Delhi District Court
Parveen Kumar Jain vs M/S Shamlal Shiv Shankar on 24 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVANSHU SAJLAN, CCJ-CUM-ARC
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS
RC ARC/245/2018
DLCT030017572018
In the matter of:
PARVEEN KUMAR JAIN & Anr.
...Petitioners
v.
M/S SHAMLAL SHIV SHANKAR & Ors.
...Respondents
Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958
1. Date of Institution : 13.03.2018
2. Date of Reserving Order : 16.01.2026
3. Date of Decision : 24.02.2026
4. Decision : Petition allowed
Argued by -: Mr. C.M. Sharma, Ld. counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Ld. counsel for the respondents.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the eviction
petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents under Section
14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, the ‘DRC
Act‘) with respect to the tenanted premises i.e., one godown on the
DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
ground floor forming part of property bearing No. 274-275, Chawri
Digitally signed
by DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.1/21 Date: 2026.02.24
15:12:40 +0530
Bazar, Delhi-110006. The tenanted premises is shown in Red colour in
the site plan Ex. PW1/1 annexed with the petition.
2. Summons were served upon the respondents on 20.03.2018 and
leave to defend application was filed by the respondent No. 2 on
behalf of the respondent No. 1 partnership firm on 03.04.2018 within
the statutory time period. No leave to defend application was filed by
respondent No. 3 separately.
3. Vide order dated 27.03.2019, leave to defend was granted to the
respondents.
EVIDENCE
4. After the completion of pleadings, the matter proceeded for
trial. At the stage of PE, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and
tendered his evidence by way of affidavit as Ex.PW1/A. He was
thereafter cross-examined and discharged. He relied upon the
following documents:
1. Site plan Ex. PW1/1 (objected
to regarding mode of
proof)
2. Copy of sale certificate dated Mark A
25.05.1955
3. Copy of relinquishment deed Ex. PW1/3
dated 19.04.2007
4. Site plan of the property bearing Ex. PW1/4
No. 2957
5. Copy of Attornment letter Ex. PW1/5 (OSR)
6. Copy of rent receipt Ex. PW1/6 (OSR)
7. Copy of membership letter Mark B
DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.2/21 DEVANSHU SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:12:45 +0530
5. Thereafter, the petitioner examined Mr. Naresh Kumar,
Employee of Paper Merchant Association (Regd.) office at: 132, Gali
Batashan, Chawri Bazar, Delhi. However, the said witness did not
bring any documentary record.
6. Thereafter, the petitioner examined Mr. Pravesh Khatri, Junior
Assistant, Sub-Registrar-VII, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. He tendered the
following documents:
1. Copy of sale agreement dated Ex. PW2/1 (OSR)
20.10.2010
7. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the
petitioner dated 06.03.2023, the petitioner’s evidence was closed.
8. Pursuant to the aforesaid, the matter progressed to the stage of
RE, where the respondent No. 2, Mr. Asit Goel, partner of respondent
firm, examined himself as RW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of
affidavit Ex.RW1/A. He was partly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel
for the petitioner on 14.08.2023. Thereafter, due to non-appearance of
the witness, the right to lead RE was closed vide order dated
27.10.2023. Thereafter, matter was listed for final arguments.
DISCUSSION
9. I have heard final arguments on behalf of both the parties. On
perusal of the record, I now proceed to dispose of the case by the
present judgment.
10. Before examining the merits of the case, it would be appropriate
to refer to the legal position governing Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC
Act. It is settled law that, to succeed under Section 14(1)(e), the
landlord must establish:
DEVANSHU
i. Existence of a landlord-tenant relationship; SAJLANDigitally signed by
DEVANSHU
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.3/21 SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:12:50 +0530
ii. Bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for the
landlord or any family member dependent upon him/her; andiii. Non-availability of any other reasonably suitable alternative
accommodation.
11. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, AIR
2022 SC 1778, wherein it was observed that:
12. Section 14(1)(e) carves out an exception to the regular mode of
eviction. Thus, in a case where a landlord makes an application
seeking possession of the tenanted premises for his bona fide re-
quirement, the learned Rent Controller may dispense with the pro-
tection prescribed under the Act and then grant an order of eviction.
Requirement is the existence of bona fide need, when there is no
other “reasonably suitable accommodation”. Therefore, there has
to be satisfaction on two grounds, namely, (i) the requirement
being bona fide and (ii) the non availability of a reasonably suit-
able residential accommodation. Such reasonableness along with
suitability is to be seen from the perspective of the landlord and not
the tenant. When the learned Rent Controller comes to the conclu-
sion that there exists a bona fide need coupled with the satisfaction
that there is no reasonably suitable residential accommodation, the
twin conditions mandated Under Section 14(1)(e) stand satisfied.
12. The concept of bona fide need has been further elucidated by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand
Gupta, 1999 INSC 364, wherein it was held that the requirement must
be based on a sincere, honest, and natural desire as distinguished from
a mere pretext:
A requirement in the sense of felt need which is an outcome of a
sincere, honest desire, in contra-distinction with a mere pretence
or pretext to evict a tenant, on the part of the landlord claiming
to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the
family would entitle him to seek ejectment of the tenant. Looked
at from this angle, any setting of the facts and circumstances pro-
truding the need of landlord and its bonafides would be capable of
successfully withstanding the test of objective determination by the
Court. The Judge of facts should place himself in the arm chair
DEVANSHU
of the landlord and then ask the question to himself-whether in SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHU SAJLAN
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.4/21Date: 2026.02.24
15:12:55 +0530
the given facts substantiated by the landlord the need to occupy
the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere, honest. If
the answer be in the positive, the need is bonafide. The failure on
the part of the landlord to substantiate the pleaded need, or, in a
given case, positive material brought on record by the tenant en-
abling the court drawing an inference that the reality was to the con-
trary and the landlord was merely attempting at finding out a pre-
tence or pretext for getting rid of the tenant, would be enough to
persuade the Court certainly to deny its judicial assistance to the
landlord. Once the court is satisfied of the bonafides of the need of
the landlord for premises or additional premises by applying objec-
tive standards then in the matter of choosing out of more than one
accommodation available to the landlord his subjective choice shall
be respected by the court. The court would permit the landlord to
satisfy the proven need by choosing the accommodation which
the landlord feels would be most suited for the purpose; the
court would not in such a case thrust its own wisdom upon the
choice of the landlord by holding that not one but the other ac-
commodation must be accepted by the landlord to satisfy his
such need. In short, the concept of bonafide need or genuine re-
quirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of life.
An approach either too liberal or two conservative or pedantic must
be guarded against.
13. Thus, for the petitioner to succeed, it must be shown that he is
the owner of the property, that a landlord-tenant relationship exists,
that he has a bona fide requirement of the premises, and that no other
suitable alternative accommodation is available. Once these essential
ingredients are proved, the petition succeeds.
14. The facts of the case and evidence led on record shall be
examined in the light of the legal position enunciated above.
LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP/ OWNERSHIP:
15. With respect to the first ingredient, it is well-settled that for the
purposes of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, a landlord is not
required to establish absolute ownership in the manner contemplated
under the Transfer of Property Act. It is sufficient for the landlord to
demonstrate that their title is superior to that of the tenant. In Shanti
Sharma & Ors. v. Ved Prabha & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 193, the
Digitally
signed by
DEVANSHU
DEVANSHU SAJLAN
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.5/21 SAJLAN Date:
2026.02.24
15:13:00
+0530
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the term “owner” in this context is
to be understood vis-à-vis the tenant, meaning thereby that the
landlord must show himself to be “something more than the tenant.”
Reliance may also be placed on Rajender Kumar Sharma & Ors. v.
Leela Wati & Ors., 155 (2008) DLT 383, wherein the same principle
was reiterated.
16. In the present case, the petitioners are claiming ownership on
the basis of the registered relinquishment deed dated 19.04.2007 Ex.
PW1/3. By virtue of the said relinquishment deed, Smt. Manju Jain,
wife of the erstwhile owner Sh. Bimal Kumar Jain, is stated to have
relinquished her rights in the tenanted premises in favour of the
petitioners herein, who are the sons of the erstwhile owner. The
respondents, on the other hand, have not furnished any title
documents. While they have denied the ownership of the petitioners in
the WS, they have not been able to cast any doubt on the
relinquishment deed Ex. PW1/3. The said deed was duly exhibited in
evidence.
17. Further, in any case, the petitioners have exhibited on record the
attornment letter issued by them to the respondent No. 1 firm dated
30.01.2008, Ex. PW1/5 (OSR) and the rent receipt Ex. PW1/6 (OSR).
The attornment letter bears the stamp of the respondent No. 1 firm in
the form of a receiving and has been signed by the respondent No. 2.
The attornment letter specifically records that the petitioners are the
landlords and it calls upon the respondents to pay rent to them. Again,
the respondents have not been able to cast any doubt on the aforesaid
documents, which were duly exhibited during evidence. In light of the
said documents, the landlord-tenant relationship is duly established
between the parties. Further, by virtue of Ex. PW1/3, the petitioners DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.6/21 DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:06 +0530
have been able to show a better title to the tenanted premises as
compared to the respondents. Accordingly, there is no dispute
regarding the landlord-tenant relationship/ownership, and the
said ingredient stands duly established.
BONA FIDE NEED:
18. In respect of the question of bona fide requirement, it is a settled
law that the court must presume the bona fide requirement of the
landlord and that the burden to refute the said presumption squarely
lies on the tenant. A mere assertion on the part of the tenant is
insufficient. It was held in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119 that:
when a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own oc-
cupation the Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption
that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the
clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case,
it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the
requirement of the landlord is bona fide.”
19. It is further pertinent to take note of the well-settled proposition
of law that a landlord can bring a petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of
the DRC Act for the requirement of their children. It has been held in
a catena of judgments that it is considered a moral duty of parents to
settle their children, and as such, a petition filed by a landlord for his
son or daughter is maintainable under Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC
Act (see Ravinder Singh v. Deepesh Khorana, MANU/DE/
6474/2012).
20. In this case, from the averments in the eviction petition and the
evidence affidavit of PW-1, it stands pleaded and deposed that the
tenanted premises are required bona fide by the petitioner No. 1, who
wishes to settle his son, Mr. Mohit Jain, in the business of paper board
and fancy wedding cards etc. from the tenanted premises. It has been DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.7/21 DEVANSHU SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:11 +0530
mentioned that the tenanted premises will be used as a godown for the
aforesaid business purpose. It has been further mentioned that Mr.
Mohit Jain is unemployed.
21. The respondents have raised the following objections in relation
to the aforesaid bona fide need:
a) Petitioners have another accommodation in their possession
bearing property no. 334 Kucha Mir Ashiq, Chawri Bazaar,
Delhi110006 and the petitioners are running the business of
M/s Delhi Jayna Paper Mart from the said premises. It has been
mentioned that the said premises is being run by the petitioner’s
son, Mr Mohit Jain, and hence, it has been wrongly averred that
Mr. Mohit Jain is unemployed. It is submitted that the
petitioner’s son Mr. Mohit Jain, is actively involved in the
ancestral business, and the aforesaid property is two storeyed
building, which is under the possession and control of the
petitioners and Mr. Mohit Jain.
b) The petitioner has concealed that as per the Government
scheme of shifting commercial units from the nonconfirming
area of Chawri Bazar, Delhi110006, to the confirming area at
Ghazipur, the petitioner has been allotted a commercial plot in
IFC Ghazipur, Delhi.
c) Petitioner has deliberately filed the incorrect site plan, not
showing the complete description of the accommodation
available with the petitioner in the demised premises bearing
no. 274275, Kucha Mir Ashiq, Chawri Bazar, Delhi110006.
The petitioner and his family Members already have sufficient
DEVANSHU
and reasonable accommodation and space available in the same SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHU SAJLAN
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.8/21 Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:16 +0530
premises, which are about 175 sq. yards, comprising the ground
floor, first floor, and second floor, with a terrace having a fully
covered area.
d) The petitioner has not placed any document on record to
substantiate the averments made in the eviction petition.
e) The respondent no.3 has nothing to do with the tenanted
godown nor has any concern with the tenanted firm M/s
Shamlal Shiv Shankar.
f) Petitioners have obtained the vacant peaceful physical
possession of the main entrance shop at ground floor in the
same property bearing no. 274275 Kucha Mir Ashiq Chawri
Bazar, Delhi110006, from a tenant, and the same is lying
unused and vacant under the control and possession of the
petitioners.
g) The petitioners further have another portion shown in the
photograph, having a greencoloured door which is also lying
unused and locked by the petitioners on the ground floor.
h) Petitioners have another property bearing no.2499 Naiwada,
Chawri Bazaar, Delhi110006 under their control and
possession from where the business under the name and style of
M/s Arushi File Products is running.
i) The Petitioners have wrongly mentioned one shop in the site
plan, whereas on the actual site of the property in question,
there are two separate shops which are lying unused and vacant
with the petitioners, as shown in photographs having brown and
green colored door. The petitioners have deliberately shown the
two shops as a single one in the site plan. DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHU SAJLAN
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.9/21
Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:22 +0530
j) The petitioners have wrongly mentioned in the eviction petition
that the tenanted premises is a godown used for commercial
purposes. It is submitted that the tenanted portion is meant for
residential cum commercial purposes and the same is used by
the respondent for both purposes.
22. The objections with respect to suitable alternate
accommodation, as mentioned above, are dealt with in the next section
of this judgment.
23. With respect to the bona fide requirement, the primary objection
that has been taken is that Mr. Mohit Jain is already running the
business of M/s Delhi Jayna Paper Mart. Reliance has been placed
upon the photograph Ex. PW1/R-4 and Ex. PW1/R-5 to show that Mr.
Mohit Jain regularly sits in the premises of the said firm (situated at
334 Kucha Mir Ashiq, Chawri Bazaar, Delhi110006). The aforesaid
photographs have not been denied by petitioner No. 1 during his
cross-examination. However, during his cross-examination, the
petitioner deposed that he is the sole proprietor of M/S Delhi Jayna
Paper Mart. Thereafter, he was asked whether he has filed any
document on record to show that he is the proprietor of the said firm,
to which he replied in the negative.
24. Accordingly, it has been submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the
respondents that the entire bona fide need is a sham since Mr. Mohit
Jain is already actively involved in the business of the aforesaid firm.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that
the said firm is a sole proprietorship concern of the petitioner No. 1,
and the petitioner No. 1 wishes that his son must have a separate
business of his own. To this submission, Ld. Counsel for the
respondents has submitted that no document has been placed on
DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.10/21 DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:27 +0530
record to show that the petitioner No. 1 is the sole proprietor of M/S
Delhi Jayna Paper Mart and hence, an adverse inference needs to be
drawn against the petitioners in this regard. Accordingly, it has been
submitted that based on the photographs on record, a conclusion must
be reached that the business being carried out from 334 Kucha Mir
Ashiq, Chawri Bazaar is being run by the petitioner’s son, Mr Mohit
Jain (i.e., the business of M/S Delhi Jayna Paper Mart).
25. I do not agree with the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the
respondent. As noted above, once the petitioner pleads the bona fide
need on an affidavit, the onus shifts upon the respondents to disprove
the same. Accordingly, the onus was upon the respondents to prove
that Mr. Mohit Jain is not unemployed and is running the business of
M/S Delhi Jayna Paper Mart. During cross-examination, the petitioner
No. 1 has specifically deposed that the said firm is his sole
proprietorship concern. Once it has been deposed that the said firm is
the sole proprietorship concern of the petitioner No. 1, it cannot be
categorized as being run by the son of the petitioner No. 1, Mr. Mohit
Jain. Accordingly, the bona fide need cannot be categorized as a sham
on this aspect.
26. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no
way to ascertain whether the said firm is the sole proprietorship
concern of the petitioner No. 1, since no registration documents have
been filed on record. Accordingly, he has submitted that an adverse
inference ought to be drawn against the petitioners on this aspect.
However, no adverse inference can be drawn against the petitioners
for not placing on record the proprietorship registration record of the
said firm since the present petition has been filed for the bona fide
need of Mr. Mohit Jain, and the petitioners were only required to
DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.11/21 DEVANSHU SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:32 +0530
disclose any business/premises being run by him. Therefore, there was
no requirement for the petitioners to file the registration document of
the aforesaid sole proprietorship concern along-with the present
petition.
27. An adverse inference could have been drawn against the
petitioners if the respondents had asked PW-1 to produce the said
registration record, and PW-1 had refused or failed to bring it on
record subsequently. However, no such question was asked during the
cross-examination. The only question that was asked was whether any
registration record was filed on record. The answer to the said
question was given in the following manner: “It is also correct that I
have not filed any document on the record that I am the proprietor of
M/S Delhi Jayna Paper Mart.” However, after this question, the
witness was not asked whether he can bring/produce the same now. In
absence of the said question, there is no refusal/failure on the part of
PW-1 regarding the production of the registration record of the
concerned firm. It is a settled position of law that adverse inference
u/s 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be drawn against a
witness during cross-examination, unless the opposite party
specifically calls upon the witness to produce it. Since no such
question was put to PW-1, no adverse inference can be drawn against
him for having not filed the registration document of M/S Delhi Jayna
Paper Mart.
28. Next, it has been submitted that even if M/S Delhi Jayna Paper
Mart is considered to be a proprietorship concern, the respondents
have shown that Mr. Mohit Jain is involved in its business, since
photographs have come on record showing his presence in the
concerned premises from where the business of the aforesaid firm is
DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.12/21 Digitally signed by
DEVANSHU SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:38 +0530
carried out (see Ex. PW1/R-4 and Ex. PW1/R-5). However, I am of the
considered view that the said position will not impact the bona fide
need pleaded in the petition, since it is a settled position of law that
the petitioner/their dependent is not required to sit idle while the
eviction petition drags on for years. The law is well settled that the
present occupation or business activity of the landlord does not
disentitle them from seeking eviction for establishing a separate and
independent venture. In Raghunath G. Panhale v. Chaganlal
Sundarji and Co., (1999) 8 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
categorically observed:
Joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back
one’s premises. For that matter assuming the landlord was in a job
and had not resigned it or assuming that pending the long-drawn
litigation he started some other temporary water business to sustain
himself, that would not be an indication that the need for
establishing a grocery shop was not a bona fide or a reasonable
requirement or that it was motivated or was a mere design to evict
the tenant.
29. Again, in Ramkubai v. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak,
(1999) 6 SCC 540, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that
employment during litigation does not defeat bona fide need, holding:
…he could not be expected to idle away the time by remaining
unemployed till the case is finally decided. It has already taken
about 25 years. Therefore, we do not think that taking up
contractor work, in the meanwhile, will militate against his
carrying on the business of Kirana which is his family business,
which was carried on by his father and is being carried on by his
brother independently. The facts that the landlady during her life
time was a partner in the firm carrying on Kirana business and her
elder son is carrying on Kirana business do not disentitle Bhikchand
to establish his own business. We are not impressed by the other
reasoning and conclusion of the Appellate Court which are
confirmed by the High Court. In our view, none of the reasons leads
to the inference that Bhikchand did not intend to start family Kirana
business, so relief cannot be denied to the landlady to recover the
suit premises for personal requirement of Bhikchand to establish
Kirana business independently. DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHU SAJLAN
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.13/21Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:42 +0530
30. The same principle has been applied by the Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in Ashok Sehgal v. Subhash Chandra Sharma, 2014 SCC
OnLine Del 815, wherein it was held that:
It is also immaterial if the respondent is employed somewhere
and is getting salary after his retirement. The fact of the matter
is the respondent requires the tenanted shop for his personal use
to start his business of footwear in a commercial market.
20. In case of Sait Nagjee Purushotam & Co. vs. Vimalbai Prabhulal
and Others, (2005) 8 SCC 252 the Apex Court held that a person
who has started the litigation cannot be expected to sit idle.
21. In case of Raghunath G. Panhale (dead) by L. Rs. vs. Chaganlal
Sunderji and Co., AIR 1999 SC 3864 the Apex Court held
joblessness is not a condition precedent for seeking to get back one’s
premises.
31. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, it is evident that
the petitioner’s son is not required to sit idle till the outcome of the
present eviction petition. There is no bar upon him to help his father in
his business till he is able to commence his own business upon the
vacation of the tenanted premises. It has already been noted that M/S
Delhi Jayna Paper Mart is the sole proprietorship concern of the
petitioner No. 1, and is not owned by his son, namely Mr. Mohit Jain.
Therefore, merely because the petitioner No. 1’s son is helping his
father in running the said business, the petitioners cannot be barred
from seeking eviction of the tenanted premises for the independent
business venture of the son of petitioner No. 1. Therefore, the
respondents have not been able to raise any tenable objection with
respect to the bona fide need of the petitioners. Therefore, no triable
issue is raised with respect to the aspect of bona fide requirement.
AVAILABILITY OF SUITABLE ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION:
32. With respect to the third ingredient of the availability of other
suitable alternate accommodation, it is to be noted that to entail denial
of the claim of the landlord, an alternate accommodation must be DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.14/21 DEVANSHU SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:48 +0530
reasonably suitable, in comparison with the tenanted premises in
question. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr.
Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507, has held that for an
eviction petition to fail on the ground of availability of alternate
suitable accommodation, the availability of another accommodation
must be suitable as well as convenient in all respects as the tenanted
accommodation from which the landlord seeks eviction of the tenant.
33. The respondents have deposed about the availability of the
following alternate accommodation available to the petitioners:
(i) Commercial plot in IFC, Ghazipur, Delhi
34. It has been submitted that the petitioner has concealed that as
per the Government scheme of shifting commercial units from the
non-confirming area of Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006, to the
confirming area at Ghazipur, the petitioner has been allotted a
commercial plot in IFC Ghazipur, Delhi.
35. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that PW-2, i.e., the Junior
Assistant from the office of Sub-Registrar-VIII, Shastri Nagar, filed on
record the sale deed dated 20.10.2010, executed between M/s Delhi
Jayna Paper Mart, and Dr. Mrs. Naveen Virmani, in relation to the
property situated at Ghazipur (see Ex. PW2/1 (OSR)). Therefore, the
said property cannot be categorized as suitable alternate
accommodation, since it has already been sold to a third party.
(ii) Unused godowns in the same property bearing no. 274275,
Kucha Mir Ashiq Chawri Bazar, Delhi110006 (marked as Mark
T1 and Mark T2 on the site plan Ex. PW1/R7).
36. It has been averred that the petitioners have obtained the vacant
DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHU SAJLAN
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.15/21 Date: 2026.02.24
15:13:54 +0530
peaceful physical possession of the unused godowns at ground floor in
the same property bearing no. 274275, Kucha Mir Ashiq Chawri
Bazar, Delhi110006, from a tenant, and the same are lying unused
and vacant under the control and possession of the petitioners. The
same are marked as Mark T1 and Mark T2 on the site plan Ex.
PW1/R7.
37. With respect to the available godowns on the ground floor of
the aforesaid property, the petitioners have clarified in the replication
and the evidence by way of the affidavit of PW1 that separate
eviction petitions were filed against Sh. Saran Dass and Sh. Suresh
Kumar for different bona fide needs and requirement. It has been
further mentioned therein that both the aforesaid matters were
amicably settled, pursuant to which the aforesaid tenants vacated their
respective godowns. It has been further mentioned that pursuant to the
said eviction, the godown evicted by Sh. Ram Saran Dass is occupied
by Sh. Naveen Kumar Jain for storing material related to his business,
and the godown evicted by Sh. Suresh Kumar is now occupied by Sh.
Praveen Kumar Jain for storing material related to his business.
38. PW1 was duly crossexamined on this point and he deposed
that portion Mark T1 in the site plan, which was under the possession
of M/s Suresh Trading Co., is now under his possession, and the
portion Mark T2 in the site plan, which was under the possession of
Sh. Ram Saran Dass, is now under the possession of his brother Mr.
Naveen Kumar Jain. Therefore, the version of the petitioners has
remained consistent during crossexamination, and PW1 has not been
contradicted by the respondents in any manner. The respondents have
not placed on record any material to show that the portion available on DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHU
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.16/21 SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:14:07 +0530
the ground floor of the concerned property is lying vacant. Therefore,
the aforesaid portions Mark T1 and Mark T2 cannot be categorized
as a suitable alternate accommodation, since the same are already
being used by the petitioners for their business purpose.
(iii) Portion available on the ground floor in the same property
bearing no. 274275, Kucha Mir Ashiq Chawri Bazar, Delhi
110006 (marked as Mark G1 and Mark G2 on the site plan Ex.
PW1/R7).
39. With respect to the portion Mark G-1 and Mark G-2 in the site
plan Ex. PW1/R-7, PW-1 deposed that the same are being used for
water meter and water motor respectively. Again, the respondents have
not furnished any material to dispute the same. Accordingly, the
aforesaid portion Mark G1 and Mark G2 cannot be categorized as a
suitable alternate accommodation.
(iv) Main entrance shop lying in the same property bearing no.
274275, Kucha Mir Ashiq Chawri Bazar, Delhi110006 (shown in
Blue colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/R7).
40. With respect to the aforesaid alleged shop shown in blue colour
in Ex. PW1/R7, it is pertinent to note that PW1 has deposed in his
evidence by way of the affidavit that the said portion is not a shop and
is being used by the mother of the petitioners, namely Smt. Manju
Jain, as a baithak, since she is an old aged lady who cannot keep going
upstairs again and again. Despite a thorough crossexamination on
multiple dates, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has not contradicted the
PW1 on this point. No suggestion was put to the PW1 that the blue
DEVANSHU
coloured portion is not used as a baithak. It is a settled position of law SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHU
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.17/21 SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:14:13 +0530
that where the evidence of a witness is allowed to go unchallenged
with regard to any particular point, it may safely accepted as true (see
Srichand and Shivan Das v. State, 1985 SCC OnLine Del 2010).
Therefore, the deposition of the PW1 in relation to the blue coloured
portion has gone unchallenged, and must be accepted to be true. In
any case, the burden of proof was upon the respondents to show that
the blue coloured portion is lying vacant. However, the respondents
have failed to discharge the said burden, since no material has been
placed on record to show that the said portion is lying vacant.
v) Property bearing No. 2499, Naiwada, Chawri Bazaar, Delhi
110006.
41. It is alleged that the petitioners have another property bearing
No. 2499, Naiwada, Chawri Bazaar, Delhi110006 under their control
and possession from where the business under the name and style of
M/s Arushi File Products is running.
42. However, during his crossexamination, PW1 deposed that his
brother is carrying on his business from the shop No. 2499. He further
deposed that M/s Arushi File Products is under the proprietorship of
his brother Sh. Naveen Kumar. On the other hand, the respondents
have not furnished any material to show that the said property is
owned by the petitioners and that any portion in the said shop is lying
vacant. Therefore, the respondents have been unable to prove that the
property in question is a suitable alternate accommodation.
vi) Property bearing No. 2433, Chipiwara, Delhi110006.
43. During cross-examination of PW-1, he was asked whether he
owns the aforesaid property. He answered in the affirmative. He also DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHU SAJLAN
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.18/21
Date: 2026.02.24
15:14:19 +0530
deposed that he has not placed on record any document in relation to
the said property. However, no question was asked as to whether the
said property is residential or commercial. It has been submitted by
Ld. Counsel for the petitioners that the said property is completely
residential in nature, and is situated on the first floor. It has been
submitted that the Ld. Counsel for the respondent deliberately did not
ask any question regarding the status of the aforesaid property in order
to create an impression that the said property could be used as an
alternate accommodation. It has been submitted that the onus lied
upon the respondents to show that the aforesaid property is
commercial in nature and can be utilized for the business purpose of
the son of the petitioner No. 1.
44. I agree with the said submission. The aforesaid property cannot
be categorized as a suitable alternate accommodation merely on the
basis that it is owned by the petitioners. No question was put to the
PW-1 whether the said property is lying vacant. Further, no question
was put regarding the nature of the said property i.e., whether it is
residential or commercial in nature. In absence of these material
particulars, the said property cannot be categorized as a suitable
alternate accommodation. No adverse inference can be drawn against
the petitioners for non-disclosure of the aforesaid property since they
are only required to disclose vacant commercial alternate
accommodations in their possession, and there is no material on
record to suggest that the said property is vacant or commercial.
vii) Portion Mark X in the site plan Ex. PW1/1.
45. It has been submitted that the Petitioners have wrongly
mentioned one shop in the site plan at point X in Ex. PW1/1, whereas
DEVANSHU
on the actual site of the property in question, there are two separate SAJLAN
Digitally signed by
DEVANSHU
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.19/21 SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:14:23 +0530
shops which are lying unused and vacant with the petitioners, as
shown in photographs having brown and green colored door (see Ex.
PW1/R1). It has been submitted that the petitioners have deliberately
shown the two shops as a single one in the site plan. On the other
hand, PW1 deposed in his evidence by way of the affidavit that the
said room is being used nowadays for keeping the respective goods
of both the petitioners after raising a middle wall with mutual
understanding. Despite a thorough crossexamination on multiple
dates, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has not contradicted the PW1
on this point. Therefore, it has been submitted that originally, there
was only one room at the said portion Mark X in Ex. PW1/1, but
subsequently, both the petitioners raised a middle wall in the said
portion and they are using the same for storing their respective goods.
46. No suggestion was put to the PW1 that the portion Mark X in
Ex. PW1/1 is not used by both the petitioners for storing their
respective goods. As noted above, it is a settled position of law that
where the evidence of a witness is allowed to go unchallenged with
regard to any particular point, it may safely accepted as true (see
Srichand and Shivan Das v. State, 1985 SCC OnLine Del 2010).
Therefore, the deposition of the PW1 in relation to the portion mark
X in Ex. PW1/1 has gone unchallenged, and must be accepted to be
true. It is immaterial that there are two doors existing in the said
portion since the PW1 has deposed the same to be occupied for
storage purpose (after raising the middle wall). As long as the
concerned portion is occupied, the same cannot be categorized as a
suitable alternate accommodation. The burden of proof was upon the
respondents to show that the said portion is lying vacant. However, DEVANSHU
SAJLAN
Digitally signed
by DEVANSHU
RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.20/21 SAJLAN
Date: 2026.02.24
15:14:28 +0530
the respondents have failed to discharge the said burden, since no
material has been placed on record to show that the said portion is
lying vacant.
47. Based on the aforesaid discussion, it cannot be said that there is
any property available with the petitioners which can constitute a
reasonable alternate suitable accommodation for the requirement as
disclosed in the eviction petition. On a scale of preponderance of
probabilities, it stands established that no such reasonable suitable
alternate accommodation is available with the petitioners.
CONCLUSION:
48. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the instant petition stands
allowed in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
49. Accordingly, an eviction order is passed u/s 14 (1) (e) of the
DRC Act in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents in
respect of the tenanted premises i.e., one godown on the ground
floor forming part of property bearing No. 274-275, Chawri
Bazar, Delhi-110006. The tenanted premises is shown in Red
colour in the site plan Ex. PW1/1 annexed with the petition.
However, this order shall not be executable before the expiry of six
months from the date of this order as provided u/s 14 (7) of the DRC
Act. Parties to bear their own costs.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed Pronounced in open court: DEVANSHU by DEVANSHU 24th day of February, 2026 SAJLAN SAJLAN Date: 2026.02.24 15:14:35 +0530 (Devanshu Sajlan) CCJ-cum-ARC (Central) THC/Delhi/24.02.2026 RC ARC 245/2018 Parveen Kumar Jainn & Anr. v. M/s Shamlal Shiv Shankar & Ors. Page No.21/21
