment deed dated
06.09.2003 registered vide registration no. 7858, 7859, 7860 and 7862.
The documents were exhibited as Ex PW-7/A (colly). Nothing material
was extracted in his cross examination.
16. PW-8 appeared on behalf of HDFC bank, Mehrauli and he brought the
record of DD dated 04.11.2015, drawn for a sum of Rs. 1,900/- bearing no.
006940 issued in the name of Petitioner. PW-8 said that the document had
original acknowledgment receipt of Sh Joginder Nagpal/ Respondent no. 2
and the date of liquidation of the said DD was 30.11.2015. He further said
that the DD was issued from account bearing no. 501000053862542. The
document was exhibited as Ex PW-8/A and copy of his ID was exhibited
as Ex PW-8/B (OSR). During his cross examination, the witness admitted
that the document is not certified as per Banker’s Book Evidence act and
he wasn’t in the bank at the time of issuance of the DD and neither does it
shows the purposed of issuance.
17. PW-9 is the witness who translated Ex PW-5/1 dated 05.04.1950 and Ex
PW-5/2 (OSR) dated 05.05.1960. The true certified copy was exhibited as
Ex PW-9/1 and Ex PW-9/2. During his cross examination, PW-9
explained that he completed his graduation in Urdu from Jamia Milia
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 16 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:14:03
+0530
Islamia but he said that he does not have any certificate for doing
translation of documents.
18. RW-1 is the wife of Respondent no. 2 who submitted her evidence by way
of affidavit and the same was exhibited as Ex RW-1/1. She alleged that
she is the legal heir of respondent no.2 and fully conversant with facts and
circumstances of the case. She alleged that Late Sh Nanak Chand was
never a tenant in the tenanted premises, rather occupied the premises in his
own capacity and the petitioner is neither the owner nor does he share the
relationship of landlord-tenant with the respondents. She also alleged that
the respondents never paid rent to Sh Sher singh or the petitioner at any
point of time. She also said that the respondents never engaged the service
of Sh Joginder Singh Garkal or gave any instruction to send reply dated
09.11.2015 to legal notice dated 30.09.2015. RW-2 said that the alleged
DD was never issued for payment of rent and rather, the petitioner, who is
the neighbor of the respondents, approached him for financial assistance
and as a friendly gesture, Respondent no.2, who was not that literate,
signed on certain documents and the petitioner informed him that he has
got a DD issued for a sum of Rs. 1,900/- from the bank account of the
respondent no.2. Apart this, RW-1 made the same allegations as are made
in the leave to defend.
19. During her cross examination, RW-1 said that she got marries to
Respondent no.2 on 24.09.1993 and he expired on 18.12.2016. She further
said that respondent no.2 was working in the tenanted premises even
before her marriage. RW-2 did not know if Sh Nanak Chand was the
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 17 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:14:09
+0530
owner of the tenanted premises and she said she can’t place any document
on record to show that Sh Nanank Chand or her husband were the owner
of the tenanted premises and she also admitted that she made no effort to
inquire from her husband who is the owner of the premises. RW-1 did not
know if Sh Nanank Chand or her husband executed any document prior to
their death qua the tenanted premises and they neither showed her any
document qua their ownership towards the tenanted premises. RW-1 did
not know if Ex PW-1/6 bears the signature of Sh Nanak Chand and she
couldn’t explain on what basis she alleged in Ex RW-1/1 that rent receipts
are forged. She also admitted that she isn’t aware of any such rent receipts
but she said that some were in Urdu language. She did not even know if
the rent receipts were issued by the petitioner or his predecessor in interest
in respect of the tenanted premises. RW-1 admitted that Ex PW-1/7 was
received by her husband and his brother/ Respondent no.1 but she did not
know if they replied to the notice. RW-1 could not say if any reply was
sent by the respondents through Sh Joginder SIngh Garkal or if PW-1/8
was issued towards rent by them. RW-1 wasn’t aware if her husband gave
any complaint against Sh Joginder SIngh Garkal and she said that in Ex
RW-1/1 she made the allegation that his services were never engaged by
her late husband as her late husband never discussed any such fact with
her. She admitted that there was no financial transaction between the
petitioner and the respondents but she did not know if financial assistance
was offered by the respondents to the petitioner. RW-1 admitted that
property bearing no 514, Ward No.5 is a big property having several shops
but she wasn’t aware if the same was owned by the predecessor in interest
of the petitioner and later, a part of it fell in the share of the petitioner.
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 18 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:14:16
+0530
RW-1 also admitted that no site plan is filed by the respondents and that
Ex PW-1/4 is correct site plan. RW-1 further admitted that possession of
tenanted premises after the death of Sh Nanak Chand came with the
respondents but she denied that Sh Nanak Chand or the respondents
occupied the premises as tenants. RW-1 also admitted that she has not
placed any proof on record to show that shop no. 4 and 13 are also in the
possession of the petitioner or are lying unoccupied and vacant. She
further admitted that the elder son of the petitioner is carrying on his
business of child care from shop no. 10 and the first floor of shop no.9 and
10 is also used by him. RW-1 was specifically questioned on the alleged
fact that the petitioner is only the owner of tenanted premises and shop
no.10 but she answered that she is possession of tenanted premises and
elder son of the petitioner is in possession of shop no.10 and she did not
say anything beyond it. RW-1 denied the suggestions put to her.
20. RW-2 appeared as a witness to support the case of the respondents. His
evidence by way of affidavit was exhibited as Ex RW-2/1 wherein he
alleged that he is the president of Mehrauli Residents Welfare Association
and he has visited the tenanted premises several times. He further said that
during one of such visit, Respondent no.2 informed him that he is the
owner of the tenanted premises. He further said that the elder son of the
petitioner is doing his business from shop no.10, which the petitioner got
vacated from Sh Darshan Lal Malik but the younger son of the petitioner
is alleged by the witness to be gainfully employed and not in need of the
tenanted premises. RW-2 said that apart the tenanted premises, the
petitioner is also the owner of several other shops, including first floor of
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 19 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:14:29
+0530
tenanted premises and shop no.10, which is alleged to be lying vacant and
shop no. 4 and 13.
21. During his cross examination, RW-2 admitted that he has not placed on
record any document to show that he is the President of Mehrauli
Residents Welfare Association. He admitted that his knowledge about the
alleged ownership of Respondent no.2 for the tenanted premises came
from the verbal communication which he had with him and he did not
ascertain this fact in any other way or see any document towards
ownership of respondent no.2. RW-2 did not know where the younger son
of the petitioner is employed or his salary and he said that the fact of his
employment came into his knowledge as informed by common friends and
relatives. He further explained that he is also a member of Federation of
Market Association and that’s how he got to know about the ownership of
petitioner for other shops. He clarified that the tenanted premises fall
under Mehrauli RWA but he admitted that he is not filed any document to
prove the same. RW-2 said that donation and subscription charges are
taken from shops and since the petitioner also paid these charges therefore
it shows that the tenanted premises falls under Mehrauli RWA. He further
said that whenever any subscription/ contribution is made by anyone in the
area, it is within the knowledge of people who is the owner and on the said
basis he has alleged that petitioner is owner of several other shops in the
said area. RW-2 admitted that no record is maintained for ownership of
such shops but he said that whoever registers himself as member of the
shop, gets lifetime membership. RW-2 also admitted that there are 13-14
shops in building no.514 but none of them are registered under the name
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 20 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:14:35
+0530
of the petitioner as the owner. RW-2 said that since subscription charges
were not taken from these shops, they were not made members. He also
admitted that Market association takes charges from these 13-14 shops and
he is not the member of the said association. RW-2 further admitted that
Mehrauli RWA makes its members only on the basis of Aadhar Card and I
card. RW-2 denied the suggestions put to him.
22. RW-3 also appeared as a witness to support the case of the respondents.
His evidence by way of affidavit was exhibited as Ex RW-3/1 wherein he
alleged that he knows the party to the petition as he has visited the
tenanted premises on several occasions. He further said that both the sons
of the petitioner are gainfully employed and are not dependent on the
petitioner and tenanted premises is not required by the younger son of the
petitioner. RW-3 said that apart the tenanted premises, the petitioner is
also the owner of several other shops, including first floor of tenanted
premises and shop no.10, which is alleged to be lying vacant and shop no.
4 and 13.
23. During his cross examination, RW-3 admitted that he does not have
personal knowledge about the facts alleged in para 3 of his affidavit and
his knowledge is based on information gathered from people of the
locality. He admitted that he is not seen the ownership documents of any
shop alleged by him to be owned by the petitioner. RW-3 however said
that he has seen himself that petitioner is the owner of shop no.4 and 13
and several other shops in the locality but he admitted that he never saw
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 21 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:14:42
+0530
any document which could prove that RW-3 is the owner. RW-3 denied
the suggestions put to him.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
24. During final arguments, the Ld. counsel for the petitioner submitted that as
the petition was filed u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w 25B of DRC Act, 1958, the
petitioner, who is the landlord was required to prove three things:
i) Landlord Tenant relationship between the parties.
ii) Bonafide requirement of his younger son.
iii) No other suitable alternate accommodation.
25. As per the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, the title of the petitioner as the
landlord is not in dispute as in the Written statement, it is admitted by the
respondents that after the death of Sh Din Dayal, who is the predecessor in
interest of the petitioner, they never paid rent to anyone due to inter se
disputes among the heirs. The Ld. Counsel submits that the respondents
admit their status as tenants and since no proof has been filed by the
respondents to show that the petitioner is not the successor of Sh Din
Dayal, which on the other hand is proved by the petitioner, therefore, the
relationship stands established. For Ex PW-8/A, the Ld. Counsel said that
the document is proved by PW-8 and if the explanation given by the
respondents for the said document is seen, it would show that the
explanation is meritless as no prudent man would give financial assistance
of rs. 1,900/- in the year 2015 by way of Bank Draft. He further said that
Ex PW-1/8 is sent by a counsel with Ex PW-8/A on behalf of the
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 22 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:14:48
+0530
respondents, yet, the respondents never filed any complaint against the
Counsel to show that the submission of counsel not being authorized by
them has merit to it. The Ld. counsel also pointed out the cross
examination of RW-1 and RW-2 to show that contradictory averments are
made with respect to Sh Nanak Chand and it is admitted that there was no
financial transaction between the petitioner and the respondents therefore,
Ex PW-8/A can logically been issued for payment of rent. Evidence of
RW-1 was also pointed out to show that RW-1 never denied specifically
that the said reply was not sent on behalf of the respondents but rather, she
said that she cannot say if the respondents sent the said reply. As per the
Ld. Counsel, the said answer amounts to admission as it is not specific
denial. The Ld. Counsel said that since the status of respondents as tenant
is not disputed and it is also not disputed that predecessor in interest of
petitioner was the owner of tenanted premises, the alleged inter se dispute
between the heirs also has no merit to it as an eviction petition can be filed
by one co-owner if the other co-owners do not object to it. The ld. Counsel
further said that Ex PW-1/6 is more than 30 year old and therefore,
presumption u/s 90 Evidence act is applicable to these receipts and since
the respondents gave the suggestion that Ex PW-1/6 is forged, the onus
was on them to prove that the receipts were actually proved. The Ld.
Counsel said that in the absence of any proof, Ex PW-1/6 stands proved.
The Ld. Counsel was questioned by the Court during final arguments on
the answer of PW-1 for Ex PW-1/6 wherein he said that translation of the
said document filed by him is incorrect and the Ld. Counsel said that if the
entire evidence is seen, it would show that Ex PW-1/6 is proved. For the
alleged ownership of the petitioner, the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner said
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 23 of 50Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:14:54
+0530
that Ex PW-1/1, Ex PW-1/2 and Ex PW-1/3 proves the ownership of the
petitioner qua the tenanted premises. He further said that the adjacent
property I.e shop no.10 is also owned by the petitioner which also got
vacated from the tenant by the petitioner and the relinquishment deed
relied herein is also considered by the Court in the said case. The Ld.
Counsel said that the appeal of the said suit went upto Hon’ble Supreme
Court but the same was decided in the favour of petitioner and therefore,
relinquishment deed also stands proved. The Ld. Counsel also said that
though the respondents objected to the site plan filed by the petitioner but
they themselves never filed any site plan and thus, site plan of petitioner
has to be relied. The Ld. Counsel also relied on the judgment passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Mrs Madhurbhashani & Ors vs Ranjit
Singh, RC Rev 95/2014 and 112/2014 and, Indermal Gupta and Anr vs
Sunder Singh & Ors, RC Rev 394/2012.
26. Per contra, the Ld. Counsel for the respondents said that the relationship of
landlord and tenant is not proved and even the rent receipts relied do not
depict the property number, as admitted by PW-1, therefore, it cannot be
said that petitioner has any right, title or interest in the tenanted premises.
He further said that apart the unproved rent receipts, there is no document
to suggest that respondents are the tenants of the petitioner and even the
alleged legal notice relied is not supported with any tracking report or
postal receipt to show that legal notice was actually served by the
Landlord. He further said that it is admitted by PW-1 in his cross
examination that there are other properties in his possession but since he
did not disclose them, there is concealment. The Ld. Counsel was
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 24 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:15:01
+0530
questioned on WS filed by respondents where they have admitted the
relationship of landlord tenant but the Ld. Counsel said that if the whole
WS is read, it would show that there is no such admission. The Ld.
Counsel alleged that the bona fide requirement reflected is artificial and
therefore, the petition should be dismissed.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
27. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. I shall now proceed to
give issue wise finding in this case. The three main issues of the present
petition are:
a) Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
b) Bona fide need of the petitioner.
c) Availability of suitable alternate accommodation.
28. 1st issue- Relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties:
a) The foremost requirement of a petition under DRC is to prove the
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. Vide order
dated 15.11.2018, the Ld. Predecessor observed that the said
relationship between the parties is a triable issue and accordingly,
leave to defend was permitted on this ground. Now if the leave to
defend and written statement of the respondent no.1 and 2 is seen,
the ground raised is that the tenanted premises was owned by Sh
Din Dayal and after he died on 11.05.1975, there’s been disputeRC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 25 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:15:07
+0530
among his legal heirs and thus, no one realized rent from the
predecessor of the respondents. It is alleged that the respondents
never paid rent to Sh Sher singh or the petitioner and there is no
proof that the petitioner is the legal heir of Sh Din Dayal. As per
the respondents, one Smt Raj Wati, claiming to be widow of Sh
Ishwar Das, who claimed himself to be the son of Sh Din Dayal is
alleging herself to be the owner and therefore, the petitioner has no
right, title or interest in the tenanted premises. It is also alleged that
the relinquishment deed relied by the petitioner nowhere shows
that how Sh Din Dayal acquired the property and therefore, he
cannot claim himself to be the owner. It is also alleged that the
partition deed relied does not prove the alleged right of the
petitioner as the partition deed can only be between co-sharer/ co-
owner and at best, Sh Din Dayal could have gifted the tenanted
premises to anyone but not partitioned it. It is further alleged that
the Key Plan and Existing Layout plan of the tenanted premises is
not annexed with the relinquishment deed and therefore, it cannot
be said to be related to the tenanted premises. It is also alleged that
Late Sh Din Dayal and his various other family members were
collecting rent from the respondents and his pre decessor but no
rent receipt was issued and on account of good faith, the
respondents never asked for it. The respondents also questioned
PW-1/7 and PW-1/8 and rather said that the petitioner, being the
neighbor of the respondents, approached him for financial
assistance and respondent no.2, who was not that literate, signed
some papers meant for issuance of bank draft for financial help
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 26 of 50Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:15:13
+0530
which is projected by the petitioner to be issued for the alleged
rent. The Ld. Counsel for the respondent also said that if the entire
WS is read, it would show that there is no such admission qua the
relationship of landlord tenant between the parties. However, when
the pleadings and evidence is appreciated, it would show that the
respondents have approbated and reprobated at the same time. At
one place in the WS, the respondents have alleged that they never
paid rent to the petitioner or his predecessor, Sh Sher Singh but
later, they admitted that Sh Din Dayal and after him various
members of his family have been collecting rent from the
respondents and their predecessor I.e Sh Nanak Chand but they
never issued any rent receipt. The respondents have said that they
never asked for any rent receipt in good faith, which amounts to
admission by the respondents that they came into the possession of
the tenanted premises by way of tenancy created by Sh Din Dayal.
Further, it is the allegation of the respondents that apart the
tenanted premises, the petitioner is also the owner of various other
shops in Property no. 514, where the tenanted premises is situated.
The said suggestion was also given by the respondents to PW-1
during his cross examination, however, it is also alleged by the
respondents that the petitioner is not the heir of Sh Din Dayal.
Suggestions were given to PW-1 that he is not the owner of the suit
premises but the respondents have not filed any proof to show that
the petitioner is not the heir of Sh Din Dayal. The petitioner/ PW-1
has alleged on an affidavit that he is the grand son of Sh Din Dayal
but a vague denial is made by the respondents that the petitioner
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 27 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:15:17
+0530
has no relation to the tenanted premises. The respondents, as can
be seen from the facts extracted above, admitted that Sh Din Dayal
and his family members used to collect rent from them but they
have not specified who these family members were. Moreover, if
the suggestions given to PW-1 are seen during his cross
examination, it would show that there are suggestions given to the
effect that he is not the owner of suit property but there is no such
suggestion that he is no the heir of Sh Din Dayal. As the said fact
is alleged by the respondents, the onus was on them to show that
the petitioner had no relation with Sh. Din Dayal and has no locus
to file the present petition.
b) Now, if all these submissions and suggestions are read along with
the pleadings, it would show that there is an admission by the
respondents that Sh Din Dayal kept the predecessor in interest of
the respondents as tenant and was collecting rent from him and the
respondents, thereby, proving the relationship of landlord and
tenant. The respondents themselves suggested on one hand that
PW-1 is the owner of other shops in the property where tenanted
premises are situated and for these properties also, the alleged
owner is Sh Din Dayal. The respondents have not explained how
the petitioner, as per their version can be called owner of the other
properties of Sh Din Dayal, and not the tenanted premises when the
rights are falling from the same chain. In the absence of any cogent
explanation/RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 28 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:15:23
+0530
admissible proof, the allegation of the respondents that the
petitioner has no right, title or interest in the tenanted premises
remains unsubstantiated.
c) Next, if the testimony of respondent’s witnesses is seen, RW-1
admitted that she has not filed any document on record to show
that the respondents or Sh Nanak Chand were in the possession of
the tenanted premises as owners. RW-2 and RW-3 said that their
allegation in affidavit that respondents are the owner of the
tenanted premises is based on the verbal conversation that they had
with the respondents. The bare reading of the deposition of the
respondents would show that the testimony of RW-2 and RW-3 on
the said aspect is hearsay and testimony of RW-1 does not prove
the better title of the respondents or their predecessor to the
tenanted premises as compared to the petitioner. The law on
hearsay evidence was explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court made
in the case of Kalyan Kumar Gogoi Vs. Ashutosh Agnihotri and
Another (2011) 2 SCC 532, wherein it was held:
“33. The word “evidence” is used in common parlance in
three different senses: (a) as equivalent to relevant, (b) as
equivalent to proof, and (c) as equivalent to the material, on
the basis of which courts come to a conclusion about the
existence or non- existence of disputed facts. Though, in the
definition of the word “evidence” given in Section 3 of the
Evidence Act one finds only oral and documentary evidence,
this word is also used in phrases such as best
evidence, circumstantial evidence, corroborative evidence,
hearsay evidence, indirect evidence, oral evidence, original
evidence, presumptive evidence, primary evidence, real
evidence, secondary evidence, substantive evidence,
testimonial evidence, etc.The idea of best evidence is implicit
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 29 of 50Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:15:28
+0530
in the Evidence Act. Evidence under the Act, consists of
statements made by a witness or contained in a document. If it
is a case of oral evidence, the Act requires that only that
person who has actually perceived something by that sense, by
which it is capable of perception, should make the statement
about it and no one else. If it is documentary evidence,
the Evidence Act requires that ordinarily the original should
be produced, because a copy may contain omissions or
mistakes of a deliberate or accidental nature. These principles
are expressed in Sections 60 and 64 of the Evidence Act. The
term “hearsay” is used with reference to what is done or
written as well as to what is spoken and in its legal sense, it
denotes that kind of evidence which does not derive its value
solely from the credit given to the witness himself, but which
rests also, in part, on the veracity and competence of some
other person. Hearsay evidence is excluded on the ground that
is is always desirable, in the interest of justice, to get the
person, whose statement is relied upon, into court for his
examination in the regular way, in order that many possible
sources of inaccuracy and untrustworthiness can be brought to
light and exposed, if they exist, by the test of cross-
examination. The phrase “hearsay evidence” is not used in
the Evidence Act because it is inaccurate and vague. It is a
fundamental rule of evidence under the Indian law that
hearsay evidence is inadmissible. A statement, oral or written,
made otherwise than by a witness in giving evidence and a
statement contained or recorded in any book, document or
record whatsoever, proof of which is not admitted on other
grounds, are deemed to be irrelevant for the purpose of
proving the truth of the matter stated. An assertion other than
one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the
proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted.
That this species of evidence cannot be tested by cross-
examination and that, in many cases, it supposes some better
testimony which ought to be offered in a particular case, are
not the sole grounds for its exclusion. The reasons why
hearsay evidence is not received as relevant evidence are :
a) The person giving such evidence does not feel any
responsibility. The law requires all evidence to be given under
personal responsibility i.e. every witness must give his
testimony, under such circumstance, as expose him to all the
penalties of falsehood. If the person giving hearsay evidence isRC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 30 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:15:34
+0530
cornered, he has a line of escape by saying “I do not know, but
so and so told me”,
b) Truth is diluted and diminished with each repetition,
and if permitted, gives ample scope for playing fraud by
saying “someone told me that…..”. It would be attaching
importance to false rumour flying from one foul lip to another.
d) The above law clearly explains that hearsay evidence is
inadmissible and thus, the version of RW-2 and RW-3 qua the
alleged ownership of respondents to the tenanted premises is
inadmissible. Coming to the remaining deposition of RW-1 to RW-
3, they have alleged that petitioner owns other shops in property
no. 514 but surprisingly, they have denied the petitioner to have
any right with respect to the tenanted premises. When these
witnesses were cross examined on this point, they failed to explain
on what premise this submission is made in their affidavit. In fact,
RW-2 and RW-3 eventually admitted in their cross examination
that even these allegations were based on the verbal information
gathered by them from the market and from the respondents and
thus, even the said part of their evidence falls within the ambit of
hearsay evidence, thereby becoming inadmissible.
e) In the judgment titled as Rajender Kumar Sharma vs. Smt. Leela
Wati reported as 155 (2008) DLT 383, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi held the following:
“It is settled law that for the purpose of section 14 (1)
(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, a landlord is not supposed to
prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of
Property Act. He is required to show only that he is more than
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 31 of 50Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:15:40
+0530
a tenant. In this case, the landlady had placed on record the
documents by which she became owner. The attornment given
by the erstwhile landlord in her favour as well as an admission
made by the tenant by filing petition under section 27 of Delhi
Rent Control Act acknowledgement the landlordship of
landlady…. The principle is very clear that once a tenant
always a tenant. The tenant cannot dispute the title of his
landlord or his successor-in-interest. Accordingly, in view of
the provisions of section 116 of the Evidence Act, he is
estopped from challenging the title of the petitioner….. If the
transfer of the landlord’s title is valid, and even if the tenancy
is not attorned in favour of the transferee, the lease continues.
Thus, a transferee of the landlord’s rights, steps into the shoes
of the landlord with all the rights and liabilities of the
transferor landlord in respect of the subsisting tenancy. Even
though it has been admitted by the respondent that rent for the
tenanted premises had been paid to the petitioner, attornment
in favour of the new landlord is unnecessary to confer validity
to the transfer of the landlord’s rights and there is no such
statutory requirement. Reference may be made to the case
of Hajee K. Assainar vs. Chacku Joseph AIR 1984 Ker 113. In
the case of Mahendra Raghunathdas Gupta vs. Vishvanath
Bhikaji MogulAIR 1997 SC 2437, it was held that attornment
by tenant is not necessary though it is desirable. Mere non-
payment of rent by tenant even for a considerably long period
does not extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship. The
possession of a tenant cannot be adverse to his landlord. The
petitioner is therefore, the landlord and owner of the tenanted
premises.
f) Perusal of the ratio in the above judgment would show that once a
tenant admits his status as that of a tenant, he can never get a better
title than the landlord and he is estopped from questioning the
rights of the landlord qua the tenanted premises. As per the proved
facts of the case, admission is made by the respondents that they
used to pay rent to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner. No
admissible evidence is filed to show that petitioner is not the heir
of Sh Din Dayal and no objection has been filed by any other heir,RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 32 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:15:47
+0530
to the petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents for the
tenanted premises. In such circumstance, the better right of the
petitioner to the tenanted premises vis a vis the respondents cannot
be doubted upon. In addition to this, the petitioner also relied on
rent receipts allegedly issued to the respondents towards payment
of rent for the tenanted premises. The respondents questioned the
admissibility of rent receipts. Eventually, in the cross examination
of PW-1, he admitted that the translation of rent receipt is not
correct, yet, it would not grant any benefit to the respondents. Rent
receipts are not the only proof to establish relationship of landlord
tenant between the parties and particularly in this case, since the
payment of rent to the predecessor in interest of the petitioner and,
the status of the respondents as tenants is admitted by the
respondents themselves, the relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties stands proved.
g) The petitioner, in addition to the above evidence has also relied on
Ex PW-8/A I.e the DD dated 04.11.2015 to prove that he is the
landlord of the tenanted premises. To elaborate, PW-8 proved
through his evidence that Ex PW-8/A was issued by respondent
no.2 for a sum of Rs. 1,900/- in the favour of petitioner. The
submission of the petitioner has been that the same was issued
towards payment of rent of the tenanted premises but the
respondents said that the same was mala fide taken by the
petitioner from respondent no.2 who wasn’t that literate on the
pretext of financial assistance. When RW-1 was questioned during
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 33 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:15:54
+0530
cross examination, she admitted that there was no financial
transaction between the petitioner and the respondents and she also
said that she wasn’t aware if any loan or financial assistance was
given by any of the respondent no.2 to the petitioner. The
submission of RW-1 on the said aspect shows that she has not said
with certainty that any such alleged financial assistance was given
by the respondents to the petitioner and thus, it cannot be said that
the burden on the respondents to prove the allegation of financial
assistance given through Ex PW-8/A has been proved. Moreover,
for Ex PW-8/A, the petitioner has alleged that the same was sent
through Ex PW-1/8 when PW-1/7 was issued to the respondents.
The respondents in the written statement said that neither Ex PW-
1/7 was served on them nor Ex PW-1/8 was sent by them but when
RW-1 was examined on this aspect, she admitted that Ex PW-1/7
was served upon both the respondents thereby contradicting the
submission of the respondents in the written statement. For Ex
PW-1/8, RW-1 said that she wasn’t aware if the reply along with
Ex PW-8/A was sent by the respondents. Now the said answer
would show that it is not complete denial. It is a settled principle
that if the respondents fail to make a specific denial, the
implication is that the fact is to be admitted. In the facts of this
case, the submission of RW-1 of not being aware if any reply was
sent to the legal notice by the respondents, results in tilting the
presumption in the favour of petitioner and proving on the scale of
preponderance of probability that Ex PW-8/A was sent with Ex
PW-1/8 by the respondents.
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 34 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:16:01
+0530
h) Furthermore, if on face value, the reply of the respondents in the
written statement is considered qua allegation of sending DD with
reply to legal notice, their WS would still not prove that the reply
was not sent by them through Sh Joginder Singh Garkal. To
elucidate, the respondents have just made a bare allegation that the
DD was never handed over to Sh Joginder Singh Garkal and he
was not their counsel but, they have failed to get any admissible
evidence/ document on record to prove the said averment. Let
alone the proof, the respondents never made any effort to initiate
any complaint with Bar Council or file any complaint before any
competent Court against the said lawyer for replying to the alleged
legal notice without their authority and sending the DD on pretext
of payment of rent. The respondents did not even make an effort to
call this person as a witness in order for this Court to ascertain the
veracity of their submission and therefore, a mere conjecture
cannot come to the rescue of respondents to discharge the burden
imposed on them. That being said, the last question raised on the
legal notice by the respondents is that no tracking report or postal
receipt is filed, however, the necessity of filing a postal receipt and
tracking report is to show that a notice/ document was sent by the
sender on the correct address. When the reply to the notice is filed
and as the petitioner proved during the cross examination of RW-1
that the notice was received by the respondents, the question of
raising presumption to the letters sent through post does not ariseRC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 35 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:16:07
+0530
in this case. Reliance is being placed on the judgment passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Shri Hari Prakash vs Delhi
Development Authority, decided on 15.02.2017, wherein it was
held:
“Despite the fact that DDA has not filed any postal receipt,
AD Card in respect of above communications, these have
admittedly been received by the appellant/plaintiff and duly
responded. Exhibit PW-1/4, the relinquishment deed in favour
of the appellant/plaintiff has been executed in the year 2005
i.e. after about 17 years of death of recommendee Sh.Udai
Singh….The documentary evidence placed on record by the
parties clearly established that it was not a case of ‘no
communication’ to the recommendee or his legal heirs about
the allotments made by the DDA under the policy….In view of
deposition of PW-1 in para No.5 of the affidavit wherein all
the allotments have been duly mentioned and his cross
examination that the notice Ex.PW1/10 was received by elder
member of the family, presumption of service of the
communications can be drawn under Section 114(f) of Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. It may also be noted that the
appellant/plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption by leading
any evidence to the contrary.”
i) The ratio of above judgment shows that presumption under section
114 of Evidence act for service of communication is done through
postal receipts/ AD card but where the reply to the communication
is filed and proved, the question of raising such presumption does
not arise.
j) Moving on to the remaining documents filed by the petitioner, he
has relied upon sale deed, relinquishment deed and partition deed
to show that he is the owner of the tenanted premises. Though the
factum of landlord tenant relationship is proved as explained
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 36 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:16:13
+0530
above, yet, since the respondents have raised question on the mode
of proof and admissibility of these documents, the said aspect is
also being appreciated. Ex PW-1/1, Ex PW-1/2 and Ex PW-1/3
were all filed after producing original and they also have stamp of
the requisite department. The question on mode of proof is related
to an evidence being primary or secondary. Primary evidence,
secondary evidence, circumstances in which secondary evidence
can be filed, public document and certified copy of public
documents, are all concepts which have been described in
Evidence act. The requisite sections are explained herein below:
i. Section 61 of the evidence act says how the proof of contents
of documents can be given- “The contents of documents may
be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence.”
ii. Section 63 of Evidence act has described what all are
secondary evidence-“Secondary evidence means and
includes-
1. certified copies given under the provisions hereinafter
contained;
2. copies made from the original by mechanical processes
which in themselves insure the accuracy of the copy, and
copies compared with such copies;
3. copies made from or compared with the original;
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 37 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:16:19
+0530
4. counterparts of documents as against the parties who did
not execute them;
5. oral accounts of the contents of a document given by some
person who has himself seen it.”
iii. Section 65 of the Evidence act lays down the cases in which
secondary evidence relating to documents may be given-
“Secondary evidence may be given of the existence,
condition, or contents of a document in the following cases-
1. When the original is shown or appears to be in the
possession or power of the person against whom the
document is sought to be proved, or of any person out of
reach of, or not subject to, the process of the Court, or of
any person legally bound to produce it, and when, after the
notice mentioned in Section 66, such a person does not
produce it;
2. When the existence, condition or contents of the original
have been proved to be admitted in writing by the person
against whom it is proved or by his representative in
interest;
3. When the original has been destroyed or lost, or when the
party offering evidence of its contents cannot, for any
other reason not arising from his own default or neglect,
produce it in reasonable time;
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 38 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:16:24
+0530
4. When the original is of such a nature as not to be easily
movable;
5. When the original is a public document within the
meaning of Section 74.
6. When the original is a document of which a certified copy
is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in, to
be given in evidence;
7. When the originals consist of numerous accounts or other
documents which cannot conveniently be examined in
Court, and the fact to be proved is the general result of the
whole collection.
iv. Section 74 defines Public documents. The following
documents are public documents as mentioned in the act :-
1. Documents forming the acts or records of the acts:
a) of the sovereign authority;
b) of official bodies and tribunals; and
c) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, of
private documentsv. Section 76 defines what are Certified copies of public
documents:
1. Every [public officer] [A Village-officer in the Punjab has
been declared for the purposes of this Act to be a public
officer having the custody of a public document-see theRC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 39 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:16:29
+0530
Punjab Land-Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), Section
151(2).] having the custody of a public document, which
any person has a right to inspect, shall give that person on
demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor,
together with a certificate written at the foot of such copy
that it is a true copy of such document or part thereof, as
the case may be, and such certificate shall be dated and
subscribed by such officer with his name and his official
title, and shall be sealed, whenever such officer is
authorized by law to make use of a seal; and such copies
so certified shall be called certified copies.
2. Explanation: Any officer who, by the ordinary course of
official duty is authorized to deliver such copies, shall be
deemed to have the custody of such documents within the
meaning of this section.
vi. Section 77 explains when proof of documents can be given by
production of certified copies: “Such certified copies may be
produced in proof of the contents of the public documents or
part of the public documents of which they purport to be
copies.”
vii. Section 79 lays down the Presumption as to genuineness of
certified copies: “The Court shall presume [to be genuine]
every document purporting to be a certificate, certified copy
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 40 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:16:34
+0530
or other document, which is by Law declared to be admissible
as evidence of any particular fact, and which purports to be
duly certified by any officer [of the Central Government or of
a State Government, or by any officer [in the State of Jammu
and Kashmir] who is duly authorized thereto by the Central
Government]”
k) In addition to these sections, the law on primary and secondary
evidence has also been explained by their lordships in Vijay vs
Union of India & Ors, Civil Appeal No. 4910 of 2023. The
judgment passed by the constitution bench of the Hon’ble Court
was also quoted in the case of Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v.
Purya,14 (5-Judge Bench) wherein it was held:
“law requires Primary evidence to be given first, and
secondary evidence may be given in the absence of
primary/original evidence when a proper explanation of its
absence has been given. The terms “primary and secondary
evidence” apply to the kinds of proof that may be given to the
contents of a document, irrespective of the purpose for which
such contents, when proved, may be received.” It was further
held that, “Section 63 of the Evidence Act gives an exhaustive
definition declaring that secondary evidence “means and
includes” the five kinds of evidence mentioned therein and
Section 65 of the Evidence Act allows secondary evidence to
be given of the existence, condition, or contents of documents
under the circumstances therein mentioned. It provides for the
circumstances in which secondary evidence can be used when
the original document is unavailable or inaccessible. It is
imperative to adhere to the principles outlined in these
sections, including the proper documentation and
authentication, to successfully produce secondary evidence in
legal proceedings.”
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 41 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:16:48
+0530
l) The above sections and the law settled on this point would show
that Ex PW-1/1 to Ex PW-1/3 were since all produced in original
when they were exhibited and they have the stamp of the
concerned department wherein the were executed, they fall within
the category of primary evidence. Coming to the relevance of these
documents, Ex PW-1/3 is the relinquishment deed for the tenanted
premises executed in the favour of petitioner but the same is
executed on a 100 Rs Stamp paper with 25 Rs registration.
Recently, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Ramesh Sharma vs
Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors on 8 October, 2025 held:
“It is to be noted that the Relinquishment Deed has not
been referred to in Schedule 1-A (for Delhi) of the Stamp Act,
however, Article 55 prescribes stamp duty payable on the
release deed, which reads as under: “55. RELEASE, that is to
say, any instrument (not being such a release as is provided for
by section 23(a) whereby a person renounces a claim upon
another person or against any specified property: (a) if the
amount or value of the claim The same duty as does not exceed
Rs. 1,000 Bond (No. 15) for such amount or value as set forth
in the Release, (b) in any other case One hundred rupees. At
this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Full
Bench of the Madras High Court in Chella Subbanna & Anr. v.
Chella Balasubbareddi & Ors.14, where the question arose
whether a coparcener, irrespective of the partition of the family
property, can relinquish his own interest in favour of the other
coparceners. In this regard, the Full Bench has observed as:
“The relinquishment by one coparcener of his interest in the
family estate in favour of the members of the coparcenary does
not amount to an alienation; it merely amounts to an extinction
of his interest in favour of the others.” 18. Further reliance is
placed upon the decision of the Full Bench in Reference
under Stamp Act Sec. 4615, wherein the Full Bench held as
follows: Therefore, upon perusal of the abovementioned
judgments, it is reiterated that Relinquishment does not
tantamount to an alienation of rights, and an RD between the
co-owners holds equal force as an RD between the
coparceners.
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 42 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:16:54
+0530
m) Further, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Kuppuswami
Chettiar v. Arumuga Chettiar, AIR 1967 SC 1395, held: “A release
deed could only feed title, but could not transfer title and that
renouncement must be in favour of a person who had already title
to an estate, the effect of which was only to enlarge the right.”
n) The above judgments would thus make it clear that Ex PW-1/3 can
at max only prove that the right of the petitioner in the tenanted
premises has been enlarged on account of the relinquishment of
shares by the other co-sharers but it cannot confer transfer of title.
The respondents have raised an objection that the other heirs have
not been made a party and there is allegedly a dispute among the
heirs qua the tenanted premises and therefore, the petitioner cannot
call himself the landlord. The petitioner has explained that in light
of Ex PW-1/3 and because no other heir has raised any objection,
the tenant cannot question the non impleadment of other heirs. To
prove the same, PW-7 was examined who proved the
relinquishment deeds placed on record and accordingly, they were
re exhibited as Ex PW-7/A (colly). Now in light of Ex PW-7/A and
the law as mentioned above, it can be said without doubt that
Petitioner is one of the heir of Late Sh Din Dayal and since no
objection has been raised by any other heir/ co-sharer and they in
fact relinquished their share in the tenanted premises in the favour
of petitioner, the submission of the respondents of non
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 43 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:17:00
+0530
impleadment also has no bearing to this case. The said law was
also reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pal Singh vs
Sunder Singh (Dead) by LR‘s & Ors, 1989 AIR 758, wherein the
Hon’ble Court held “when the other co-owner did not object to the
eviction one co-owner could maintain an action for eviction even
in the absence of other co-owner.”
o) Coming to the the sale deed filed by the petitioner, the deed was
filed in Urdu Language along with its translation which was done
by PW-9. Witness from Delhi Archives came to prove the
existence of the document and the document was re-exhibited as
Ex PW-5/1 and Ex PW-5/2. For proof of translation, PW-9 was
examined and he said that translation was done by him.
Accordingly, the translated copies of the deed were re exhibited as
Ex PW-9/1 and Ex PW-9/2. Now when PW-9 was cross examined,
he admitted that he does not possess a certificate for doing
translation but he said that he graduated in Urdu. Though the
petitioner also relied on Ex PW-1/9 to show that the Ld. CJ-06 also
relied on the translated deeds to observe in Suit No. 569/12 that the
petitioner is the owner of another shop in the same property but
that alone cannot mean that without the said document being
appreciated by the Court in the language which the Court can
comprehend, supported with admissible translation, the document
can be said to be proved. The issue of fact in Suit No. 569/12 was
whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of possession for another
shop but here, an eviction petition is filed for another shop and as
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 44 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:17:05
+0530
there is a dispute regarding the admissibility of the translated
document, this Court cannot give a conclusive finding on the
alleged ownership of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises. All
that has been proved is that the respondents, in comparison to
petitioner have a lesser right to the tenanted premises. In any case,
the question of ownership is not sine qua non in rent petitions and
question of title is not required to be decided. Recently, the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Mohammad Aamir through SPA
vs Mohd Arif Ansari, RC Rev 75/2021, dated 06.10.2025,
reiterated the said principle, as laid down in Shanti Sharma and Ors
vs Ved Prabha & Ors (1987) 4 SCC193 that landlord has to only
establish a better title and not ownership to the tenanted premises.
Thus, even if Ex PW-9/1 and Ex PW-9/2 is not considered, yet the
issue of fact in this case has been proved by the petitioner on the
scale of preponderance of probability. Accordingly, issue no.1 is
decided in the favour of petitioner and against the respondents.
29. 2nd & 3rd Issue: The issue of Bona fide need of the petitioner and
availability of suitable alternate accommodation are being appreciated
together as the facts and evidence are interconnected.
a) First, coming to the question of bona fide need of the petitioner,
PW-1 has asserted in his pleadings and the evidence that the
tenanted premises is required for his younger son as he intends to
start his business. PW-2 also came as a witness to explain his needRC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 45 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:17:11
+0530
and submitted that the tenanted premises is the only commercial
premises available with his father and he has been working on odd
jobs but now he wants to start his own business. The respondents
have throughout alleged that the younger son of the petitioner is
well settled and earning well and therefore, the need alleged is
illusory. RW-2 and RW-3 were called to prove that the younger
son of the petitioner is gainfully employed but they both admitted
in their cross examination that they have no personal knowledge
about this fact and they alleged so in their affidavits on the basis of
information gathered from locality. The said submission of RW-2
and RW-3, as explained above falls under the category of hearsay
evidence and therefore inadmissible and thus, the respondents,
despite going through the process of Trial couldn’t produce a
single piece of evidence to prove this allegation. The respondents
have also alleged that both the sons are adults and not dependent
on the petitioner but again, the age of the younger son does not
defeat his right to use the premises if he sees any prospect of
earning better. In the judgments passed by Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi in Manika Rani Ghosh & Anr vs Dharwinder Kaur, RC Rev
512/2012 and Manmohan Singh vs Arjun Uppal, RC Rev
117/2016, the Hon’ble Court held:
“It is often contended by the tenants that the landlord has
no prior business experience, capacity or that the suit premises
are not suitable for the business proposed by the landlord. For
instance, similar contentions were raised by the tenants before
this Court in the case of Shashi Kant Jain v. Tilak Raj Salooja
& Anr., R. C. Rev. 167/2010 and have been refuted. Such
allegations whereby the tenant tries to raise questions
regarding the age of the landlord or lack of business experience
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 46 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:17:17
+0530
or suitability of the suit shop for the business proposed by the
landlord and which are invariably vague do not consist a
triable issue. The tenants/petitioners made assertions before the
Ld. RC regarding the landlady possessing alternative
properties, but were unable to furnish sufficient documentary
evidence to substantiate the allegations. There is no dispute
that the business cannot be profitably carried from the
residential premises and thus, the plea that the landlady could
start the business form her residence is untenable. Moreover, it
is not for this Court to examine the viability of the business at
the suit premises or assess if it may be a profitable venture for
the landlady.”
“Landlords are not required to possess or to show any prior
experience to start a new business and additionally they are
also not bound to start the same business. No prior business
experience is required by the landlord.”
b) A bare reading of the above mentioned judgments along with the
facts of the case would show that it is not for the landlord to show
his expertise or experience in the field in which he/ his heirs intend
to setup their business and it is not even mandatory for him to have
a professional qualification. In fact, the law prohibits the
assessment by the tenant or the Court about the qualification,
profitability and manner in which the landlord should use his
premises. The only onus on the landlord is to show that tenanted
premises are required for bona fide use and the Rent controller
cannot presume that the landlord does not require the premises for
bona fide need. In fact as per law, the Controller has to proceed
with the presumption that requirement alleged is genuine, unless
proved otherwise. Reliance is being placed on the judgment passed
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Ahuja vs United India
Insurance Company Ltd dated 27 October, 1998:
RC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 47 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:17:23
+0530
“The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section
14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the landlord for
occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. 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 bona fide. 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 the requirement of the landlord in
bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant
to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust
himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises.
While deciding the question of bona fide of the requirement of
the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to
how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.”
c) Coming to the question of alternate accommodation, the
respondents have alleged that the petitioner is possession of other
shops which can be used by him. To substantiate the same, the
respondents questioned PW-1 and PW-2 on the said fact and both
of them explained that apart the tenanted premises, there is no
other suitable commercial shop which can be used. Additionally,
PW-1 has also said that the tenanted premises is close to the
residential premises of his younger son, making it more suitable for
him and it is also adjacent to the shop of his elder son. No contrary
evidence has been produced by the respondents to show that the
petitioner has any other alternate accommodation which can be
used by his younger son. In fact, RW-1 admitted the site plan filed
by the petitioner and she also admitted that the elder son of the
petitioner is carrying on his business from the adjacent shop to the
tenanted premises, thereby proving the submission of the petitioner
on viability of the tenanted premises. RW-2 and 3 on the otherRC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 48 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:17:30
+0530
hand, though alleged in their affidavit that petitioner has other
shops but they failed to prove so in the cross examination. They
both admitted that there is no proof to say that petitioner has any
other premises in his possession as alleged and the record
maintained by them is on the basis of market charges, which is
prepared by taking ID card of people. The said statement of RW-2
and RW-3 shows that they have no admissible document to show
that petitioner is in possession of any other commercial shop which
can be called as suitable alternate accommodation for the bona fide
need alleged. RW-2 and 3 also admitted in their cross examination
that they never saw any ownership documents of the alleged shops
described by them to be owned by the petitioner or, the ownership
documents of respondents for the tenanted premises and therefore,
the allegation of availability of suitable alternate accommodation
with the petitioner cannot be said to be proved by the respondents
on the scale of preponderance of probability.
RELIEF:
30. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the
petitioner has successfully proved the relationship of landlord and tenant
between him and the respondents, along with the bona fide need for the
tenanted premises. The respondents, on the other hand, failed to prove that
the petitioner has any alternate suitable accommodation and accordingly,
the respondents are directed to vacate the tenanted premises I.e premisesRC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 49 of 50
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:17:35
+0530
bearing private number 9 in property no. 514, Ward No.5, Mehrauli, New
Delhii-110030.
31. The above said order shall however not be executed before expiry of six
months from the date of the order.
32. Parties to bear their respective cost.
33. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
SHILPI
SHILPI SINGH
SINGH Date:
2026.01.30
17:17:44
+0530Announced in the open Court (SHILPI SINGH)
on 30.01.2026 ACJ-CCJ-ARC/South,
Saket Court/DelhiRC ARC 18/2016 & 6285/2016 PAWAN KISHORE Vs SUBHASH NAGPAL ANS. Page 50 of 50