M/S Gainda Lal Ram Narayan & Anr vs Narayan Shamnani on 3 August, 2026

August 5, 2026

Delhi High Court

M/S Gainda Lal Ram Narayan & Anr vs Narayan Shamnani on 3 August, 2026

1. These petitions have been filed under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 1 , assailing the impugned orders whereby the respective
applications seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the petitioners in
separate eviction proceedings instituted by the respondent/landlord have been
dismissed. The present petitions seek to challenge the orders dated 02.07.2015
[RC.REV. 507/2015 and RC.REV. 563/2015] passed by learned SCJ-cum-
RC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, and order dated 14.10.2025 [RC.REV.
99/2016] passed by learned ARC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi
[hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Orders’]. The demised premises in issue
are: –

SPONSORED

1 For short, ‘DRCA’

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 2 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
Sr. No. Revision Petition Demised Premises

Shop bearing No.1 and part of first

1. RC. REV. 507/2015 and barsati floor of suit property
bearing No. 1, 3 and 5 built on plot
No. 1 and 2, Block 91, Bhagat Singh
Marg, Lady Harding Road, New Delhi
One Shop bearing No. 1/1 & 1/2 of

2. RC. REV. 563/2015 property bearing No. 1, 3 and 5 built
on plot No.1 and 2, Block 91, Bhagat
Singh Marg, Lady Harding Road, New
Delhi
Shop bearing No.3 of property

3. RC. REV. 99/2016 bearing No. 1, 3 and 5 built on plot
No. 1 and 2, Block 91, Bhagat Singh
Marg, Lady Harding Road, New Delhi

2. The present petitions have been disposed of by way of a common
judgment as the landlord in all these petitions are same and bona fide
requirement for which the demised premises are required is also the same.

2.1 In RC.REV. 507/2015, the impugned order dated 02.07.2015 passed in
Eviction Petition No. 36/2014 has been challenged. The prayers sought in the
said revision petition read as under: –

“That in view of the above said facts and circumstances, it is
therefore, prayed that the present revision petition be allowed and
the impugned order dated 02.07.2015 passed by the court of Ms.
Kiran Gupta, SCJ-cum-RC, New Delhi, Patiala House Courts, New

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 3 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
Delhi be set aside and the petitioner be granted leave to defend the
eviction petition filed by the respondent.

Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in
favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.”

2.2. In RC.REV. 563/2015, the impugned order dated 02.07.2015 passed in
Eviction Petition No. 35/2014 has been challenged. The prayers sought in the
said revision petition read as under: –

“a. call for the records of LD. Civil Judge / Rent Controller,
Patiala House Court in Eviction Petition No. 35/2014 titled as
Narayan Shamnani vs. Beli Ram Chemist”;

b. set aside the impugned order dated 02.07.2015 passed by ld.
RCR whereby, the application for leave to defend of the Petitioner
has been dismissed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller and allow
the present petition, thereby, allowing the application for grant of
leave to defend, filed by the Petitioner/tenant in respect of the suit
premises;

c. any other or further order which this Hon’ble Court deems fit
and proper may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner and
against the Respondent.”

2.3. In RC.REV. 99/2016, the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 passed in
E-22/2014 has been challenged. The prayers sought in the said revision
petition read as under: –

“a) call the records of Eviction Petition bearing No. E-22/2014
titled as “Shri Narayan Shamnani Vs. Shri Yogesh Jain” decided on
14.10.2015 by Shri Prashant Sharma, Ld. ARC (New Delhi),

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 4 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi;

b) set aside the impugned eviction order dt. 14.10.2015 passed by
Shri Prashant Sharma, Ld. Addl. Rent Controller (New Delhi),
Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and grant necessary leave to
defend to the petitioner for contesting the eviction petition on
merits, in order to meet the ends of justice.

c) Pass any other or further order which this Hon’ble Court deems
proper in the facts & circumstances of the case, in favour of the
petitioner-tenant and against the respondent-landlord.”

FACTUAL BACKGROUND: –

3. The brief facts common to the present petitions and necessary for
disposal of these petitions are as under: –

i. It was stated that the respondent is the owner/landlord of the
demised premises in all the subject petitions and had purchased the
subject property in October, 1990 and sale documents regarding the
same were executed in January, 1991. It is further stated that the
petitioners (in all petitions) were tenants under the erstwhile owners,
and thereafter, started paying rent to respondent. The demised
premises were let out for commercial purposes and portions thereof
were let out for residential purposes.

ii. It was further stated that the respondent had been doing the business
of travel agent since 1979. After purchasing the subject property, he
shifted his business in the subject property and at the time of filing
of subject eviction petitions, he was doing his business in the name
of two proprietorship concerns, i.e., M/s Madhur Air Travels and

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 5 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
M/s Ezee Flight, and running one partnership firm under the name
and style of M/s Ezee Travel Solutions from the first floor of the
said property. It was the case of the respondent that he was the
proprietor of aforesaid M/s Madhur Air Travels and Ms/ Ezee Flight
and in the partnership firm-M/s Ezee Travels Solutions, he along
with his wife- Smt. Chanda Shamnani were partners. His elder
daughter-Madhu Suneja was also helping him in his business and he
had been managing his business affairs from one of the rooms at the
first floor in the subject property. It was further stated that
respondent alongwith his family was residing on the portion of the
first floor and on barsati floor, his servant was residing.

iii. It was further stated that respondent’s family consists of respondent,
his wife, his son and three daughters. His son was stated to be doing
business of Tours and Travel in Canada. All his daughters were
married. The eldest daughter-Madhu Suneja has two sons namely,
Gaurav and Akshay aged 25 and 20 years respectively. The second
daughter of the respondent namely Poonam Madnani has two grown
up daughters namely Divya and Soumaya and the third daughter of
the respondent namely Ranjana Aggarwal has one son namely Rahul
Aggarwal aged 24 years and a daughter namely Manvi Aggarwal. It
was stated son of the respondent wants to start the business of travel
agency in India from the property owned by respondent. With the
passage of time, the respondent had acquired knowledge regarding
travel trade and for this purpose, the respondent intended to
start/shift the business on the ground floor of the property and for

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 6 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
the said purpose/business, the respondent required the demised
premises which were in occupation of the petitioners for setting up
an office on the ground floor from where the respondent and his
family members had planned that they would start foreign exchange
section, international and domestic ticket section, ticket section. It
was further stated that in order to run such business, there is
requirement of reception area, one meeting room, two cabins for
director/partners, pantry, dining area and washroom as well as a
strong room will also be required. It was further stated that the
respondent had prepared a plan for setting up office as per the
requirements stated herein before. The respondent had also applied
for the business of foreign exchange.

iv. It was further stated that for such bonafide requirement, respondent
had filed separate eviction petitions in respect of the demised
premises in occupation of the petitioners for setting up the business
of travel agency for himself and other family members on the
ground floor of the subject property. It was further stated that the
elder daughter of the respondent along with her elder son-Gaurav
has been assisting him in the said business and they now wish to
actively participate in the same. His second daughter and his
grandson-Rahul Aggarwal also intended to join the respondent in
the said business. The respondent intended to start such business in
the entire ground floor and would, therefore, require reasonably
good manpower as all the family members are dependent upon him
and his family members would be comfortably able to assist in the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 7 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
business as they have shown their willingness to join the said
business. It was further stated that the respondent and his dependent
do not have any other alternate reasonable accommodation available
at their disposal for satisfying their bonafide requirement regarding
the business of Airline Ticketing, Foreign Exchange, Visa
Facilitation and other travel related services except the demised
premises in occupation of the petitioners herein.

v. It was further stated that the premises available at the disposal of the
respondent were not at all sufficient for running the business of
tours and travel, and the premises available to the respondent in the
subject property have been shown in ‘green colour’ in the site plan.
Respondent also wanted to shift his business and will amalgamate
the present business with the business which he and his family
members intend to start on the ground floor of the subject property,
and same would require him to establish his business separately
from his residence for making it more convenient and comfortable
for his entire family to use the upper floors of the subject property
for residential purposes exclusively. The respondent wanted to
convert his first and barsati floor of the property for residential use
only as the accommodation available with him presently was not
sufficient to accommodate other family members. It was further
stated that whenever his son comes to India along with his wife and
children, the accommodation available with the respondent was not
at all sufficient to accommodate them and they have to be
accommodated in a crammed accommodation, and respondent faces

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 8 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
great difficulty in the same, and therefore, the respondent is
bonafidely in need of additional accommodation.

4. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioners had filed their respective
leave to defend applications raising various triable issues against the eviction
petitions filed by the respondent. On perusal, the triable issues raised in the
said applications by the respective petitioners are as follows: –

(a) In application filed by petitioner-Yogesh Jain

i. The subject eviction petition was not maintainable as various false
submissions were made by respondent, and true material facts were
concealed and suppressed from the Court.

ii. The case set up by the respondent was not of bonafide requirement
but of reconstruction, and modification to make the premises
habitable for the himself and his family.

iii. The petitioner had also raised challenge with respect to the legality
of the agreement to sell dated 16.01.1991 by alleging that the
respondent is not the owner of the demised premises inasmuch as
the said agreement to sell relied upon by the respondent is not
registered and properly stamped in accordance with law as the
requisite stamp duty has not been paid.

iv. Neither the son nor the daughters of the respondent are dependent
upon him and all his three daughters and sons are married and have
grown up children. His son is settled in Canada and has Canadian
citizenship and has no intention to come to India or to join the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 9 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
alleged business which the respondent is intending to start, and is
not dependent upon the respondent either for his livelihood,
residence, or for the purposes of the alleged business claimed to be
set by the respondent.

v. It is further stated that the respondent had not disclosed the other
properties available with him for satisfying his bonafide
requirements, and had not approached the Court with clean hands.
He had more than sufficient properties available with him viz, were
C.P. Cottage (Emporium)-44, Gole Market Circle, New Delhi; and
Shop No.9-10, at Bhagat Singh Lane, New Delhi.

vi. Respondent had intentionally and deliberately filed a
wrong/incorrect site plan which is not according to the actual
position of the demised premises as he had constructed a basement,
and loft on the same land, which are lying vacant.

vii. Since inception of the tenancy, the petitioner was the tenant of Mr.
Bawa Vikram Singh, and the utility bills of the demised premises so
far were paid by the petitioner himself.

viii. Respondent is successfully running his business with his eldest
daughter and eldest son of his eldest daughter at the Bhagat Singh
Marg, and proper space is available for running his business and no
other space is required for running the said business as the available
space is sufficient for the alleged business.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 10 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

(b) In application filed by petitioners-M/s Gainda Lal Ram
Narayan & Anr.

i. The petitioners had raised issue with respect to maintainability of
the subject petitions inasmuch as respondent had failed to plead the
necessary ingredients under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA, and it
was prayed that the same is liable to be rejected under Order VII
Rule 11 of the CPC being without any cause of action.
ii. The respondent’s daughter Ranjana Aggarwal is running her own
business under the name and style of M/s. Yorks Travel and Forex
Services Pvt. Ltd. which is owned by her family wherein her
husband and her son – Rahul Aggarwal are Directors and, therefore,
she and her family are not dependent upon the respondent for any
purpose. The said business has a registered office at Shop No. LG 3-
4, Plot No.27, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi, and
same is owned by the family of Ms. Ranjana Aggarwal, and she is
residing at F-107, Ashok Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi. It is further stated
that the other two daughters – Madhu Suneja and Poonam Madnani
are not even residing in Delhi, and both of them are also grown up
and in no way, it has been shown that they require the premises for
the business purposes.

iii. The respondent was running his business of travel agency prior to
coming into the subject property in question from shop No.5 Bhagat
Singh Marg, Gole Market and he is also having another shop No.5
Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, New Delhi. Therefore, the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 11 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
respondent has two shops in his possession for running his business
which constitutes an alternate accommodation.

iv. The respondent had vacated shop No.1/4 Bhagat Singh Marg, New
Delhi, from the tenant M/s. Sambhu Dayal Banwari Lal long back.
Thus, he has three shops to run the business in the same building
and address of these shops were being shown in the bank accounts
and in different organisations.

v. The respondent is stated to be residing on the first and the second
floor of the property and he had falsely stated that he is running his
office from the first floor. It is further stated that respondent is in
occupation of 2 rooms and big drawing/dining room which he has
shown as office/lobby and a room for temple and two toilets and
kitchen on the first floor and on room, covered verandah, toilet and
open terrace with balcony on the second floor. Therefore, the
respondent is having sufficient accommodation available with him
for his residence as well as for his business.

vi. The respondent owns a house at Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana, which is
registered in the name of his wife and same has deliberately
concealed by him.

vii. A shop bearing no. 9-10 Bhagat Singh Lane, Gole Market, is also
owned by the family of the respondent from where a beauty parlour
is being run, and respondent is having earning out of the same on
collaboration basis.

viii. The respondent had also let out a shop No. 1/6 Bhagat Singh Marg,
Gole Market and the same is presently vacant and is stated to be in
respondent’s possession.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 12 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

ix. The respondent had deliberately not shown the premises already in
his occupation either in his working drawing.

i. The respondent had filed the subject eviction petition not on the
ground of bonafide need but for the enhancement of future business
which is not a ground for bonafide need.

ii. Entire tale of the respondent about his relatives and need to involve
them in so called travel agency business is a sham, and cannot be
termed as bonafide requirement.

iii. Respondent has possession of Shop No.1/4 in the same vicinity.
iv. Respondent also has a shop No.44, Gole Market, New Delhi, which
he has deliberately concealed from the Court.

v. He had let out shop Nos.9 and 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Lane to a
person for running Beauty Parlour. He has also sold a shop No.150
at Bhagat Singh Lane.

vi. More than the alleged business of travel agency, the predominant
nature of activity of the respondent is to let out and sale purchase of
property. There is no plausible reason that the respondent needs the
suit premises.

vii. In the entire layout plan, the respondent has not stated as to how his
son and daughters are going to be accommodated in alleged
business. The respondent had not disclosed the aforesaid shops
which are in his possession and situated in Bhagat Singh Market and
Bhagat Singh Lane and Bhagat Singh Marg.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 13 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

viii. Respondent had failed to show as to how his family members are
dependent upon him with respect to the bonafide requirement of the
demised premises.

ix. It is the case of these petitioners that the bonafide requirement of the
respondent is his mere desire to get the demised premises vacated
from the petitioners, who are running their business from the said
demised premises and have no other source of livelihood, in case,
they are evicted from the same.

5. In response to the application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of
the petitioners, the respondent had refuted the aforesaid averments and had
submitted that no triable issues have been raised on behalf of the petitioners
and their applications are devoid of any merit. It was stated that his grandson-
Gaurav has already been assisting him in his alleged business; however, he is
presently doing a temporary job in a Call Centre in Gurugram, Haryana, and
intends to leave the said job permanently to actively participate in the
proposed business of the respondent. It was further stated by the respondent
that other grandson-Rahul Aggarwal is also willing to join his business. It was
the case of the respondent that he has no concern with the business of his son
run in Canada. It was further stated that the respondent intends to shift his
commercial activities from upper floors to ground floor to enable him to enjoy
the upper floor for residential purposes exclusively, and to accommodate his
entire family members during their visit and stay with him in India.

5.1. It was stated that the Shop No. 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, is a part of the
property owned by the respondent and is in under the tenancy of M/s Karachi

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 14 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
Halwa House who was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owner. Further
Shop No. 5, Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, is not owned by the
respondent and is owned by someone else and is occupied by Karachi Hair
Dressers. The respondent owns the entire property bearing 370 sq. yds. which
is numbered as 1, 3, and 5 Bhagat Singh Marg, whereas shop No. 5 is a part
of the property owned by the respondent and is under the tenancy of M/s.
Karachi Halwa House and is on the ground floor. It is further stated that it is
only for the sake of convenience that respondent has given his
correspondence address as “5 Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi”

as he is residing on the first floor of the said property.

5.2. It is further stated by the respondent that shop No.1/4 Bhagat Singh
Market is under the possession of M/s Midair Express (P) Ltd. from where the
said company is running its business. The said shop was let out to M/s Mid
Air Express by previous landlord before the entire property was sold to the
respondent. The daughter of respondent-Poonam is one of the directors in the
said company besides the other directors who are not his family members.
The said premises is under the tenancy of the said company, and the
respondent has no concern with the same except being owner of the said
property.

5.3. It is further the case of the respondent that the residential flat at Kundli,
Sonipat, Haryana is in the name of his wife and is lying vacant. As the said
house is situated outside Delhi, the same is not suitable for the respondent to
use it for commercial purposes. The premises/shop nos. 9 and 10, Shaheed
Bhagat Singh Lane, New Delhi, are two garages being purchased and owned

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 15 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
by respondent’s son and the said shops have been let out by his son to Rajni
Sethi Beautician in the month of April, 2013 and the respondent has no
concern with the said shops. Further, Shop No. 1/6 Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole
Market, New Delhi is under the tenancy of M/s Explore India Travel
Organiser for more than 10 years, and the said shop is not available with him.
It is further stated, in the reply, that respondent’s son is settled in Canada and
is running business of travel agency and in order to promote tourism in India
is sending tourist for which respondent’s firm make arrangement for hotel
bookings, transportation, site seeing etc., but for all intents and purposes, his
son has his own independent business and the respondent has nothing to do
with the same. The respondent intended to shift his commercial activities
from upper floor to ground floor to enable him to enjoy the upper floors for
residential use exclusively for accommodation of his family members, who
frequently visit India, as hardships and inconvenience, on account of meagre
space on upper floors for residence, was caused to them.

5.4. It is further stated that one commercial property no. 2E/11,
Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi, was inherited by the petitioner-Yogesh Jain
and the entire ground floor of the said property is in possession of said
petitioner and is lying vacant. The said commercial property is situated on the
main road which is more suitable for the petitioner-Yogesh Jain to start his
business.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 16 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

Subsequent Events’ Applications

6. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the
present petitions, applications, CM APPL. 45244/2023 in RC. REV.
563/2015 and CM APPL. 45245/2023 in RC. REV. 99/2016, were filed by
the petitioners-tenants seeking leave of the Court to place on record
subsequent events. The learned Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order
dated 07.12.2023 had allowed the aforesaid applications on the submission of
learned counsel for the respondent that the same may be considered as per
law. The same was, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions
of the respondent.

6.1. In the aforesaid applications, it was stated that the respective applicants
got to know that the respondent/landlord had, during the pendency of the
instant petitions, got the vacant and peaceful possession of as many as five
shops which were situated on the ground floor in the same locality and said
shops are lying vacant and are more than enough to meet the alleged bonafide
requirement portrayed by the respondent. It was further stated that the
respondent despite getting the possession of the aforesaid five shops had not
utilised any of these shops to meet his alleged bonafide requirement. It was
further stated that the respondent has available with him shop No.1/6, Bhagat
Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi (300 sq. ft.), which was earlier leased
out by him to one M/s Explore India Travel Organiser by Lease Agreement
dated 31.03.2004 as the vacant possession of the said shop was handed back
to the respondent by lessee in 2022, and the same has since been lying vacant
and the respondent had not put the same to any alleged use.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 17 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

6.2. It was further stated that the petitioners further got to know that the
daughter of the respondent-Ranjana Aggarwal, for whom bonafide
requirement was projected in the subject eviction petitions, owns and is in
possession of the two commercial shops situated in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, and
details of the said shops were, (i) Shop No. LG-3, 27 Central Market,
Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052 admeasuring 205 sq. ft. [Kindly see
Agreement to Sell dated 29.1.2010 enclosed as Annexure C]; (ii) Shop No.
BF-4, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052 admeasuring 147 sq.
ft. [Kindly see Agreement to Sell dated 3.10.2011 enclosed as Annexure
D]. It was further stated that the aforesaid shops were lying vacant and were
more than suitable to meet the alleged requirement of the respondent as
portrayed in paragraphs 18(a)(iii), (iv) and (v) of the Eviction Petition. These
facts were not disclosed by the respondent at the time of filing of the eviction
petition and even at subsequent stages of the proceedings of the present case.

6.3. It was further stated that grand-son of the respondent-Rahul Aggarwal
based in Delhi, who intended to join the business of the respondent, has
permanently settled in Ontario, Canada, since 2018. Further that, the
respondent owns and manages his Facebook page under the name “Ezee
Flight”, and said page shows that he is no more residing in New Delhi, India,
but is rather living in Toronto, Canada, thus, the bonafide requirement as
stated in the eviction petition by the respondent for himself and his family
members has ceased to exist.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 18 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

6.4. Subsequently, other applications, CM APPL. 68805/2024 in RC.
REV. 563/2015 and CM APPL. 68804/2024 in RC. REV. 99/2016, were
also filed on behalf of the petitioners-tenants seeking to place on record
documents in relation of subsequent event pertaining to the
respondent/landlord, wherein he had applied for removal of his license of
shop No. 44, Gole Market, New Delhi. It was stated in these applications, that
this shop is available to the respondent as an additional alternate
accommodation and the application for renewal of license filed on behalf of
the respondent shows that the said shop is in use and occupation of the
respondent/landlord. It was further stated that perusal of the eviction petition
filed by the respondent shows that the bonafide need projected by the
respondent was not for his married daughters but was for expanding his travel
agency business which he was already doing alongwith his wife. It was
further stated that on 21.11.2024, the petitioners came to know about a letter
dated 17.09.2024 which is a communication addressed by NDMC, New Delhi
Municipal Corporation to the respondent/landlord regarding renewal of the
NDMC shop no. 44 of Gole Market Area, New Delhi. It is the case of the
petitioners that by way of this letter, the respondent admittedly owns yet
another shop at Gole Market and details of the said shop were deliberately
withheld and not disclosed in the subject eviction petition filed against the
petitioners. It is further stated that in case the stand of the respondent that they
had surrendered their rights with respect to the said shop No.44 in year 2000
in favour of a third party is taken to be on its face value then also the letter
dated 17.09.2024 clearly demonstrates that the said shop was all along under
the occupation and in possession of the respondent and same was not
disclosed by him in the eviction petition. Despite being the said shop

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 19 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
available to the respondent, he had set up a false version in the eviction
petition to get the petitioners/tenant evicted. It is further stated in the
application that the aforesaid facts had come to the knowledge of the
petitioner only on 21.11.2024 and owing to the said reason the same could not
be pleaded earlier.

6.5. In response to the aforesaid stand of the petitioners in the aforesaid
applications, with respect to availability of shop no. 44, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent/landlord had reiterated his contentions that the
rights of the said shop were transferred in the year 2000, and it is likely that
the substitution of the name of the new owner of the premises/shop has not
been done. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent that said shop no. 44 has now been auctioned by NDMC and
relevant document dated 29.05.2019 has been placed on record by the
respondent along with the reply filed by the respondent in respect of the said
application. Further contentions raised on behalf of the respondents regarding
the subsequent events have been noted in the submissions made by learned
Senior Counsel for the respondent.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner-Yogesh Jain in RC.REV.99/2016

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned ARC has
failed to appreciate that the respondent had concealed material facts and has
not approached the Court with clean hands. It is further submitted that the
children of the respondent are not dependent upon him inasmuch as the son of

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 20 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
the respondent is well settled in Canada and is running his independent
business there. The daughters of the respondent are married and are not
dependent upon him. The alleged bonafide requirement for grandchildren is
false and concocted. It is pointed out that, in the pleadings, there is no
averments with respect to the dependency of the family members, who
allegedly would join the business of the respondent. The said family members
have their independent spaces available with them, and, even if, they wish to
run independent businesses or join the alleged business of the respondent,
they do not require the demised premises. From leave to defend application
filed by the petitioner, it is pointed out that respondent is running his business
with his elder daughter and his grandson (elder son of said elder daughter)
from Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, and proper space is
available with them for running such business. It is further submitted that the
averments/contentions of the respondent regarding bonafide requirement are
contradictory inasmuch as the respondent had on one hand shown requirement
for himself and on the other hand, he is alleging bonafide requirement for his
son, daughter and grandsons, who are not at all dependent upon him.
Therefore, the subject eviction proceeding with respect to alleged bonafide
requirement is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the respondent
wants to reconstruct and modify the demised premises for making the same
habitable for himself and his family members, and therefore, the petition
under Section 14(1)(e) would not be maintainable and the respondent ought to
have initiated proceedings under Section 14(1)(g) of the DRCA, and in such
case, summary procedure in terms of Section 25B of DRCA would not be
applicable.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 21 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

7.1. It is further submitted that the respondent had not disclosed material
facts with respect to availability of alternate suitable accommodation and such
concealment and suppression of material facts would disentitle the respondent
from seeking eviction of petitioner from the demised premises. It is further
submitted that respondent’s son had let out shop Nos.9 and 10, Bhagat Singh
Lane in April, 2013 (just one year prior to the filing of subject eviction
petition) and the said shops are now lying vacant and can be utilized by the
respondent for satisfying his bonafide requirement. It is the case of the
petitioner that the respondent had not disclosed that his son is a Canadian
citizen who himself being owner and landlord of the shop Nos. 9 and 10,
Shaheed Bhagat Singh Lane had leased out his own properties in 2013.

7.2. It is further submitted that bonafide requirement so projected by the
respondent is nothing but a mere fanciful desire and the same even as per the
averments made in the eviction petition is for additional accommodation. It is
further submitted that the respondent has not disclosed anything regarding
availability or non-availability of commercial space with his sons-in-law and
their incapability, both financial and otherwise, to maintain their respective
wives and families. It is further submitted that the married daughters and their
children cannot be considered as dependent(s) upon the respondent for
requirement of any commercial accommodation especially when there is no
averment that their respective husbands have no alternate suitable
accommodation of their own. It is further submitted that the subsequent
events that have transpired during the pendency of the present petition have
been allowed to be placed on record by learned Predecessor Benc h of this
Court vide order dated 07.12.2023. It is pointed out that the respondent had

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 22 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
during the pendency had acquired additional vacant shops, i.e., shops bearing
no. 5A, 3/1, 1/5A, 1/5, 1/3, on ground floor in the same locality which raises
doubt about the necessity of evicting the petitioner. It is further pointed out
that the respondent has recently got possession of Shop No. 1/6 Bhagat Singh
Lane, and, yet no use of the said shop for the purported business expansion,
cast further doubt on grounds on which eviction of the petitioner has been
sought by the respondent. It is further submitted that respondent’s daughter
own shop(s) which are suitable for satisfying their bonafide need, and the
same was disclosed in the eviction petition by the respondent. It is further
submitted that the grandsons of the respondent have permanently settled
abroad and the respondent has himself moved to Canada. Therefore, the
alleged requirement of the demised premises by the respondent is not
bonafide.

7.3. Learned counsel of the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgement in
Smt. Vijay Sharma Through LRs v. Shri Raj Kumar Ahuja, RC.REV.
No. 298/2017, to contend that suppression practiced by landlord of reasonably
suitable accommodation capable of satisfying the requirement pleading which
the tenant is sought to be evicted is antithesis to statutory stipulation of
bonafide, and once doubts are caused on the bonafide of landlord in filing the
petition for eviction, no error can be found in the order of grant to leave to
defend.

7.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on Deepak
Gupta v. Sushma Aggarwal, to contend that in view of the said settled legal
position, the reasonability of the suitable accommodation already available to

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 23 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
the landlord is one of the potent grounds which enables this Court seisin of
eviction proceedings to decide as to whether the provisions of proviso (e) to
Section 14(1) is attracted or not. It cannot be said that the availability of the
accommodation already with the landlord as inconsequential unless the
Controller arrives at the finding that the said accommodation is not reasonable
or suitable one.

7.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on
following judgments: –

                  Sr.No. PARTICULARS               LEGAL PREPOSITION                     PARAS
                           2 "Sandeep
                  1.                   Kumar Vs. It mandates in law that party is        27, 29,
                           Nihal Chand"            required to approach the court
                                                   with clean hands by making full       30 & 32
                                                   disclosure of all the facts.
                                                   Respondent has inter alia not
                                                   disclosed that he has always been
                                                   in possession of said two shops,
                                                   therefore, he has not made
                                                   bonaflde and correct statement in
                                                   his eviction petition. No litigant
                                                   can derive benefit from court of
                                                   law of his own wrongs.
                           3 "Bhim Singh Saini Vs. Even
                  2.                                        though     the     married   8, 9 &
                           Preeti Gupta''.         daughters continue to be member
                                                   of the family after marriage, but     10
                                                   she ceases to be directly dependent
                                                   on the father once she moves to
                                                   her matrimonial home. She may
                                                   have right of succession under
                                                   Statute, but cannot be treated as
                                                   member of family dependent on the

                  2 207 (2014) DLT 104
                  3 223 (2015) DLT 303




Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn.                                         Page 24 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
                                                     landlord for the purposes of
                                                    eviction of tenant. Once the
                                                    daughter gets married, she would
                                                    he dependent on her husband
                                                    rather than on her father.
                            4 Kizhakkayil
                  3.                    Suhara &    Where the landlord bonafidely           2, 5, 6,

Ors. Vs. Manhantavide requires the building for the
Aboobacker member of his family, it must be 8&9
shown that such member of his
family is dependent on him. The
question as to whether the
daughter and son in law of with
three children living separately
could be said to be dependent on
the landlord is required to be
tested in trial.

4. 5 “Deena Nath Vs. The term bona fide or genuinely 16 & 17
Pooran Lal” refers to a state of mind.

Requirement is not a mere desire.

The degree of intensity is much
higher than in mere desire. The
phrase ‘required bona fide’ is
suggestive of legislative intent that
a mere desire which is the outcome
of a whim or fancy is not taken
note of by the rent control
legislation.

5. 6″Devinder Kumar v. If the affidavit filed by the tenant 6&8
Nachhattar Singh” discloses such facts as would
disentitle from obtaining an order
for the recovery of immediate
possession, the Controller would
grant leave to tenant to contest the
landlord’s petition for eviction.

6. 7 “Shanti Devi Vs Merits of the rival contention 2, 3 & 4
Rajesh Kumar Jain & ought not to be ventured into while
Anr. adjudicating leave to defend. Apex

4 (2001) 8 SCC 19
5 (2001) 5 SCC 705
6 AIR 2015 SC 2432
7 (2015) 2 SCC 158

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 25 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
Court while setting aside the
eviction order passed by Ld. ARC,
Delhi has held that since the
landlords need the property in
question to expand their business
which was considered as fair
dispute requiring trial and
resultantly tenant was granted
leave to defend.

7. Judgment dt. order and granting leave to 39, 40,
13.06.2014 passed by defend, held that bonafide
Hon’ble High Court in requirement should be in presenti 41 to 43
RC. REV. No. and must be manifest by actual & 46
109/2013 “Sudershan need which would evidence the
Kumar Vs. Harish court that it is not mere fanciful or
Chand Garg”. whimsical desire. Court is duty
bound to examine not merely the
requirement of landlord as pleaded
in the eviction petition, but also
whether any other reasonably
suitable non-residential
accommodation in his occupation
in the City, is available? Hon ‘ble
High Court while referring to
various judgment of Apex Court
inter alia “Charan Das Duggal Vs.
Pramanand”, M.M. Quasim Vs.
Manohar Lal (3 Bench),
“Precision Steel & Engineering
Works Vs. Prem Deva Niranjan
Deva Tayal “, has held that when
leave to defend is sought, tenant
must make out a prima facie case
raising such pleas that triable
issue emerges and the same is
sufficient for grant of leave. The
test is the test of triable issue and
not its final success in action.

* Above judgment has also been
upheld by Apex Court vide Order
dt. 13.10.2014 passed in SLP(C)

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 26 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
No. 26590/2014.

8. 8 “Vijay Kumar It is a settled principle of law that 7, 17,
Ahluwalia Vs. Bishan while considering the grant of
Chand Maheshwari” leave to contest the eviction 18, 19
proceedings under the Rent Laws, & 21
the Authority/Court is not expected
to examine the merits and demerits
of the grounds raised in the
application for grant of leave to
contest and if the Authority/Court
finds that the grounds raised prima
facie disclose a defence which, if
accepted, may result in non-suiting
the landlord from claiming
eviction, the tenant is entitled to
obtain leave to contest the eviction
proceedings on merits.

9. Jai Prakash Gupta (D) It is true that a suit or an original 16 to 21
thru Lrs Vs Riyaz proceeding is .to be tried in all its
Ahamad9 stages on the cause of action as it
existed on the date of its
commencement. The only
exception to this rule is that a
Court may take notice of events,
which have happened since the
institution of the suit or the
original proceeding and grant
relief to the parties on the basis of
the altered conditions, is applied in
cases where it is shown that the
original relief claimed has, by
reason of subsequent change of
circumstances, become
inappropriate or that it is
necessary to base the decision of
the Court on the altered
circumstances in order to shorten
litigation to do complete justice
between the parties.

8 AIR 2017 SC 792
9 2009 (13) SCALE 486

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 27 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

10. Judgment dt. Court can take into 9 & 10
27.09.2019 passed by consideration subsequent events
Hon’ble High Court inter alia availability of vacant
of Delhi in RC.REV, possession.

265/2015.

11. 10 Union of India & If a subsequent Coordinate 9
Ors Vs. S.K Kapoor Bench of equal strength wants to
take a different view, it can only
refer matter to a larger bench,
otherwise the prior decision of a
coordinate Bench is binding on
subsequent Bench of equal
strength.

12. 11 Official Liquidator If one thing is more necessary in 78 to
vs. Dayanand & Ors. law than any other thing, it is
80, 82,
the quality of certainty. The
quality would totally disappear 83, 85
if judges of coordinate
jurisdiction in a High Court
start overruling one another’s
decision.

….. The position would be
equally bad where a judge
sitting singly in the High Court
is of the opinion that the
previous decision of another
single judge on a question of
law is wrong and gives effect to
that view instead of referring the
matter to a larger Bench……..

10 (2011) 4 SCC 589
11 (2008) 10 SCC 1

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 28 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner-M/s. Beli Ram Chemist and Ors.

in RC.REV.563/2015

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that learned ARC
while dismissing the application seeking leave to defend filed by the latter had
failed to appreciate the triable issues raised by them. It is submitted that the
respondent is the owner of shop bearing No. 1/4 in the same vicinity and the
same was deliberately concealed by him. It is further submitted that in
response to the same, it was averred in the reply filed to application seeking
leave to defend that, said shop is under tenancy of M/s Mid Air Express and
the same constitutes a triable issue as to whether the said shop is available
with the respondent and suitable to meet his alleged bonafide requirement. It
is further submitted that the respondent had also concealed that he has a shop
bearing No. 44, Gole Market, New Delhi, available with him. It is pointed out
that in response to the same, it was asserted that the said shop was allotted to
respondent and his wife in 1990 by NDMC and in the year 2000, they had
surrendered their rights in the said shop in favour of one Ravinder and his
wife, who thereafter, became licensee under NDMC and were running their
business under the name and style of M/s Centre Point Cottage and
Handicraft. This, as contended by learned counsel, constitutes triable issue. It
is further submitted that the respondent/landlord had deliberately concealed
material facts with respect to availability of alternate suitable accommodation
available at the disposal of respondent thereby, casting aspersions over the
alleged bonafide requirement as projected by him. It is the case of the
petitioner that the alternate accommodation available with the respondent is to

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 29 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
be tested on the touchstone as to whether the respondent/landlord had
approached the Court with clean hands.

8.1. It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the present petition
certain subsequent events had transpired which had bearing on the outcome of
the present petition, and same were earlier not in knowledge of the petitioners.
It has been argued that said events were concealed by the respondent and have
been therefore, placed on record by way of applications, CM APPLs.
45244/2023 & 68805/2024, filed by the petitioners, as noted hereinbefore. It
is further the case of the petitioner that, in the eviction petition, respondent
had averred that neither he nor his family members owned any other
immovable property in Delhi. However, subsequently it was revealed that
daughter of respondent-Ranjana owned two shops in Ashok Vihar, Delhi
which were apparently suitable to meet the projected bonafide requirement of
the respondent. It is further pointed out that during the pendency of the
present petition, the respondent himself had shifted and settled in Canada and
is no more residing in Delhi. Therefore, the bonafide requirement of the
respondent to start the alleged business does not sustain. It is further
submitted that the respondent has in his possession shop No.1/4 situated in the
same vicinity and which is a part of the subject property. It is pointed out that,
as per respondent, said shop is in occupation of M/s Midair Express Pvt. Ltd.,
and his daughter-Poonam Madnani is a director in the said entity. Further,
said shop was in litigation as M/s Shambhu Dayal Banwari Lal, who were
tenants under the respondent’s vendor-Bawa Vikram Singh (from whom the
respondent had purchased the subject property), claimed that they had never
surrendered their tenanted premises portion (said shop) to Bawa Vikram

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 30 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
Singh and they have also succeeded in the suit under Section 6 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, filed by them, and an execution petition is pending for
recovery of the possession of the said shop. It is the case of the petitioners that
the respondent had obtained the possession of the said shop from M/s
Shambhu Dayal Banwari Lal long back and said fact was not disclosed by
him in the eviction petition. It is further submitted that with respect to other
portion, stated to be in possession of M/s Karachi Halwa House, during the
pendency of the present petition, the respondent has instituted a suit, CS
(COMM) 226/2021, under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015,
for recovery of Rs. 20,53,553/- as well as for possession of shop situated at 5,
Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, from the said tenant-M/s. Karachi Halwa
House. It is further submitted that the utility bills placed on record by the
respondent with respect to the said shop situated in Gole Market are for the
month December 2014. It is further the case of the petitioners that the
respondent had not placed on record any Income Tax Return with respect to
alleged business run by him.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner-M/s. Gainda Lal Ram Narayan
in RC.REV.507/2015

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent
had filed the subject eviction proceedings in respect of demised premises
which are residential-cum-commercial in nature, and he has similar
accommodation to that of the demised premises available on the first floor
and second floor of the property. The contention with respect to having a
large a number of family members was existent since the date of the purchase

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 31 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
of the subject property by the respondent. The respondent had portrayed a
false case that he has to run business from residential portion of the property
by changing the same to commercial property and owing to the said reason
subject proceedings were initiated. It is pointed out that respondent has stated
that he has shifted his business from residential portion of the property to the
ground floor.

9.1. It is pointed out that in paragraphs 18 (a) (iii and iv) of the subject
eviction petition, the respondent had set out a case that the demised premises
are required for setting up business on the ground floor of the property and the
same are also bonafidely required for his son, who is already settled in Canada
and has business of ‘tour and travels’ of his own. It is further pointed out that
in the eviction petition, the respondent had stated that his son is also having
business related to travel and tours in Canada and the respondent has no other
reasonable suitable accommodation available with him in Delhi, and the
premises available with respondent are not at all sufficient for running the
alleged business. It is the case of the petitioners that, in application seeking
leave to defend filed by them, it has been stated, in paragraph nos. 10 and 11,
that Shop No. 5. Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, where alleged
Karachi Halwa House is being run, is a two-side open, and such a property is
available with the respondent for satisfying the alleged bonafide requirement
portrayed in the subject petition as said shop is lying vacant. It is further the
case of the petitioners that the respondent is already having two shops in his
possession in Bhagat Singh Market and Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market,
New Delhi, respectively from where he is already running his business. The
petitioners have relied upon several documents to demonstrate that the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 32 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
respondent possesses alternate suitable accommodation for satisfying his
bonafide requirement. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the
following averments made in paragraphs 10 and 11, 17, 19 of the application
seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioner: –

“10. That so far as the Petitioner is concerned, he is running his
business of travel agent prior to coming to the property in question and
he himself thereafter started business in Shop No. 5. Bhagat Singh
Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi and is also having another Shop No. 5
at Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, New Delhi. Thus he is already
having two shops in his possession from where he is running the
business.

11. Similarly, he is also having another big shop No. 4, Bhagat Singh
Market, New Delhi which he got vacated from the tenant M/s. Shambu
Dayal Bhanwari Lai long back thus the Petitioner has three shops to run
the business in the same building and address of these shops is being
shown in the bank accounts and in different organisations. So far as the
first floor and second floor is concerned, it is his residence and he has
falsely stated that he is running the office from the first floor. It is
submitted that the first floor when occupied by him, his one u nmarried
son and two unmarried daughters were also residing in the same
premises. It is submitted that the Respondent is in occupation of two
rooms and big drawing dinning which he has shown as office, lobby
and a room for temple and two toilets and kitche n on the first floor and
one room, covered verandha, toilet and open terrace with balcony on
the second floor as per his own showing and as per the plan filed by
him. The petitioner is thus having sufficient accommodation available
with him for residence as well as for the business.

*** *** ***

17. That the Petitioner is also not entitled to maintain the present
petition on account of the concealment of true and material facts as the
Petitioner has not disclosed that he is in possession of Shop No. 5,
Bhagat Singh Market, Shop No. 5 Bhagat Singh Lane and Shop No. 9 –
10 at Bhagat Singh Lane and Shop No. 1/6 Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 33 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
Market, New Delhi as stated above and as such if the respondent is
permitted to prove all above, it would certainly non-suit the Petitioner.

*** *** ***

19. That even otherwise It is submitted that the said working drawing
has been shown after taking possession from the four tenants and the
Petitioner has deliberately not shown the premises already in his
occupation either in this working drawing or disclosed even in the
eviction petition and how those are insufficient for business.”

9.2. It is further submitted that the respondent has not placed on record any
rent receipt issued to Karachi Halwa House in respect of shop No. 5, Bhagat
Singh Marg, Gole Market to show that the said shop is not in his possession.
It is further submitted that no lease agreement between the respondent and
Karachi Halwa House has been placed on record to show that the subject shop
was not in respondent’s possession at the time of filing of the subject eviction
petition. It is the case of the petitioners that the concealment of such facts by
the respondent at the time of filing of eviction petition shows that the
requirement projected by the respondent was not bonafide. It is further
pointed out that, in reply/response to leave to defend application filed by the
petitioners following stand was taken by the respondent: –

“10. Para No. 10 is not denied to the extent that the petitioner is engaged
in tour and travel business even prior to coming to the property in
question. It is submitted that Shop No.5 Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole
Market, New Delhi is a part of the entire property owned by the
petitioner and in the said shop one tenant namely M/s. Karachi Halwa
House is in occupation thereof, who was inducted as a tenant by the
erstwhile owner. It is submitted that as far as shop No.5 Bhagat Singh
Market, Gole Market, is concerned, the same is not owned by the
petitioner and is owned by some one else and is occupied by Karachi
Hair Dresser. It is submitted that the petitioner Owns the entire property
measuring 370 sq.yds., which is numbered as 1, 3 & 5, Bhagat Singh

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 34 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
Marg whereas shop No.5 is part of the property owned by the petitioner
which is under the tenancy of Karachi Halwa House and is on the ground
floor. It is not out of place to mention here for convenience sake, the
correspondence address is given as 5-Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market,
New Delhi, by the petitioner who is residing on the first floor. Hence the
respondent is falsely alleging that the petitioner has two shops in
possession.

11. Para No.11 of the application is wrong and denied. has It is wrong
that the petitioner the possession of another big shop bearing No.1/4,
Bhagat Singh Market, New Delhi, which he got vacated from the tenant
M/s. Shambhu Dayal Bhanwar Lal as alleged. It is also wrong to allege
that the petitioner has three shops to run the business in the same
building and address of these shops is being shown in the bank account
and in different organizations as alleged. The contentions raised are quite
vague and uncertain. It is submitted that shop No.1/4 Bhagat Singh Marg
and not Bhagat Singh Market as alleged by the respondent, is under the
possession of M/s. MidAir Express (P) Ltd from where the said company
is running its business which was let out by the previous landlord to them
before selling of the entire property to the petitioner. It is not out of place
to mention here that since the inception of tenancy, one of the daughters
of the petitioner namely Ms. Poonam Kumari is the director of the said
company besides other director(s) who are not the family members of the
petitioners and even otherwise, the petitioner has no concern at all with
the said establishment. It is submitted that the rent for the said tenanted
premises under the tenancy of the said M/s.MidAir Express (P) Ltd. is at
present Rs.300/- per month, which was earlier Rs.85/- per month. The
said premises is still under the tenancy of the said company and the
petitioner has no concern with the said premises except being the owner
thereof. It is pertinent to mention here that M/s.MidAir Express (P) Ltd.,
is in litigation with the previous tenant in respect of the said premises
pending before Ms.Sujata Kohli, ADJ, Delhi wherein the claim of the
previous tenant is that he had never surrendered the tenancy rights qua
the said premises to the previous owner. It is further wrong to allege that
the first floor and second floor are the residence of the petitioner or that
the petitioner has falsely stated that he is running the office from the first
floor. It is not disputed that the son and two daughters prior to the
marriage were also residing in the same premises alongwith the
petitioner but even during the period all the family members were
residing together, the circumstances of the petitioner were such that he
could arrange or extend his. residential accommodation and had to adjust

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 35 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
the entire family in the small space available with him apart from having
business establishment in a portion of the first floor. It is also wrong to
allege that the petitioner is in occupation of two rooms and a big drawing
dining which he has shown as office lobby and a room for temple and
two toilet and a kitchen on the first floor and one room, covered
verandah, toilet and open terrace with balcony on the second. floor as
alleged. It is further wrong to allege that the petitioner is having
sufficient accommodation available with him for residence as well as for
business. It is submitted that the petitioner has one room measuring 200
sq.ft. approx. which is being used as a bed room cum sitting room
measuring 200 sq.ft. and another room (approx.) having a wooden
partition and one part is being used as a temple/Pooja Ghar which is
approx. 50 sq.ft., in the area and other portion as a small bed room. Apart
from the above, the third room is being used by the petitioner for his
office from where he is running his travel agency. The petitioner does
not have any big drawing dining as alleged. The petitioner is also having
a room on the barsati floor with bath room which is being occupied by
the domestic servant of the petitioner. The petitioner has shown the
entire extent of accommodation available with him in the site plan
annexed with the petition.

*** *** ***

17. Para No.17 is wrong and denied as stated. It is wrong to allege that
the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the eviction It is submitted that
petition as alleged. the complete details with regard to the alleged
properties as alleged in para under reply have been given in detail and
the submissions made in the foregoing paras may be read as part of reply
to this para also. It is submitted that the requirement of the petitioner qua
the premises in question is real, genuine, bonafide and has been made on
the basis of the factual position as detailed in the eviction petition and
furthermore, the respondent has not raised any issue which can be termed
to be a triable issue.”

9.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn the attention of
this Court towards the fact that GPA dated 16.10.2012 executed by Easy
(Ezee) Travel Solutions through its partners Narayan Shangnani
(respondent/landlord) and Chanda Shangnani, in favour of Ms. Madhu Suneja
(daughter of respondent) for management of business as the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 36 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
executants/landlord (respondent) regularly travel out of India, and hence,
there is need for his daughter to handle his business and deal with bank
accounts pertaining the aforesaid partnership firm. Attention of this Court has
further been towards a notice dated 05.07.2014 issued by HDFC Bank Brach,
Gole Market confirming that Madhu Suneja (respondent’s daughter) is
mandate holder of an account in the name of M/s. Madhur Air Travels, 5
Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi. It is further noted that, in the
said notice it has been mentioned, the respondent- Narayana Shamnani is sole
proprietor of the said firm and the said account was opened on 16.11.2012,
i.e., prior to the institution of the subject eviction proceedings. It is thus
contended that the stand of the respondent/landlord that he has no concern
with the business run by his daughter is false. It is pointed out that the
aforesaid documents were filed before learned ARC; however, the same were
not taken into consideration. By placing reliance on the GPA executed by the
respondent, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the
respondent is already running his business from 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole
Market, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the respondent has now settled
in Toronto, Canada, and the petitioners have placed on record images from
the facebook page of the aforesaid entity, Easy (Ezee) Travel Solutions, to
demonstrate that the respondent has in fact shifted to Canada. It is further the
case of the petitioners that the aforesaid notice as well as GPA documents
have not been dealt/considered by the learned RC in impugned order dated
02.07.2015 in paragraphs nos. 21, 21.1, 21.3 and 22 while dealing with the
plea raised by the petitioners regarding alternate accommodation with the
respondent for satisfying the alleged bonafide requirement.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 37 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

9.4. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to rent receipt issued by the
respondent to the tenant- Mid Air Express Pvt. Ltd. in respect of demises
premises, i.e., 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, relied upon by the
petitioners in their leave to defend applications and it is submitted that the
said property has been shown by the respondent in the site plan annexed along
with the brief synopsis filed before this Court (green colour) to be available
with the respondent. It is further pointed out that the fact that the premises-5,
Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, is under tenancy of Karachi
Halwa House has not been pleaded by the respondent in the subject eviction
petitions filed at the first instance.

Submissions on Behalf of the Respondent

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has made the following
submissions: –

10.1. The petitioners have failed to show any jurisdictional error or an error
law in the impugned order which has been passed after taking into
consideration the facts of the present case and the contentions raised on behalf
of the parties. It is the case of the respondent that demised premises are
required bonafidely for extension of his business and the portions of the
property under the tenancy of the respondent have been shown in red colour
of the site plan of the subject property annexed with the brief synopsis (It is
noted that said site plan is not original one filed along with eviction petitions).

10.2. It is further the case of the respondent that the bonafide requirement
projected is for development and expansion of business for the entire family.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 38 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

The family members of the respondent were keen to join the alleged business
related to travel, foreign exchange, international and domestic ticket section.

10.3. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the site plan of the
subject property placed on record by the petitioner along with the reply to the
application, CM APPL. 8455/2019 in RC REV. 507/2015, and it is
contended that said site plan is incorrect, and in the subject eviction petitions,
the portion shown in green colour were available with the respondent for
running his business and for the portions shown in yellow colour eviction
petitions were filed by him.

10.4. It is submitted that the respondent, in response to application seeking
leave to defend, had denied that he is engaged tour and travel business even
prior to the purchase of the subject property. It is the case of the respondent
that Shop no. 5 Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, is a part of
entire property owned by the respondent and in the said shop one tenant-M/s
Karachi Halwa is in occupation and the said entity was inducted as a tenant by
erstwhile owner of the property. It is the further the case of the respondent
that Shop No. 5, Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, is not owned by him and
is owned by someone else, i.e., Karachi Hair Dresser. It is further submitted
that the respondent owns the entire property being 1, 3 and 5 Bhagat Singh
Marg and Shop No.5 is the part of the subject property and in under the
tenancy of Karachi Halwa situated on the ground floor. It is further pointed
out that the respondent had denied that he has the possession of another big
shop being Shop No.1/4 Bhagat Singh Market which he had got vacated from
tenant-M/s Shambhu Dayal Banwarilal; however, said shop is in possession

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 39 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
of M/s MidAir Express (P) Ltd., and said shop is under litigation with earlier
tenant- M/s Shambhu Dayal Banwarilal, who were under tenancy of the
erstwhile owner of the subject property, and the respondent has no concern
with the said entity. It was also denied that the respondent has three shops to
run his business in the same building and addresses of said shops are shown
in the bank accounts in name of different organisations as has been alleged by
the petitioners. It is the case of the respondent that Shop no. 1/4 Bhagat Singh
Marg and not Bhagat Singh Market (as alleged by the petitioners) is under the
possession of M/s Midair Express (P) Ltd. from where the said company is
running its business. It is further pointed out that the respondent, in
response/reply, had further denied that he is in possession of other properties
and had concealed them from the Court. The status of the said shops, as
mentioned in para 17 of the application seeking leave to defend filed by the
Petitioner-M/s. Gainda Lal Ram Narayan in RC.REV.507/2015, had been
appropriately explained by the respondent in response to the said application
and complete details regarding the alleged properties were also disclosed by
the respondent.

10.5. It is further the case of the respondent that he does not own any shop
no. 9 and 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Lane, New Delhi. It is submitted that
premises no. 9 and 10 Bhagat Singh Lane are in fact two garages being
purchased and owned by his son-Deepak Shamnani and the said
shops/garages had been let out by his son to Rajni Sethi Beautician. The said
garages used as shops were let out in the month of April 2013, and the
respondent has no concern with the said shops. It is further submitted that the
respondent had provided the complete details with respect to the alleged

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 40 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
properties claimed to have been in his possession and available with him as
per the petitioners, and based on the factual position as contended and noted
hereinbefore, the petitioners were not able to raise any triable issue(s) for
grant of leave to defend in the subject eviction proceedings and learned
ARC/RC had rightly rejected their applications seeking leave to defend and
the impugned orders do not require any interference.

10.6. With respect to the subsequent events, it is submitted that shop no. 44,
Gole Market, is not in possession of the respondent as it was transferred in the
year 2000, and there is likelihood that substitution of the name of the new
owner of the premises/shop has not been done. Learned Senior Counsel, as
per reply filed in terms of paragraph 16 of the order dated 17.02.2025, has
relied upon a public notice issued by the NDMC to contend that Shop no. 44
has now been auctioned by NDMC. Along with the reply, learned Senior
Counsel has placed on record an e-communication dated 29.05.2019
regarding e-auction of licensing rights of 52 small shops/stalls/office space in
NDMC area wherein at ‘Serial No.43’, shop no. 44 Gole Market has been
shown as ‘licensable’. Therefore, it is contended that the said shop is not in
possession of respondent and he no longer has any licensing rights over the
said shop. Regarding the letter/application for renewal of the license of the
said shop in Gole Market by the respondent relied upon by the petitioner, it is
submitted that the respondent had in his capacity of being President of Gole
Market Merchants Association (Regd.) had been sending said representations
to the Chairman of NDMC raising grievance regarding the pendency of the
requests of the shop owners of the Gole Market for renewal of license of
shops in Gole Market Area. The letters relied upon by the petitioners in

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 41 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
application seeking to place on record subsequent events were in response to
the representation made by the respondent to the NDMC as President of Gole
Market Merchants Association (Regd.).

10.7. With respect to shop No.5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, it is
submitted that the same is not in possession of the respondent/landlord for last
several years as said shop is in occupation of one tenant namely, M/s Karachi
Halwa House, who was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owner, and a suit
for recovery of possession of the said shop has been instituted by the
respondent against the said tenant, which is pending before learned Trial
Court/District Judge Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. It is further pointed
out that plaint as well as relevant ordersheets of the said suit has been placed
on record alongwith the reply filed by the respondent to the applications filed
by the petitioners for placing on record subsequent events transpired during
the pendency of the present petitions.

10.8. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that
the bonafide need in respect of demised premises is not of married daughters
of the respondent but of him and his family members, including his wife, son
and his daughters to expand the business which is already set-up by the
respondent/landlord. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent/landlord
also seeks to rely upon the judgment passed by this Court in Swaranjit Singh
and Anr. v. Saroj Kapoor; 202312, and by a Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Charanjeet Singh v. Vivek Jain13, to submit that the Courts have held that

12 SCC OnLine Del 7396
13 2024 SCC OnLine Del 613

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 42 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
the married daughter(s) is a member of the “family” within the meaning of
DRCA, and there is no universal rule that a married daughter cannot be
dependent upon her parents, and therefore, a petition seeking eviction on the
ground of bonafide requirement of the demised premises for such daughter
will be maintainable.

10.9. Reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
on a judgment of Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh
Chand Gupta 14 , (particularly para 11) to contend that scope of revisional
jurisdiction of High Court under Section 25-B (8) cannot be as wide as that of
the appellate court. It is further contended that High Court cannot appreciate
or reappreciate evidence merely because it takes a different view. It is further
contended that High Court to test the order of the Rent Controller on the
touchstone of whether it is according to law.

10.10. Reliance has also been by learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain Arora v.
Asha Rani and Others15, to contend that non-disclosure by landlord about
his having another accommodation would not fatal to the eviction petition if
both the parties understood the case and placed material before the Court and
the case of neither party was prejudiced.

10.11. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the
following judgments in support of the latter’s case: –

14 (1999) 6 SCC 222
15 (1999) 1 SCC 141

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 43 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
i. Sait Nagjee Purshottam & Co. Ltd. v. Vimalbhai Prabhulal, 16
ii. Pratap Rai Tanwani and Another v. Uttam Chand and
Another,17
iii. Dharam Pal Gupta & Ors. V. Anand Prakash, 18
iv. Savitri Seth & Ors. v. Parshottam Dass, 19
v. Khem Chand Ramesh Kumar Radhey Shyam Goel, Pradeep
Transport Company v. Vijay Mehra & Ors. 20
vi. Smt. Saroj Khemka v. Smt. Indu Sharma & Another, 21
vii. Naresh Kumar v. Surender Gulati, 22
viii. Agya Ram Arora v. Surjeet Machine Tools, 23
ix. Sarika Jain v. Saran Singh Chabbra, 24
x. Gulshan Rai v. Samrendra Bose Secy., 25
xi. Surinder Singh v. Jasbir Singh, 26
xii. Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal, 27
xiii. Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 28
xiv. Viran Wali v. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar, 29
xv. Smt. Shanti Sharma v. Smt. Ved Prabha, 30

16 (2005) 8 SCC 252
17 (2004) 8 SCC 490
18 155 (2008) DLT 681
19 215 (2014) DLT 429
20 216 (2015) DLT 544
21 86 (2000) DLT 801
22 236 (2017) DLT 265
23 220 (2015) DLT 245
24 2008 (2014) DLT 157
25 2012 (4) ILR (Delhi) 513
26 172 (2010) DLT 611
27 (2002) 5 SCC 397
28 (1998) 8 SCC 119
29 174 (2010) DLT 328
30 AIR 1987 SC 2028

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 44 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
xvi. Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava, 31
xvii. Dharampal Gupta v. Anand Prakash, 32
xviii. Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dur, 33

11. In rejoinder, learned counsels for the petitioners have placed reliance
upon the site plan of the entire subject property filed by them alongwith
applications seeking leave to defend and in the said site plan yellow portion of
the property is shown under the tenancy of separate tenants and for eviction of
said tenants separate eviction proceedings were initiated by the respondent
and it is pointed out that, in the said site plan, shop No. 5 alleged to be in the
possession of Karachi Halwa House has not been shown and was never even
pleaded to be in the possession of the said entity by the respondent in the
eviction petitions filed at the first instance.

Analysis and Findings

12. At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that vide order dated
07.12.2023, learned Predecessor Bench had allowed the applications, CM
APPL. 45244/2023 in RC. REV. 563/2015, and CM APPL. 45245/2023 in
RC. REV. 99/2016, filed by the petitioners-M/s Beli Ram Chemist & Ors. &
Yogesh Jain. The same was, however, without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of the respondent/landlord.

31 (2001) 2 SCC 604
32 155 (2008) DLT 681
33 (2022) 6 SCC 30

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 45 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

13. Perusal of both the aforesaid applications demonstrate that similar
averments have been made in both these applications. For the purposes of
dealing with the said alleged subsequent events, the averments made in
application, CM APPL. 45244/2023 in RC. REV. 563/2015, read as under: –

“2. That the Petitioners beg to submit that the Respondent/Landlord has
suppressed knowingly and intentionally certain material facts which have
only now come to the knowledge of the Petitioners and which would
clearly show that the alleged need of the Respondent/Landlord set up in
the eviction petition is in fact, sham and bogus and in any case, cease to
exist as on date.

3. That the Petitioners have now come to know that the
Respondent/Landlord has the following shops available to him, all on
the ground Floor of the same locality, which are lying vacant and
which are more than enough to meet the alleged requirements of the
Respondent.

                         S.No        ADDRESS          Name of            Date of            Area
                            .                         tenant             vacation
                         1.          Shop No. 5A,     Shri Lab Singh     Nov-Dec          231 sq. ft
                                     Bhagat Singh                        2014
                                     Marg, Gole
                                     Market, New
                                     Delhi
                         2.          Shop No. 3/1,    Ms.    Mohini      Dec. 2015        104 sq. ft
                                     Bhagat Singh     Raswant    &
                                     Marg, Gole       Mr.     Rahul
                                     Market, New      Raswant
                                     Delhi
                         3.          Shop No.         Shri Jagdish       June 2016        52.50 sq.
                                     1/5A Bhagat      Batra                                  ft
                                     Singh Marg,
                                     Gole Market,
                                     New Delhi
                         4.          Shop No. 1/5,    Ms. Channi         May 2022         55 sq. ft
                                     Bhagat Singh     Devi
                                     Marg, Gole
                                     Market, New


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn.                                                Page 46 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
                                     Delhi
                         5.         Shop No. 1/3,     Shri Nirmal           June 2023           205 sq. ft
                                    Bhagat Singh      Kumar
                                    Marg, Gole
                                    Market, New
                                    Delhi
                                   TOTAL                                                        647.50
                                   AREA                                                         Sq.ft34

4. That the alleged need of the Respondent/Landlord as set out in the
eviction petition is sham and bogus would be evident from the fact that
the Landlord has not utilized or put to use any of the aforesaid shops till
date for the alleged purpose set out in the eviction petition and that too,
despite the fact that these aforesaid shops which are owned by him, are
all on the ground floor, are in the same locality and have been lying
vacant and unutilized.

5. That it has also come to the knowledge of the Petitioners only
recently that the Respondent/Landlord has available with him now
Shop No. 1/6, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi which
admeasures approximately 300 sq. ft and w hich had been earlier
leased out by the Respondent/Landlord to one M/s Explore India
Travel Organiser vide Lease Agreement dated 31.3.2004 filed on
record by the Respondent/Landlord himself [pg. 217 of the
paperbook]. The Petitioners have also recently come to know that the
vacant possession of the said shop was handed back to the
Respondent/Landlord by the lessee i.e. M/s Explore India sometime
in the year 2022 and since then the said premises is lying vacant and
the Respondent/Landlord has not put the same to any alleged use,
thus, once again clearly signifying that the alleged need of the
Respondent/Landlord is a mere eyewash and is bogus. Reference and
reliance is placed on the terms of the Lease Agreement dated 31.3.2004
(already on record), the photograph of Shop No. 1/6 Bhagat Singh Marg
[attached as Annexure A] and the printout of the Google Search Page of
M/s Explore India taken on 28.8.2023 which is attached as Annexure B.

34 Column mentioning ‘Date of Vacation’ has been taken from CM APPL. 45245/2023 in RC. REV.
99/2016 as averments in both the said applications are based on same facts.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 47 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

6. That in the eviction Petition, the Respondent/Landlord has averred
about his family/family members dependent upon him which is reflected
in the chart below:

7. That Respondent/Landlord’s case before the Learned Rent Controller
was that neither he nor any of his aforementioned dependent family
members have any other reasonable accommodation available with them
to do the alleged business of travel agency [Kindly see Para 18(a)(v) of
Eviction Petition]. And more specifically in relation to his married
daughter Ranjana Aggarwal and her son Rahul Aggarwal, the following
was asserted:

(i) Ranjana Aggarwal and her son Rahul Aggarwal are dependent upon
the Landlord and they have no other reasonable accommodation available
with them to do the business of travel agency [ Para 18(a)(iv)(v) of
Eviction Petition].

(ii) Ranjana Aggarwal has one son namely Rahul Aggarwal, aged 24
years [Para 18(a)(iv) of Eviction Petition].

(iii) Grand-son Rahul Aggarwal intends to join the Respondent/Landlord
in his business [Kindly see Para 18(a)(iv) of Eviction Petition].

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 48 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

(iv) Daughter Ranju Aggarwal [emphasis] resides in Ashok Vihar in her
matrimonial home. Her husband Sh. Raj Kumar is also engaged in travel
business and sometime in September 2012 started a travel agency under
the name and style of M/s Yorks Travel and Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. The
grand-son Rahul Aggarwal is also shown as additional director in the said
company but he is unable to adjust there and hence he intends to join the
business of the Respondent.

8. That it has now been revealed to the Petitioners that the aforesaid
daughter of Landlord namely Ranjana Aggarwal@Ranju Aggarwal
owns and is in possession of following two commercial shops situated
at Ashok Vihar, Delhi:

(i) Shop No. LG-3, 27 Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052
admeasuring 205 sq. ft. [Kindly see Agreement to Sell dated
29.1.2010 enclosed as Annexure C]

(ii) Shop No. BF-4, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052
admeasuring 147 sq. ft. [Kindly see Agreement to Sell dated
3.10.2011 enclosed as Annexure D]

Both the aforesaid shops are lying vacant as on date, are in possession of
Ranjana Aggarwal@Ranju Aggarwal and are more than suitable to meet
the alleged requirement of the Respondent/Landlord. The ownership and
availability of these two aforesaid shops was deliberately concealed at
the time of instituting the eviction petition and even at the subsequent
stages of this case.

9. That while it was/is claimed by the Respondent/Landlord that his
grand-son namely Rahul Aggarwal [son of aforesaid daughter
Ranjana@Ranju Aggarwal] is based in Delhi, that he is an additional
director in M/s Yorks Travels and Forex and is intending to join the
Respondent/Landlord in his business, the screenshot of his Facebook
Profile [Annexure E] w hich has come to the notice of the Petitioners
only now, clearly shows that he is permanently settled in Ontario,
Canada since 2018.

10. That it has also recently come to the knowledge of the Petitioners
that the Respondent/Landlord owns and manages his Facebook Page
under the name “Ezee Flight” [Annexure F]. A perusal of the same
would reveal that the Respondent is no more a resident of New Delhi,

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 49 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
India but is rather living in Toronto, Canada. The need thus, set up
in the Eviction Petition both for himself or for his alleged dependents
thus, cease to exist as on date.

11. That the facts submitted above came to the knowledge of the
Petitioners only on or about the first week of August 2023 and that is
why the same could not be pleaded earlier. It is further submitted that the
Respondent/Landlord was required to clearly spell out all these facts
which he did not intentionally and fraudulently reveal with a view to
mislead the court and to defeat the ends of justice.”

(emphasis supplied)

14. In response to the aforesaid subsequent events, respondent has placed
on record written submissions wherein, it has been contended that the alleged
application filed by the petitioners is false and baseless. It is stated that the
present status of the suit property, shop No.5A (also known as shop No.5/1)
vacated by Labh Singh in the year 2015 is being used by Ezee Flight and Ezee
Travel Solution, and shop No.3/1 vacated by Mrs. Mohini Raswant is used by
Madhur Air Travel, and shop No.1/5A vacated by Jagdish Batra in the year
2016 is being used as a washroom, and shop No.1/5 vacated by Channi in the
year 2022 is being used as server room, and shop No.1/3 vacated by Nirmal
Kumar in the year 2023 is being used for keeping of records. It is further
stated that rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined on the
date of the petition and subsequent events can be taken into consideration for
moulding relief, provided such events are of such a nature and dimension so
as to completely eclipse the need and make it loose significance altogether
which is not a case in hand, and the Court has to look into the cause of action
based on which the eviction petition was instituted.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 50 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

15. Perusal of the aforesaid averments made in application, CM
APPL.45244/2023, shows that the respondent has six shops available with
him, all on ground floor of the same locality, and same were lying vacant
which are more than enough to meet his alleged bonafide requirement. In
response to the said averments, the respondent has explained the status of the
aforesaid five shops situated in Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi.
However, regarding the shop No.1/6, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New
Delhi, no explanation has been extended on behalf of the respondent. The
vacation of the aforesaid shops and the respondent getting possession of the
same as contended on behalf of the petitioners during the pendency of the
instant petitions is a subsequent event which has materially changed the
ground of relief.

16. It was the case of the respondent/landlord that his grandson-Rahul
Aggarwal, who is director in M/s Yorks Travels and Forex, intended to join
his business. However, petitioners have placed on record screenshot of his
Facebook Profile to demonstrate that said grandson is permanently settled in
Ontario, Canada, since 2018. Further, the petitioners have also contended that
the respondent/landlord during the pendency of the instant petitions has also
shifted to Toronto, Canada, and is no more residing in India, and therefore,
the bonafide requirement set up by him has ceased to exist on this date.
Reliance has been placed on a screenshot of the Facebook page/profile of the
respondent in support of this contention which shows that the respondent
currently lives in Toronto, Ontario (Canada). It is further their case that such
facts had come to their knowledge in 2023, and owing to this reason, same
could not be pleaded earlier. On the other hand, the respondent has contended

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 51 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
that he is running his business as well as residing in the demised premises
with his family in New Delhi. It is further contended on behalf of the
respondent that the description given on the ‘Facebook’ page/profile of the
latter was only to garner clientele/business from Canada. However, the
aforesaid screenshot taken from the ‘Facebook’ page/profile has not been
denied by the respondent/landlord. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in
paragraph 18 (a)(iii) of the all-eviction petitions following averments were
made on behalf of the respondent/landlord: –

“18 (a) …..

**** **** ****

(iii) That the petitioner has been doing the business as Travel Agents
since the year 1979 and after purchasing the property the petitioner
shifted his business in the property in question and at present doing the
business from the portion of first floor of the property. On the first floor
of the property the petitioner is running the business in the name of
Two Proprietorship concerns namely Madhur Air Travels and Ezee
Flight and running one partnership firm under the name and style of
M/s Ezee Travel Solutions. The petitioner is proprietor of Madhur
Air Travels and Ezee Flight and in the partnership firm the
petitioner and his wife Smt. Chanda Shamnani are the partners. The
elder daughter of the petitioner namely Madhu Suneja is also
helping the petitioner in the business. It is submitted that the
petitioner in the circumstances, is managing all his business affairs
from the premises on the first floor, where he along with his family
are residing on the portion of first floor i.e. the petitioner is doing his
business form one of the rooms on the first floor. On the barsati floor
the servant of the petitioner is residing.”

(emphasis supplied)

The averments made in the eviction petition shows that the need of the
respondent was for expanding for his travel agency business which he was

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 52 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
already doing along with his wife, and his daughters and son were also
assisting him in the said business. However, aforementioned subsequent
events placed on record by the petitioners has materially changed the ground
of relief.

17. Further, by way of applications, CM APPL. 68805/2024 in RC. REV.
563/2015 and CM APPL. 68804/2024 in RC. REV. 99/2016, the
petitioners-tenants sought to place on record documents in relation of
subsequent event pertaining to the respondent/landlord, wherein he had
applied for removal of his license of shop No. 44, Gole Market, New Delhi. It
was stated in these applications, that this shop is available to the respondent as
an additional alternate accommodation and the application for renewal of
license filed on behalf of the respondent shows that the said shop is in use and
occupation of the respondent/landlord. It was further stated that on
21.11.2024, the petitioners came to know about a letter dated 17.09.2024
which is a communication addressed by NDMC, New Delhi Municipal
Corporation to the respondent/landlord regarding renewal of license of the
NDMC Shop No.44 of Gole Market Area, New Delhi. It is the case of the
petitioners that by way of this letter, the respondent admittedly owns yet
another shop at Gole Market and details of the said shop were deliberately
withheld and not disclosed in the subject eviction petition filed against the
petitioners. It is further stated that in case the stand of the respondent that they
had surrendered their rights with respect to the said shop No.44 in year 2000
in favour of a third party is taken to be on its face value then also the letter
dated 17.09.2024 clearly demonstrates that the said shop was all along under
the occupation and in possession of the respondent and same was not

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 53 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
disclosed by him in the eviction petition. Despite being the said shop
available to the respondent, he had set up a false version in the eviction
petition to get the petitioners/tenant evicted.

18. The stand taken by the respondent in respect of the aforesaid shop
No.44, Gole Market, New Delhi, is that the license rights of the said shop
were transferred in the year 2000, and it is likely that the substitution of the
name of new owner/licensee of the said shop has not been done. It is further
his case that the persons who were carrying on business at the said shop have
surrendered the same to NDMC and NDMC vide public notice dated
29.05.2019 had put for auction the licensing rights of various shops including
said shop No.44. These facts were not placed by the respondent/landlord in
the eviction petitions. The aforesaid stand of the respondent that said shop
No.44 being transferred in the year 2000 becomes a triable issue.

19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maria Martins v. Noel Zuzarte &
Ors. 35 , with respect to subsequent events which materially changes the
ground of relief, has observed and held as under: –

“7. Suffice it to observe that it was the specific case of the plaintiffs that
they had bonafide need of Room No. 59 occupied by the defendants as
the same was required by the family for their own use and occupation.
By leading evidence before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs were successful
in securing the decree for eviction. The Appellate Court reversed the said
decree principally on the ground that the suit premises was primarily
required for the widow of Mr. Martins, who was alive when the suit was
filed but had subsequently expired. This adjudication was the subject
matter of challenge at the instance of plaintiffs before the High Court.

35 2026 SCC OnLine SC 600

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 54 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
The defendants sought to support the reversal of the decree for eviction
by stating in their affidavit dated 12th April 2023 that Room No. 63 that
was in occupation of the plaintiffs had been let out to some other persons.
This factor was required to be taken into consideration along with all
other evidence that was available on record while considering the
challenge to the decree of the Appellate Court. The affidavit by itself
could not have been the sole basis for coming to a conclusion that the
plaintiffs did not bonafide need the suit premises, without examining the
material on record. In this regard, we may refer to the decision
in Atma S. Berar v. Mukhtiar Singh36 wherein it was held as under:

“The power of the Court to take note of subsequent events is
well-settled and undoubted. However, it is accompanied by
three riders : firstly, the subsequent event should be brought
promptly to the notice of the Court; secondly, it should be
brought to the notice of the Court consistently with rules of
procedure enabling Court to take note of such events and
affording the opposite party an opportunity of meeting or
explaining such events; and thirdly, the subsequent event must
have a material bearing on right to relief of any party.”

8. In this context, we are also guided by the principle laid down by this
Court in Maganlal son of Kishanlal Godha v. Nanasaheb son of
Udhaorao Gadewar 37 . While dealing with a landlord-tenant dispute, it
was held that the adjudication of bonafide need should be done as on the
date when the suit for eviction was filed, unless some subsequent event
materially changes the ground of relief. It was further held that
subsequent events may be considered to have overshadowed the
genuineness of the landlord’s requirement only if they are of such nature
and dimension as to make it lose its significance altogether. This Court
observed as under:

“17. In Pratap Rai Tanwani v. Uttam Chand [(2004) 8 SCC
490], it was held that the bona fide requirement of the landlord
has to be seen on the date of the petition and the subsequent
events intervening due to protracted litigation will not be
relevant. It was held that the crucial date is the date of petition;
therefore, the normal rule is that the rights and obligations of
the parties are to be determined on the date of petition and that

36 2002 INSC 533
37 CA No.6125/2008 decided on 16.10.2008

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 55 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding
the reliefs, provided such events had a material impact on those
rights and obligations. It was further observed that it is stark
reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would
be the number of developments sprouting up during the long
interregnum. Therefore, the courts have to take a very
pragmatic approach of the matter. It is common experience in
our country that especially landlord-tenant litigations prolong
for a long time. It is true that neither can the person who has
started the litigation sit idle nor can the development of the
event be stopped by him. Therefore, the crucial event should be
taken as on the date when the suit for eviction was filed, unless
the subsequent events materially change the ground of relief.

18. In the case of Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava [(2001) 2
SCC 604], this Court held that the landlord should not be
penalised for the slowness of the legal system and the crucial
date for deciding the facts of the requirement of the landlord is
the date of his application for eviction. It is also observed that
the process of litigation cannot be made the basis for denying
the landlord relief unless the litigation at least reaches the final
stages. However, it is further added that subsequent events
may, in some situations, be considered to have overshadowed
the genuineness of the landlords’ needs but only if they are of
such nature and dimension as to completely eclipse such need
and make it lose the significance altogether.”

In the light of above discussion, the High Court failed to consider
whether the subsequent event as urged by the defendants had material
bearing on the right claimed by the plaintiffs. It has to be borne in mind
that the Trial Court had passed a decree for eviction on the basis of the
evidence on record which was reversed by the Appellate Court. It was,
therefore, necessary for the High Court to have taken into consideration
the entire material available on record including the affidavit dated
12th April 2023. Thus, by failing to do so, the High Court failed to
exercise jurisdiction vested in it while deciding the challenge to the
reversal of the decree for eviction. We, therefore, find that the order
passed by the High Court deserves interference.

9. The contention of the appellant that the contents of the affidavit did
not warrant acceptance is an aspect that requires consideration. Since we

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 56 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
are inclined to remand the proceedings to the Trial Court for re –
consideration of the matter in the light of subsequent events, we do not
intend to delve at length on this aspect or as regards the material placed
on record by either party, since any observations made could prejudice
the Courts. In our view, the interests of justice would be served if the
proceedings are re-considered by the Trial Court in the light of material
brought on record and the subsequent events that have since occurred
during pendency of the proceedings. To enable the parties to buttress
their respective stands, they are granted liberty to amend their pleadings
in accordance with law. The Trial Court would thereafter consider the
entire material on record and decide the proceedings on their own merits,
uninfluenced by any observations made either by the Trial Court or by
the Appellate Court.”

(emphasis supplied)

20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Agrawal (dead) & Anr.
v. Dhanraji Devi (dead) by lrs. And Anr. 38, had observed and held as under:

–

“13. The question then remains as to effect of subsequent events. It is
not in dispute between the parties that during the pendency of the writ
petition before the High Court, both the applicants died and their three
daughters were brought on record. It is also not in dispute that all the
three daughters are married and they are at their marital homes with
their in-laws. In view of the said fact an argument was advanced on
behalf of the tenants before the High Court that the said circumstance
was an eloquent one and must be taken into account which had
occurred during the pendency of the proceedings whic h would affect
the final outcome. According to the tenants, in view of death of both
the applicants, the requirement as pleaded by the applicants in the
application did not survive and the application was liable to be
rejected. It was the power and the dut y of the High Court to take into
account subsequent events which emerged during the pendency of the
writ petition and pass an appropriate order taking into consideration
such development. In support of the said contention, reliance was
placed by the learned counsel on several decisions of this Court.

14. Per contra, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the

38 (2004) 8 SCC 76

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 57 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
legality and the validity of the decree or order passed by the
prescribed authority has to be tested on the basis of rights of the
parties as they stood at the time when the application was filed.
Subsequent events could not take away accrued and vested right of the
applicants.

15. The High Court held that the objection raised by the heirs of the
applicants was well founded and the Court could not take into account
the subsequent event of death of the applicants during the pendency of
writ petition. It was also observed that a party could not be penalised
for the delay in court and when the order of eviction was legally
passed in favour of the applicants, it could not be set aside by
considering the subsequent event of death of the applicants. The High
Court also observed that the decisions cited on behalf of the writ
petitioners wherein subsequent events were taken into account were in
appeals. According to the High Court, an appeal can be said to be a
“continuation of suit” but not a writ petition. It was observed that once
the case was decided by the prescribed authority and appeal was
dismissed by the District Judge, the High Court had no power to
consider subsequent events in the proceedings under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution and accordingly it dismissed the writ petition.

16. In our opinion, by not taking into account the subsequent
event, the High Court has committed an error of law and also an
error of jurisdiction. In our judgment, the law is well settled on
the point, and it is this : the basic rule is that the rights of the
parties should be determined on the basis of the date of institution
of the suit or proceeding and the suit/action should be tried at all
stages on the cause of action as it existed at the commencement of
the suit/action. This, however, does not mean that events
happening after institution of a suit/proceeding, cannot be
considered at all. It is the power and duty of the court to consider
changed circumstances. A court of law may take into account
subsequent events inter alia in the following circumstances:

(i) the relief claimed originally has by reason of subsequent
change of circumstances become inappropriate; or

(ii) it is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order to
shorten litigation; or

(iii) it is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice between
the parties.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 58 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

(Re Shikharchand Jain v. Digamber Jain Praband Karini
Sabha [(1974) 1 SCC 675 : (1974) 3 SCR 101] , SCC p. 681, para 10.)

**** **** ****

18. Before about a century in Ram Ratan Sahu v. Bishun
Chand [(1907) 6 Cal LJ 74 : 11 CWN 732] the High Court of Calcutta
observed that there are certain exceptions to the general rule that a suit
must be tried in all stages on the cause of action as it existed at the
date of its commencement. In Lachmeshwar Prasad
Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri [1940 FCR 84 : AIR 1941 FC 5]
the Federal Court took into account the provisions of the new Act
which came into force during the pendency of appeal before the
Federal Court.

19. In the leading decision of Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor &
General Traders [(1975) 1 SCC 770 : AIR 1975 SC 1409 : (1975) 3
SCR 958 [Ed. : See however (1998) 2 SCC 710, a later decision by a
three-Judge Bench.]] this Court considered a subsequent event. The
plaintiff filed a suit for possession on the ground of personal
requirement for starting business and an order was passed in his
favour. An appeal against the said order was also dismissed. The
tenant filed a revision petition in the High Court. During the pendency
of revision petition, the plaintiff acquired possession of another non-
residential building. An application for amendment, therefore, was
made by the tenant. The High Court allowed the amendment. The
landlord challenged the order in this Court. It was contended by the
landlord that the High Court had committed an error in taking
cognizance of subsequent event which was “disastrous”. This Court,
however, held that the High Court did not commit any illegality in
considering the subsequent event.

20. Following Lachmeshwar Prasad [1940 FCR 84 : AIR 1941 FC 5]
law of “ancient vintage”, Krishna Iyer, J. stated : (SCC pp. 772 -73,
para 4)

“4. We feel the submissions devoid of substance. First about the
jurisdiction and propriety vis-à-vis circumstances which come into
being subsequent to the commencement of the proceedings. It is basic
to our processual jurisprudence that the right to relief must be judged
to exist as on the date a suitor institutes the legal proceeding. Equally

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 59 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
clear is the principle that procedure is the handmaid and not the
mistress of the judicial process. If a fact, arising after the lis has come
to court and has a fundamental impact on the right to relief or the
manner of moulding it, is brought diligently to the notice of the
tribunal, it cannot blink at it or be blind to events which stultify or
render inept the decretal remedy. Equity justifies bending the rules of
procedure, where no specific provision or fair play is not violated,
with a view to promote substantial justice — subject, of course, to the
absence of other disentitling factors or just circumstances. Nor can we
contemplate any limitation on this power to take note of updated facts
to confine it to the trial court. If the litigation pends, the power exists,
absent other special circumstances repelling resort to that course in
law or justice. Rulings on this point are legion, even as situations for
applications of this equitable rule are myriad. We affirm the
proposition that for making the right or remedy claimed by the party
just and meaningful as also legally and factually in accord with the
current realities, the Court can, and in many cases must, take
cautious cognizance of events and developments subsequent to the
institution of the proceeding provided the rules of fairness to both
sides are scrupulously obeyed.”

(emphasis supplied)

21.Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu [(1975) 1 SCC 770 : AIR 1975 SC
1409 : (1975) 3 SCR 958 [Ed. : See however (1998) 2 SCC 710, a
later decision by a three-Judge Bench.]] was followed in many
cases. In Gulabbai v. Nalin Narsi Vohra [(1991) 3 SCC 483 : AIR
1991 SC 1760] an order of eviction was passed against the tenant
on the ground of bona fide need of the landlord. Subsequent event
of shifting family of the landlord to a spacious bungalow
constructed by him during the pendency of appeal, was
considered by this Court.

22. In Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram [1992 Supp (2) SCC 623 : AIR
1992 SC 700] this Court observed that a court can mould relief taking
“cautious cognizance” of subsequent events. The Court also observed
that all these depend on factual and situational differences and “there
can be no hard-and-fast rule governing the matter”.

23. In Shadi Singh v. Rakha [(1992) 3 SCC 55 : AIR 1994 SC 800] a
landlord sued a tenant for ejectment on the ground that the building
required thorough repair. During the pendency of the suit, the tenant

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 60 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
carried out necessary repair. Taking note of the event, this Court
dismissed the suit of the landlord.

24. In Super Forgings & Steels (Sales) (P) Ltd. v. Thyabally
Rasuljee [(1995) 1 SCC 410] dealing with power of this Court to take
note of subsequent events in an appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution, this Court stated that : (SCC pp. 417-18, para 16)
“[T]he power of this Court in an appeal under Article 136 of the
Constitution to take cautious cognizance of events and developments
subsequent to institution of eviction proceeding and gr ant, deny or
mould the relief sought by a party, in consonance with justice and fair
play is not restricted merely because it is exercising its power to deal
with an appeal conferred upon it by the Constitution.”

25. In P. Sriramamurthy v. Vasantha Raman [(1997) 9 SCC 654 :

AIR 1997 SC 1388] an order of eviction was passed in favour of the
landlord and against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent.
During the pendency of appeal before this Court, husband of the
landlady retired from service and they needed the premises for
personal occupation also. Though the ground was not set up earlier,
taking note of subsequent event, this Court allowed the ground to be
raised and granted the relief.

26. In Lekh Raj v. Muni Lal [(2001) 2 SCC 762 : AIR 2001 SC 996]
this Court indicated that the law on the subject is well settled. The
court should not shut its door on noticing subsequent events. All laws
and procedures including functioning of courts are all in aid to confer
justice on those who knock its door. The court should interpret the law
not in derogation of justice but in its aid. Bringing on record
subsequent event, which is relevant, should, therefore, be
permitted to render justice to a party. But the court in doing so
should be cautious not to permit it in a routine manner. It should
refuse the prayer where a party is doing so to delay the
proceedings and to harass the other party or doing so for any
other ulterior motive. The court should also examine whether the
alleged subsequent event has any material bearing on issues
involved or would materially affect the result of the suit.

27. In Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal [(2002) 2 SCC 256 :

AIR 2002 SC 665] this Court stated : (SCC pp. 262-63, para 11)
“11. The ordinary rule of civil l aw is that the rights of the parties stand

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 61 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
crystallised on the date of the institution of the suit and, therefore, the
decree in a suit should accord with the rights of the parties as they
stood at the commencement of the lis. However, the Court has power
to take note of subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly
subject to the following conditions being satisfied : (i) that the relief,
as claimed originally has, by reason of subsequent events, become
inappropriate or cannot be granted; (ii) that taking note of such
subsequent event or changed circumstances would shorten litigation
and enable complete justice being done to the parties; and (iii) that
such subsequent event is brought to the notice of the court promptly
and in accordance with the rules of procedural law so that the opposite
party is not taken by surprise.”

28. Strong reliance was placed by the contesting respondents on a
decision of this Court in Rameshwar v. Jot Ram [(1976) 1 SCC 194 :

(1976) 1 SCR 847] before the High Court as well as before us.

In Rameshwar [(1976) 1 SCC 194 : (1976) 1 SCR 847] the tenant had
become “deemed purchaser” under the Punjab Security of Land
Tenures Act, 1953. During the pendency of appeal, the “large”
landowner died and his heirs became “small” landowners. It was,
therefore, contended on behalf of the landowners in appeal that since
appeal is continuation of suit, subsequent event of death of the
original owner should be considered. This Court, however, refused to
take note of subsequent event on equitable considerations. Keeping in
view the agrarian reforms, this Court said : (SCC p. 201, para 10)
“To hold that, if the landlord dies at some distant date after the title
has vested in the tenant, the statutory process would be reversed if by
such death, his many children, on division, will be converted into
small landholders, is to upset the day of reckoning visualised by the
Act and to make the vesting provision ‘a teasing illusion’, a formal
Festschrift to agrarian reform, not a flaming programme of ‘now an d
here’. These surrounding facts drive home the need not to allow
futurism, in a dawdling litigative scene, to foul the quick legislative
goals.”

(emphasis supplied)

30. We must now refer to Hasmat Rai [(1981) 3 SCC 103 : AIR 1981
SC 1711 : (1981) 3 SCR 605] . As already noted, notice was issued by
this Court on 29-10-1999 in view of the decision of this Court
in Hasmat Rai [(1981) 3 SCC 103 : AIR 1981 SC 1711 : (1981) 3
SCR 605] . In the said decision, the three-Judge Bench of this Court

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 62 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
held that when e viction was sought on the ground of personal
requirement of the landlord, such requirement must continue to exist
till the final determination of the case. Following the ratio laid down
in Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu [(1975) 1 SCC 770 : AIR 1975 SC 1409
: (1975) 3 SCR 958 [Ed. : See however (1998) 2 SCC 710, a later
decision by a three-Judge Bench.]] Desai, J. stated : (SCC pp. 113-14,
para 14)

“[I]t is now incontrovertible that where possession is sought for
personal requirement it would be correct to say that the requirement
pleaded by the landlord must not only exist on the date of the action
but must subsist till the final decree or an order for eviction is made .
If in the meantime events have cropped up which would show that the
landlord’s requirement is wholly satisfied then in that case his action
must fail and in such a situation it is incorrect to say that as decree or
order for eviction is passed against the tenant he cannot invite the
court to take into consideration subsequent events.”

(emphasis supplied)

21. The fact whether aforesaid properties, of which respondent has got
possession, would be sufficient to satisfy the bonafide requirement of the
respondent, or the same would constitute alternate suitable accommodation,
or whether the bonafide requirement portrayed by the respondent has ceased
to exist as on this day, in view of him being shifted and settled in Toronto,
Canada, are triable issues, which needs to be contested at the stage of trial by
leading adequate evidence.

22. Even otherwise, some of the issues raised by the petitioners in their
leave to defend applications, have not been properly dealt with by the learned
ARC. For instance, the issue of the respondent having possession of shop No.
5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market raised by the petitioner-M/s Gainda Lal

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 63 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
Ram Narayan & Anr. in RC REV. 507/2015 has been dealt by the learned
ARC in the following manner: –

“21 Now coming to the plea regarding alternate
accommodation. The respondents in their affidavit have
detailed out the other properties owned by petitioner. It is not
in dispute and is in fact a matter of record that petitioner has
filed simultaneous eight petitions seeking eviction against the
tenants in respect of his bonafide requirement. As regards the
shop no. 1/4, as discussed above the same is under the tenancy
of M/s. Mid Air Express Pvt. Ltd. As regards the shop no. 5,
Bhagat Singh Marg is concerned, it is stated that the same
is under the tenancy of Karachi Halwa. The said averment
of petitioner has not been refuted by the respondents and
the petitioner has also placed on record the photographs to
support his averments.”

(emphasis supplied)

22.1. The aforesaid finding by learned ARC is clearly incorrect on the
face of record as in paragraph 10 of the leave to defend application filed
by the aforesaid petitioner, the following stand was taken: –

“10. That so far as the Petitioner is concerned, he is running his
business of travel agent prior to coming to the property in question
and he himself thereafter started business in Shop No. 5. Bhagat
Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi and is also having another
Shop No. 5 at Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, New Delhi. Thus
he is already having two shops in his possession from where he is
running the business.”

22.2. In response to the aforesaid stand, in the reply to the application
seeking leave to defend following averment was made by the
respondent/landlord: –

“10. Para No. 10 is not denied to the extent that the petitioner is
engaged in tour and travel business even prior to coming to the

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 64 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
owner. property in question. It is submitted that Shop No.5 Bhagat
Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi is a part of the entire
property owned by the petitioner and in the said shop one tenant
namely M/s. Karachi Halwa House is in occupation thereof, who
was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile It is submitted that as far
as shop No.5 Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, is concerned, the
same is not owned by the petitioner and is owend by some one else
and is occupied by Karachi Hair Dresser. It is submitted that the
petitioner owns the entire property measuring 370 sq.yds.,
which is numbered as 1, 3 & 5, Bhagat Singh Marg whereas
shop No.5 is part of the property owned by the petitioner which
is under the tenancy of Karachi Halwa House and is on the
ground floor. It is not out of place to mention here for
convenience sake, the correspondence address is given as 5-
Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, by the. petitioner
who is residing on the first floor. Hence the respondent is falsely
alleging that the petitioner has two shops in possession.”

(emphasis supplied)

22.3. In rejoinder to the aforesaid reply of the respondent, following
averments were made by the petitioner-M/s Gainda Lal Ram Narayan: –

“10. That the contents of para 10 so far have been admitted,. needs
no reply while the rest of the contents as stated are false, incorrect
and denied and that of the corresponding para are reiterated. It is
denied that the Petitioner has given the correspondence address
as 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi and he is
residing in the first floor. It is submitted that this requires
investigation that too by evidence not otherwise and it is sufficient
ground to grant leave to defend to the respondent.”

(emphasis supplied)

22.4. It is pertinent to note that, even in the site plan filed by the
respondent/landlord, the said shop No.5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole
Market, New Delhi, was not shown in possession of the alleged tenant-

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 65 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

M/s Karachi Halwa House nor was the same mentioned in the eviction
petitions filed at the first instance.

22.5. The site plan filed along with the eviction petitions did not reflect
that shop No.5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, is in
occupation of the tenant- M/s Karachi Halwa House, who is alleged to
have been inducted by the erstwhile owner of the property. It is a matter of
fact that the respondent had not initially disclosed that this shop No.5 is in
occupation of the tenant- M/s Karachi Halwa House, and the same was
only done in reply to the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner.
It is pertinent to note that the respondent/landlord has not placed on record
any rent receipt in respect of shop No.5 to show that said shop is in
occupation of M/s Karachi Halwa House. Further, it is pointed out by
learned counsel for the petitioner as also is reflected from the record of the
instant petitions that the respondent in the memo of parties has mentioned
his address as “5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi” in the
eviction petitions. As these facts were not disclosed in the eviction petition
as also in the site plan filed along with it, the same, therefore, itself
become triable issues which require consideration.

22.6. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent had submitted that a
civil suit, CS (COMM) 226/2021, for possession has been instituted by
the respondent against the said tenant, M/s Karachi Halwa House, and the
same is pending adjudication before learned District Judge, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi. It is sufficient to note that said suit has been filed after
passing of the impugned orders/judgment.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 66 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

23. Further, the factum of possession of the shops, as described in
paragraph 8 (i) & (ii) of the application CM APPL. 45244/2023 in RC.
REV. 563/2015, with the daughter of the respondent-Ranjana Aggarwal also
overshadows the bonafide requirement portrayed by the respondent as said
fact was not disclosed by the respondent at the time of the filing of the
eviction petitions. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that, in paragraph 7 of
the application seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioner-M/s Gainda Lal
Ram Narayan, it was stated as under: –

“7. That without prejudice to the above, It is submitted that so far as
the Petitioner’s daughter Smt. Ranjana Aggarwal is concerned she is
running her independent business under the name & style of M/s.
Yorks Travel & Forex Services Pvt. Limited having authorised
capital of Rs.25,00,000/- and paid up capital of Rs.9,00,000/- having a
registered office at Shop No. LG 3-4, Plot No. 27, Central Market,
Ashok Vihar, phase-l, Delhi 110 052 which is owned by the family of
Ms. Ranjana Aggarwal and she is residing at F-107, Ashok Vihar
Phase-l, Delhi 110 052 and in the said firm Smt. Ranjana Aggarwal,
her husband Shri Raj Kumar Aggarwal and her son Shri Rahul
Aggarwal are the Directors and as such it is clear that the family of
Smt. Ranjana Aggarwal is running a separate business and there is
no question of her dependent upon the Petitioner for any purpose
whatsoever and in these circumstances the requirement is totally
false.”

(emphasis supplied)

23.1. The respondent/landlord in reply to the aforesaid had taken the
following stand: –

“7. In reply to para No.7 it submitted that the daughter of the
petitioner namely Ms. Ranju Aggarwal resides in Ashok Vihar in her
matrimonial home and as per the information received by the petitioner,

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 67 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
her husband Shri Raj Kumar who is also engaged in travel business
somewhere in the month of April, 2012 started a travel agency under the
name and style of M/s. Yorks Travel and Forex Services Pvt. Ltd., from a
space measuring 200 sq.ft. (Approx.), and the said daughter and her
husband has nothing to do with the business of the petitioner. However,
in said the company, the grand son of the petitioner namely Rahul
Aggarwal is also shown as additional director but since inception of
the said company, it did not prove to be fruitful and thus Rahul
Aggarwal is unable to adjust himself there and anticipates no scope
to expand or flourish from there and even otherwise, the place from
where the said company is running its business is a very small space
having hardly 200 sq.ft. approx. (Basement). Hence he intends to join
the petitioner and to assist the petitioner in the business to be started
by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has no where stated
in the petition that Rahul Aggarwal is dependent upon him and rather
stated that the petitioner who would be requiring manpower for running
the business, is willing to include Rahul who has himself shown his
willingness to join the petitioner in his business.”

(emphasis supplied)

23.2. Further, in rejoinder following averments were made by the said
petitioner: –

“7. That the contents of para 7 are partly admitted that the daughter’s
husband is also running the independent business that admission has
come after filing the details by the respondent and as such petitioner is
guilty of concealment of true and material facts and thus petition is liable
to be dismissed but in any case the respondent is entitled for leave to
defend. No reason has been given by the petitioner as to why he
concealed the said material fact. It is false that the said business was
started by Shri Raj Kumar only in 2012. No document has been field
by the petitioner to show that the said business was started in 2012
only and even if this fact is taken as gospel truth, no reason has been
given as to why he would leave his own business to start a new
business with the petitioner which is contrary to the used practices as
existing in India where married daughter and their husband always
do their separate business. It is false that business of Shri Raj Kumar
was not fruitful and as such Rahul Aggarwal his son was unable to

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 68 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
adjust himself there and anticipate no scope to expand or flourish
from there and even otherwise the place from where the said
company is running its business is a very small space. No evidnece
has been filed showing the only 200 sq. ft. place is available and that
to how it is insufficient. No details of the employees working with
him has been given. It is submitted that it is own admission of the
petitioner that Rahul Aggarwal is not dependent upon him and as
such the premises are not needed for him.”

(emphasis supplied)

The aforesaid fact that the business of Raj Kumar Aggarwal (father of
Rahul Aggarwal) was not fruitful and his son-Rahul Aggarwal was unable to
adjust himself in the said business is a triable issue which require
reconsideration.

24. Similarly, the common stand taken by the petitioners is that the son
of the respondent is already settled in Canada, and bonafide requirement
of the respondent for expansion of the business of his son in India would
also be a triable issue inasmuch as the eviction could not have been sought
in case of a mere desire vis-a-vis a genuine bonafide need. The petitioners
along with their leave to defend applications had placed on record the
passport of the son of the respondent/landlord and his family members
(wife and son) which reflects that they are holding permanent residency of
Canada.

25. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta39, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court laid down the law in relation to scope of interference by the
High Court in a petition under Section 25B (8) of the DRCA, and had

39 (1999) 6 SCC 222

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 69 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
observed and held as under: –

“11. …… The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High
Court under Section 25-B(8) is not so limited as is under Section 115
CPC nor so wide as that of an appellate court. The High Court
cannot enter into appreciation or reappreciation of evidence merely
because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were
a court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order
of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of “whether it is according
to law”. For that limited purpose it may enter into reappraisal of
evidence, that is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
conclusion arrived at by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable
or is one that no reasonable person acting with objectivity could
have reached on the material available. Ignoring the weight of
evidence, proceeding on a wrong premise of law or deriving such
conclusion from the established facts as betray a lack of reason
and/or objectivity would render the finding of the Controller “not
according to law” calling for an interference under the proviso to
sub-section (8) of Section 25-B of the Act. A judgment leading to a
miscarriage of justice is not a judgment according to law. (See: Sarla
Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1998) 8 SCC 119] and Ram
Narain Arora v. Asha Rani [(1999) 1 SCC 141] .)”

(emphasis supplied)

26. In these circumstances, the present petitions are allowed and disposed
of accordingly. The impugned orders dated orders dated 02.07.2015 assailed
in RC.REV. 507/2015 and RC.REV. 563/2015 passed by learned SCJ-cum-
RC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, and impugned order dated 14.10.2025
assailed in RC.REV. 99/2016 passed by learned ARC, Patiala House Courts,
New Delhi, are set aside.

27. The applications seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioners are
allowed. The parties are given liberty to amend their pleadings to enable them

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 70 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05
to explain their stands in respect to subsequent events in accordance with law.
Learned ARC/RC would thereafter consider the entire material on record and
decide the proceedings on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observations
made by this Court in the instant petitions in accordance with law.

28. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

29. Needless to state that it shall remain open to the parties to lead evidence
in trial to rebut the averments with respect to the subsequent events as well as
other issues and the same would be considered by the learned ARC in
accordance with law.

30. Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned RC/ARC, New
Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, for necessary information
and compliance.

31. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 03,2026/bsr/ns

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIWANIRC.REV. 507/2015 & conn. Page 71 of 71
NEGI
Signing Date:04.08.2026
18.05

Source link

Welcome to Airr News

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

Forever

Recommended

1-Year

1-Month

Welcome to Airr News

M/S Gainda Lal Ram Narayan & Anr vs Narayan Shamnani on 3 August, 2026

Delhi High Court