Delhi District Court
Rajiv Gupta Huf Through Rajiv Gupta vs Mani Ram Sons on 4 July, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAURAV GOYAL, ARC-01, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, CENTRAL DISTRICT, DELHI
RC ARC NO. 1068/2014 (New NO. 78599/2016)
Rajiv Gupta HUF
Through its Karta
Sh. Rajiv Gupta,
S/o Late Sh. Sudarshan Lal
of 4332/3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi - 110002.................................................................... Petitioner
Versus
1. M/s Mani Ram & Sons
4329, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi - 110002
2. Sh. Ashok Kumar
S/o Late Sh. Gyarsi Lal
Proprietor of Mani Ram & Sons
4329/3, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002
3. Smt. Shakuntala Devi
W/o Late Sh. Gyarsi Lal
4. Smt. Santosh Bala
D/o Late Sh. Gyarsi Lal
5. Smt. Madhubala
D/o Late Sh. Gyarsi Lal
4329/3, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002
6. Sh. Madan Lal
S/o Late Sh. Mani Ram
4329/3, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj,
New Delhi- 110002 ........................................................... Respondents
Date of Institution of the case 21.10.2014
Under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B, Delhi
Rent Control Act.
Date of reserving of Order 22.04.2026
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 1 of 23
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:51:16 +0530
Date of Order 04.07.2026
Decision Eviction petition is allowed
Argued by:
a) Sh. Bharat Deepak, Ld. Counsel for petitioner.
b) Sh. Vineet Jain, Ld. Counsel for respondents no. 1 & 2
JUDGMENT
1) This judgment shall dispose of the eviction petition under
Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter called as
the DRC Act).
PETITION
2) Briefly stated, it is alleged by the petitioner that property
bearing municipal no. 4328-4334, situated at 3, Ansari Road, Darya
Ganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as subject premises) was
initially owned by Sh. Johri Lal and on his demise on 17.04.1993, the
said property was inherited by his only daughter Shanti Devi (mother of
Sh. Rajiv Gupta) being his only legal heir and also by virtue of
Will dated 03.01.1968. It is further stated that Smt. Shanti Devi demised
on 21.06.2004 and by virtue of Will dated 14.07.2002 which was duly
registered on 15.07.2002, Rajiv Gupta became the owner of the subject
premises. It is stated that thereafter Rajiv Gupta put the said property
into the common stock of his HUF and therefore, the property became
HUF property. It is averred that one shop bearing no. 4329, situated at 3,
Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and more specifically shown in red
colour in the site plan (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises)
was let out by previous owner to Sh. Mani Ram who carried on his
business as proprietor under the name of M/s Mani Ram & Sons. On his
death, he left behind two sons Gyarsi Lal and Madan Lal. However,
Madan Lal never sat on the shop and the elder son Gyarsi Lal started
getting the rent receipts as proprietor of M/s Mani Ram & Sons as he
was carrying the business and was in possession thereof. However, he
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 2 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:51:21 +0530
died leaving behind his Ashok Kumar, wife and daughter. Only Ashok
Kumar is carrying on the business in the tenanted premises as proprietor
of M/s Mani Ram & Sons.
3) It is further averred that petitioner HUF consists of Rajiv
Gupta, his wife Alka Gupta and their two sons. It is stated that the
portion shown in green colour in the site plan on the ground floor is in
the occupation of the petitioner, the portion of first floor shown in blue
colour and duchhatti also shown in blue colour is in possession of
petitioner’s nephew Nitin Gupta is carrying out his business of
publishing from there. It is further stated that the rest of the first floor of
the subject premises without colour also in the possession of the
petitioner. However, the portion as shown in yellow colour bearing no.
4328 & 4330 is in the occupation of another tenant Kishori Lal &
Sons.
4) It is further stated that the suit property is situated at Ansari
Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi which is hub of publishers and book sellers
who are main customers of the firms of the Rajiv Gupta and Alka Gupta.
It is averred that the total space available with the petitioner as shown in
green colour is about 400 sq. ft. However, with a total of seven
employees of the said two firms as well as the necessary equipment and
other accessories, there is not enough operating space. Hence, on
account of shortage of space, the petitioner has to shift the duplicating
machine, paper cutting machine, lamination and creasing machine on
the first floor. It is stated that these are comparatively light machines and
will be shifted back on the ground floor once the tenanted premises and
the adjoining premises in yellow colour are vacated. It is also stated that
there is no paper storage place on the ground for the said two businesses,
therefore, paper is stored on the first floor in the uncoloured portion.
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 3 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:00 +0530
Hence, it has to be constantly moved up for storage and down for
printing work. It is stated that the paper is available in the market in large
size and usually in bundle of about 60 KG. Further, this bundle due to its
weight and being 2×3 ft. or more, is carried to the first floor by the
labour through narrow staircase which is 2.5 ft. wide. Hence, labour
charges heavily for the said work and for the sometime the labour was
not available due to which the job also gets stuck. It is further averred
that business of both the businesses declined in the financial year 2012-
2013 which is clear from the financial figures of the businesses. It is
further averred that newer machines are also required to be installed by
Rajiv Gupta and his wife which have lower operating cost, however,
paucity of accommodation is a hurdle for the same. Hence, it is averred
that the tenanted premises shown in red colour are required for bonafide
need of furtherance and expansion of two businesses. It is averred that
the petitioner shall integrate and shall join the premises in the suit which
it already had in occupation with the tenanted premises as well as the
adjoining premises as shown in yellow colour. It is averred that the said
two business require New Model Digital Printing Machines which are
heavy duty but more productive and economical but bigger in size. These
new machines require larger space to be installed which presently is not
available on the ground floor. It is further stated that the petitioner HUF,
apart from subject premises, is also owner of (i) residential plots no. 65
& 76, DLF Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad; (ii) residential property no. 97,
Dayanand Vihar, Delhi – used for the residence of the petitioner except
the ground floor which was with a tenant who has vacated the premises
with effect from 01.09.2014; (iii) Residential plot no. B-15/3, DLF Ankur
Vihar, Ghaziabad; (iv) half of residential plot no. D-27/C-5, Tronica
City, Ghaziabad; (v) residential plot no. D-21/B1, Tronica City,
Ghaziabad and (vi) half of residential plot No. B-68/C7, Tronica City,
Ghaziabad. However, no suitable commercial accommodation is
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 4 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:06 +0530
available for the projected bonafide need. Hence, it is prayed that
eviction order may be passed against the respondents.
LEAVE TO DEFEND
5) Upon issuance of summons under the Third Schedule of the
DRC Act, only the respondent no.1 and 2 appeared and filed their leave
to defend application within the prescribed time period. However, leave
to defend application of respondents no.1 and 2 was allowed vide
order dated 11.12.2019 by Ld. Predecessor of this court.
WRITTEN STATEMENT
6) Thereafter, written statement was filed by the respondent no.1
and 2 wherein they have denied the contentions of the petitioner and
stated that the eviction petition is not maintainable. Firstly, it is
contended that petitioner is neither the owner nor landlord of the
property but only a Rent Collector on behalf of the owner /landlord Johri
Lal. Secondly, it is contended that the tenancy is commercial in nature
and respondents are running grocery/parchun shop for the last 70 years
and therefore, dependent upon it whereas earning of the petitioners is not
less than Rs. 15,00,000/- per month. Thirdly, it is contended that
petitioner is in possession of about 800 sq. ft. of the area on the ground
floor and more than 1100 sq. ft. on the first floor and more than 1000 sq.
ft on the second floor. Fourthly, it is contended that the petitioner is
having alternative accommodation in the form of three properties bearing
no. 65,76, and B-15/3, each in DLF, Ankur Vihar; one double storied
well-built property in Anand Vihar, Delhi; 50% share in two plots D-
27/C5, and 21/B1 and B-68/C7 in Tronica City. It is stated that the
petitioner has not disclosed in the entire petition as to how the said
properties are not suitable for the projected business. Fifthly, it is
contended that the petitioner himself has stated that the requirement is
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 5 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:12 +0530
for expansion of business but has not shown as to how the existing
accommodation is insufficient. Sixthly, it is contended that the property
falls in slum area and therefore, for integrating the tenanted premises and
adjoining yellow colour portion with the green colour portion, structural
change would be required for which slum permission is necessary,
however, the same has not been obtained. Seventhly, it is contended that
Alka Gupta is not dependent upon the petitioner for her bonafide need
because she has been running her own business. Eighthly, it is
contended that the need is not bonafide as the petitioner has
mechanically shown his nephew Nitin Gupta in occupation of the blue
portion of the first floor and duchhatti whereas the same is in the
possession of the petitioner only. Lastly, it is contended that the
petitioner has already obtained the vacant possession of paan shop
bearing no. 3/4334 and the same has been concealed by the petitioner. It
is also stated that the petitioner has sold out his property bearing no.
4766/23, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Hence, it is prayed that the present
petition may be liable to be dismissed.
REPLICATION
7) Thereafter, petitioner denied the averments of the respondent
no. 1 and 2 in the replication and reiterated the bonafide requirement of
the tenanted premises.
TRIAL
Petitioner’s Evidence
8) In order to prove his case, Rajiv Gupta examined himself as
PW-1. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon
the following documents:
(i) Ex.PW1/1 is site plan.
(ii) Ex. PW-1/1A is the clear copy of site plan.
(iii) Ex. PW-1/2 (OSR) is copy of Will dated 03.01.1968.
(iv) Ex. PW-1/3 (OSR) is copy of registered Will dated
14.07.2002 executed by my grandmother Smt. Shanti Devi
(v) Ex. PW-1/4 (OSR) (colly) are copies of six rent receipts.
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 6 of 23
Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:16 +0530
(vi) There is no document on record the DR petition
which has exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5 in the affidavit.
(vi) Ex. PW-1/6 (OSR) (colly) are the copies of four
invoices with regard to the purchase of card board from
Arun & Co., paper from Anil Paper Co. and Prakash
Trading Company.
(vii) Ex. PW-1/7 (Colly) are the five photographs.
(viii) Ex. PW-1/8 (OSR) is colored copy of brochure of K.
M. Bizhub C-8000.
(ix) Ex. PW-1/9 is photograph showing the installation of
machine.
(x) Ex. PW-1/10 (colly) are the six photographs of
machines already installed.
(xi) Mark A are the copies of 13 manufacturers brochures
showing the new machines. (The said document is de-
exhibited Ex. PW-1/11 and now marked as Mark A).
(xii) Ex. PW-1/12 is list showing the space required for
installation of new machines.
(xiii) Ex. PW-1/13 (colly) (OSR) are the photocopies of
PAN Cards.
(xiv) Mark B are copies of ITR, Copies of P/L Account,
balance sheet is Ex. PW-1/14(OSR). (The copies of ITRs
were the part of Ex. PW-1/14 and now marked B).
(xv) Ex. PW-1/15 (OSR) is photocopy of registered
Conveyance Deed dated 01.10.2007.
(xvi) Ex. PW-1/16 (OSR) is the photocopy of Property Tax
payment receipt for the year 2014-2015.
(xvii) Ex. PW-1/17 (colly) (OSR) are the photocopies of
Aadhaar Cards of wife Smt. Alka Gupta, sons namely
Siddharth Gupta, Sahil Gupta as well as my Aadhar card.
(xviii) Ex. PW-1/18 (colly) (OSR) are the photocopies of
Election Identity Cards of wife Alka Gupta, son Sahil
Gupta and my election identity card.
(xix) Ex. PW-1/19 (OSR) is photocopy of certificate of
registration issued by Department of Sales Tax, Delhi.
(xx) Ex. PW-1/20 (OSR) is photocopy of the allotment letter
of TIN number issued by Department of Sales Tax, Delhi.
(xxi) Ex. PW-1/21 (OSR) is photocopy of LIC policy in the
name of Sh. Ravindra Prasad Gupta.
(xxii) Ex. PW-1/22 (OSR) is photocopy of judgment dated
08.12.1995 passed by the Court of Mr. Rakesh Kapoor, the
then PO MACT.
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 7 of 23
Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:21 +0530
(xxiii) Ex. PW-1/23 (OSR) is photocopy of passbook of Smt.
Indra Gupta & Smt. Santi Devi.
(xxiv) Ex. PW-1/24 (OSR) is photocopy of degree of son
Siddharth Gupta.
(xxv) Mark C is photocopy of Property Tax Return filed by
the respondent (The said document is de-exhibited Ex. PW-
1/25 and now mark C).
(xxvi) Mark D is photocopy of Property Tax payment
receipt filed by the respondent. (The said document is de-
exhibited Ex. PW-1/25 and now mark D).
(xxvii) Ex. PW-1/27 (colly) are the 08 photographs of the
property of which tenant premises is a part.
9) He was cross examined at length by the counsel for
respondent. No other witness was examined on behalf of petitioner.
Matter was then adjourned for respondent’s evidence.
Respondent’s Evidence
10) Respondent no. 2 Ashok Kumar examined himself as RW-
1. He tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW-1/X. He was cross
examined at length by the counsel for petitioner. No other witness was
examined on behalf of respondent. Matter was then adjourned for final
arguments.
FINDINGS
11) Thereafter, final arguments were advanced by the respective
counsels on behalf of both the parties. At the outset, it is stated that there
is no doubt regarding the case laws relied upon on behalf of both the
parties where the Superior Courts have laid down the principles with
respect to provisions of the DRC Act, 1958 in different factual scenarios.
However, each case has its own distinguishing facts and circumstances
and each matter has to be decided in its own factual background. It is
trite to state that in a petition u/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act in order to get an
eviction order the petitioner/landlord is required to establish the
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 8 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:26 +0530
following: –
(i) That he/she is the owner/landlord of the property;
(ii) That he/she requires the premises bonafide and
iii) That he/she does not have any other alternative suitable
accommodation for this purpose.
LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONSHIP
12) As far as the landlord-tenant relationship is concerned, though
the respondents in the written statement had raised contention in this
regard but no arguments were pressed at the time of final arguments.
Even otherwise, at the time of deciding the leave to defend
application, in order dated 11.12.2019, it was held by the Ld.
Predecessor of this court that there exists landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties. It is pertinent to note that though the
respondents denied the ownership of Smt. Shanti Devi and Mr. Rajiv
Gupta over the property, they had not denied the authenticity of the
Wills, copy of which had been filed by the petitioner. Further, the
respondents do not even have any locus to dispute the Wills relied upon
by the petitioner. It has also not been denied that Mr. Johri Lal and Smt.
Shanti Devi have died. Since they have died, it was incumbent upon the
respondents to disclose as to who really is the owner of the property if
not the petitioner, and before him Smt. Shanti Devi. A mere bald denial
of the title of the petitioner by the respondents does not give rise to
any triable issue. In the case of Bharat Bhushan Vij Vs. Arti
Teckchandani 2008(153) DLT 247, the Hon’ble High Court held that it
was not in the domain of the tenant to challenge the Will of the deceased
landlord. It was observed that if a landlord is able to show that there is a
testament in his favour, he is deemed to have discharged his burden of
proving the ownership under the Act. If the tenant takes a frivolous
objection about ownership, it cannot be entertained unless the tenant
comes forward as to who was the landlord/owner of the premises and to
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 9 of 23
Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:31 +0530
whom he has been paying rent after the death of the original owner.
Furthermore, RW1 has admitted the rent receipts in his cross
examination. Also, the identity and extent of the tenanted premises is
also not in dispute since RW1 in his cross examination identified the
tenanted premises as red colour portion in site plan Ex PW1/1A; the
same portion as the petitioner. Accordingly, it can be stated that the
petitioner is the owner /landlord of the tenanted premises and the
respondents are the tenant in the said premises. Thus, the first ingredient
of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties in the present case,
stands established.
BONAFIDE NEED & NON-AVAILABILITY OF
ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION.
13) Moving forward, in order to succeed in their petition,
petitioners are required to establish their bonafide need. Petitioner HUF
has averred that the tenanted premises is required for bonafide need of
the business of its members Alka Gupta and Rajiv Gupta. However, it is
contended that the need is not bonafide as Alka Gupta is not dependent
upon the petitioner as she too is the owner of the properties of HUF. But
the Hon’ble Supreme court in Baldev Singh Bajwa vs Monish Saini
(2005) 12 SCC 778 has held that whenever a landlord seeks eviction of
the tenant for bonafide need, the controller shall presume the need as
genuine and bonafide. Additionally, the burden to refute the said
presumption squarely lies on the tenant and mere assertion on the part of
tenant is insufficient. Moreover, it is not in dispute that HUF is the owner
of the subject premises and Alka Gupta is also the member of the HUF.
In M M Quasim v/s Manohar Lal Sharma, (1981) 3 SCC 36, the Apex
Court has that the landlord does not have an unfettered right to choose
the premises but merely showing that the landlord has some other vacant
premises in his possession may not be sufficient to negative the
landlord’s claim if the vacant premises were not suitable for the purpose
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 10 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:36 +0530
for which he required the premises. Further, the provision of Section
19(2) of DRC Act is to be emphasized which protects a tenant in case the
landlord recovers possession of any premises and the premises are not
occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises
are held within two months of obtaining such possession or having
obtained the possession, the same are re-let to any other person within
three years from the date of obtaining the possession. It is also pertinent
to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abid-ul-Islam Vs. Inder
Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30 has held that Section 14 (1) (e) of the Act
creates a presumption in favour of the landlord regarding bona fide need,
which is rebuttable only with substantive material. It was further held
that the burden of proof is on the tenant to demonstrate, with cogent
evidence, that alternative accommodation is vacant and suitable for the
projected bonafide need of the landlord. Thus, the said contention is also
devoid of merits.
14) Secondly, it is contended that the respondent is dependent upon
the tenanted premises whereas Rajiv Gupta and his family members are
earning more than 15 lacs per month. In this regard, it is pertinent to note
that a person cannot be expected to sit idle and reach a state of starvation
before his need is considered bonafide. Reliance in this regard is placed
upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath
G. Panhale Vs. M/s Chaganlal Sunderji & Co. AIR 1999 SC 3864
wherein it was observed that: –
‘A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor
reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get
possession of his premises for establishing a business.”
15) Further, I also find it relevant to refer to the case of Smt.
Phool Kumari & Ors. Vs. Sh. Shyambir Tyagi RCR No. 318/2013
dated 01.10.2014, wherein the landlord sought possession of theRC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 11 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:41 +0530
tenanted premises on the ground that he was unemployed and needed
the premises to open a shop. The tenant denied that the landlord was
unemployed. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi upheld the order of the
Ld. Trial Court and observed that no triable issues were raised which
warrant that the application for leave to defend be allowed. Hence, the
said contention is of no assistance to the respondents. It is a matter of
common knowledge that litigation can continue for many years and
therefore, the petitioner cannot be expected to remain idle during the
said period. From the record, it is clear that though the present petition
was instituted in the month of October 2014, and it is only in July 2026
that the petition has reached the stage of order/judgment. Therefore, for
these years, it would be unjust to expect them to remain idle and reach a
state of starvation. Further, I find it pertinent to refer to the case of
Gaya Prasad Vs. Shri Pradeep Srivastava, Appeal Civil No.
1071/1072 of 2001 wherein it was observed as under: –
10. “….. During 23 years after the landlord moved for
eviction on the ground that his son needed the building. Neither
the landlord nor his son is expected to remain idle without
doing any work, lest, joining any new assignment or starting
any new work would be at the peril of forfeiting his requirement
to occupy the building. It is a 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. If a
young entrepreneur decides to launch a new enterprise and on
that ground he or his father seeks eviction of a tenant from the
building, the proposed enterprise would not get faded out by
subsequent developments during the traditional lengthy
longevity of the litigation. His need may get dusted, patina
might stick on its surface, nonetheless the need would remain
intact. All that is needed is to erase the patina and see the
glose. It is pernicious, and we may say, unjust to shut the door
before an appellant just on the eve of his reaching the finale,
after passing through all the previous levels of the litigation,
merely on the ground that certain developments occurred
pendentelite, because the opposite party succeeded in
prolonging the matter for such unduly long period.”
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 12 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:47 +0530
16) Furthermore, in case titled as “Satyawati Sharma Vs. U. O.
I. AIR 2008 SC 3148”, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
Section 14 (1)(e) of the 1958 Act is violative of the doctrine of equality
embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution of India in so far as it
discriminates between the premises let for residential and non-residential
purposes when the same are required bonafide by the landlord for
occupation for himself or for any member of his family dependent on
him and restricts the latter’s right to seek eviction of the tenant from the
premises let for residential purposes only. Thus, there is no bar on
landlord for seeking recovery of non-residential premises on the ground
of bonafide need under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. Also, it is a well
settled principle of law that a Rent Controller has to see the bonafide
requirement of the petitioner and not the comparative hardship of the
respondent. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the Apex Court’s
decision in Bega Begum and Ors. v. Abdul Ahad Khan and Ors
(1979) AIR 272 that the inconvenience loss and trouble resulting from
denial of decree of eviction in favour of the landlord far outweigh the
prejudice or the inconvenience which will be caused to the tenant. Thus,
the contention of respondent that the tenanted premises is being used by
him for commercial purpose and so the provision of Section 14 (1) (e) of
DRC Act is not applicable is misconceived and is hereby rejected.
17) Next, it is contended that petitioner has alternative
accommodation in the form of (i) residential plots no. 65 & 76, DLF
Ankur Vihar, Ghaziabad; (ii) Residential plot no. B-15/3, DLF Ankur
Vihar, Ghaziabad; (iii) half of residential plot no. D-27/C-5, Tronica
City, Ghaziabad; (iv) residential plot no. D-21/B1, Tronica City,
Ghaziabad and (v) residential plot No. B-68/C7, Tronica City,
Ghaziabad. However, in the case of Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem
Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, the Hon’ble Supreme court held that it is
settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 13 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:53 +0530
for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in
the matter. Reference may also be made to the case of Prativa Devi
(Smt) v. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353. Thus, it is the prerogative of
the landlord to determine which business he intends to start and from
where the said business is to be run. Moreover, requirement is for a
place of business in Delhi and therefore the said properties at
Ghaziabad cannot be considered to be alternative accommodations.
18) Next, it is contended that alternative accommodation is
available in property no. 97, Dayanand Vihar, Delhi with the petitioner.
But no material has been produced by the respondents to show that any
vacant commercial space is available in the said property. Therefore, a
bald assertion in this regard without any cogent material qua
availability of the purported commercial space in the said alternative
accommodation does not assist the case of respondents. Neither any
material has was put to PW1 in his cross examination in this regard, nor
RW1 produced any material in this regard in his evidence. Further, it is
trite to state that the burden is upon the tenant to show that other
alternative suitable accommodation is available with landlord and how
the said premises were suitable for the pleaded requirement. Reference is
made to the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
Lalta Prasad Gupta Vs. Sita Ram, 2017 SCC Online Del 13026,
wherein it was held as under: –
“18. Thus, if the tenant seeks leave to defend controverting
the requirement pleaded by landlord on the ground of the
landlord, though at the time of requirement having
alternate premises, having not used the same and instead
having commercially exploited the same, the tenant must
plead (a) the particulars of such premises; (b) the
right/title of the landlord to the same; (c) that the said
premises were vacant and available for use at the time of
pleaded requirement of landlord; (d) how the said
premises were suitable for the pleaded requirement; and
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 14 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYALGOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:52:58 +0530
(e) how the landlord has deprived himself thereof i.e. by
sale or letting and support the said pleas with material on
the basis whereof such pleas will be proved.”
19) In the present matter, despite leave being granted, no evidence
has been led by respondents to show any availability of commercial
space in the said accommodations. Therefore, the said plea is of no
assistance to the respondents
20) Further, it is contended that the essential pleadings are missing
as the petitioners have not pleaded the lack of alternative
accommodation. Here, I find it pertinent to refer to the case of Nalini
Kant Gupta Vs. Lajja Gupta, 2017 SCC Delhi 10247, wherein it was
held that once the tenant has had full opportunity and the parties have
gone to trial on all facts, the petition for eviction for self-requirement
cannot be dismissed on the ground of suppression. It was held that the
argument of concealment is not available in as much as no prejudice
can be said to have been suffered by the tenant after having an
opportunity to lead evidence on all pleas. Therefore, even if the
petitioner had concealed certain facts, the same is not a ground for
dismissal of the present eviction petition since the parties had an
opportunity to lead evidence. Hence, the said plea of respondents is also
devoid of merits.
21) Next, it is contended that it is a case of additional
accommodation and therefore the need is not bonafide. Counsel for the
respondent has also relied upon various judgments to contend that ‘in
cases where additional accommodation is asked for, normally leave to
defend should not be refused’. However, the said contention is
misconceived and devoid of merits. While the case of additional
accommodation or expansion of business may be a ground for grant for
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 15 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:53:47 +0530
leave to defend but that by itself cannot be a ground to reject the eviction
petition. The said judgments do not lay down any principle of law much
less salutary principle of law to be applied irrespective of the facts of the
case. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in A. M. Shah vs Pushpa Sodd, 92 (20010 DLT 694. Further, only by
looking into facts and circumstances of the case, it can be determined
whether bonafide need is made out or not. It is always the prerogative of
the landlord that if he requires the premises in question for his bonafide
use for expansion of his business, then, it is not for the respondent/tenant
to dictate the terms and advice as to what and what not should the
landlord do when he has other premises available. Reliance in this
regard is also placed upon Chand Daga vs Inder Mohan Singh Rana,
2002 (610) DRJ 410 and judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi cited as Sh. Gurcharan Lal Kumar vs Smt. Satayawati & Ors.
RC Rev, no. 285/12 decided on 24.04.2013. Reference is also made to
the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s
A.K.Woolen Industries and Ors. Vs. Shri Narayan Gupta RC Rev.
495/2017 dated 31.10.2017 in which the following was held: –
“19. The law to be applied in this regard has been laid
down by the Supreme Court in Ragavendra Kumar Vs.
Firm Prem Machinery & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679, Sait
Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimlabai Prabhulal
(2005) 8 SCC 252 and Anil Bajaj Vs. Vinod Ahuja (2014)
15 SCC 610. It has been held that even if the landlord has
other commercial premises available to him and even if the
landlord is carrying on other businesses, if it is found that
the landlord intends to use the premises in occupation of
the tenant for carrying on his business therefrom, the
landlord is entitled to an order of eviction and the Courts
cannot intervene in the same.
22) Further, it is contended that property is residential and not
mixed use or commercial; therefore, not suitable for the projected
commercial use. In this regard, reliance is placed upon internet generated
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 16 of 23Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:53:52 +0530
copy of property tax receipt for the year 2015-16 where it is mentioned
as residential property. However, it is not in dispute that business is
already being run in the subject premises and respondent is also using for
commercial purpose only. Furthermore, it is no longer res integra that the
landlord possesses the prerogative to determine his specific
requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. It is not within the
purview of the courts to impose directives on the landlord regarding the
nature or quality of their chosen usage of the tenanted premises.
Therefore, the courts refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines
for the landlord’s choices (residential or commercial). Reliance in this
regard can be placed upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs. Parmanand Garg in RC. Rev. No.
56/2018 decided on 09.11.2023. Hence, the said contention is devoid of
merits.
23) Next, it is contended that the landlord intends to integrate the
tenanted premises with the adjoining portions but the petitioner has not
taken the permission of the competent authority (Slum). In this regard, it
has been admitted by ld. Counsel for the petitioner during oral arguments
that the property falls within the slum areas, however, it is stated that
there is no requirement for seeking the requisite permission as the
present petition is a petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act. On the said
aspect, it is necessary to refer to the case titled as Shafait Ali Vs. Shiva
Mal (Dead) by LRs AIR 1988 SC 214, where in reference was made to
judgment delivered in Ravi Dutt Sharma Vs. Rattan Lai Bhargava
AIR 1984 SC 967 and it was held that:
“Section 14A, 14 (1)(E), 25A, 253 & 25C of Delhi Rent
Control Act are special provisions so far as the landlord and
tenant are concerned and further in the view of the non-
obstante clause in the Section, these provisions override the
existing law, so far as the new procedure is concerned. In
that view of that matter, we are of the opinion that the Slum
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 17 of 23
Digitally signed by
GAURAV GAURAV GOYALGOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:53:39 +0530
Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 would have
no application in these cases covered by Section 14A and 14
(1)(E) of the Delhi Rent Control Act specially in view of
provisions which were added by the Amending Act of 1976.
In view of the procedure in Chapter IIIA of the Rent Act, the
Slum Act is rendered inapplicable to the extent of
inconsistency and it is not, therefore, necessary for the
landlord to obtain permission of the Competent Authority
U/s. 19(1) (A) of the Slum Act before instituting a suit for
eviction and coming within Section 14(1) (e) of the Rent
Act.”
24) Accordingly in view of the above law, no permission was
required by the petitioner before filing the present petition u/s 14 (1) (e)
of DRC Act. As far as, the claim regarding the structural changes is
concerned, it is pertinent to note that PW1 has clarified in his cross
examination, that no structural changes are required to made. He
categorically deposed that to access the adjoining portion and the same
can be done by opening a door in the partition wall between the
premises. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that that the DRC act is
silent about any requirement of the landlord for giving details/divulging
anything qua the nature/purpose of the proposed business. Hence, the
landlord is not required to disclose the exact nature of use of premises in
eviction petition. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of
Hon’ble Delhi High Court in H S Banka vs Mohan Lal 2025 SCC
Online Del 6372. Even otherwise, in the case of Raj Kumar Khaitan &
Ors. Vs. Bibi Zubaid Khatun & Ors, AIR 1995 SC 576, it was held by
Hon’ble Supreme Court that even if the nature of business would have
been indicated, nobody could bind the landlords to start the same
business in the premises after it was vacated. Thus, it is the prerogative
of the landlord to determine which business he intends to start and
whether the tenanted premises is suitable or not for said purpose. Thus,
the said contention is also devoid of merits.
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 18 of 23
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:53:34 +0530
25) Further, it is contended that the petitioner has sold 4766/23 and
therefore, the need is not bonafide. But the said plea is also of no
assistance to the respondent. In the cross examination, RW1 stated that
he does not know when the said property was sold by the petitioner. In
this regard, reliance is placed upon the case of Shyam Sunder Ahuja Vs.
Sushil Kumar, 2017 SCC Online Del 10624, wherein the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi has held that the plea that the landlord has sold some
property or let out some property is not a ground to deny the order of the
eviction to the landlord. The relevant extract is reproduced here under: –
“16. Not only so, the petitioner/tenant also did not state
that there was no change in the requirement of the
respondent/landlord since then. Merely taking a plea that
the respondent/landlord has in the past sold some
property or let out some property has in Narender Kumar
Shah Proprietor Jay Bharat Steels Vs. Malti Narang 2014
SCC Online Del 3839 and Anil Kumar Bagania Vs. Shiv
Rani 2014 SCC Online Del 6645 been held to be not a
ground for denying order of eviction to landlord on the
ground of self-requirement of premises.”
26) Further, reference is made to the decision of the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi in the case of Mohinder Singh Vs. Satish Chander
Sikka RC Rev. 35/2023 dated 08.10.2025 in which the following was
held: –
“14. Further, the sale of certain premises by the landlord
before filing of the eviction petition under Section
14(1)(e) of the DRC Act are irrelevant and immaterial as
they cannot be a determining factor for his need of the
subject premises at present. Once again,
sale/purchase/lease of other properties by the landlord are
not an impediment for a landlord to file eviction
proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. In any
event, the tenant had merely made bald and vague
assertions with no substantiation, which in view of the
settled position of law in Sarla Ahuja v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. and Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal were
insignificant and inconsequential.”
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 19 of 23
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:53:29 +0530
27) Next, it is contended that the need is not bonafide as petitioner
has alternative accommodation in the form of portion in blue colour in
the site plan which the petitioner has falsely stated to be his nephew. It is
contended that the said portion is lying vacant. In the alternative, it is
contended that the said portion even if occupied, is with nephew of
petitioner from whom the petitioner can get the same vacated. But
nothing has been brought on record to show that the said portion is lying
vacant. Rather, the PW1 has in his cross examination clarified that the
said blue colour portion is with his nephew Nitin Gupta since 1999 and
prior to that it was with his sister Indira Gupta. However, even if, for the
sake of arguments the said portion is assumed to be vacant, it is pertinent
to note the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Uday Shankar
Upadhyay v. Naveen Maheshwari (2010) 1 SCC 503, where it was
held that it is not for the Courts to say that the landlord should shift to the
first floor or any higher floor as it is well known that shops and
businesses are usually conducted on the ground floor, because the
customers can reach there easily. It was reiterated that the Court cannot
dictate to the landlord which floor he should use for his business and
that is for the landlord himself to decide. It is trite to state that landlord
being the best judge of his own requirement is the best person to decide
as to which premises he has to choose for conducting his business and a
tenant cannot force the landlord to conduct his business from the
basement or upper floors. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Rajendera
Kumar Tandon 72 (1998) DLT 629 that the landlord is not disentitled
from seeking recovery of the possession of a ground floor merely on the
plea that he is also in possession of first floor and second floor so long as
the court is satisfied with respect to the bonafide requirement of the
landlord for the tenanted premises. Hence, it cannot be held to be an
alternative accommodation.
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 20 of 23
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:53:24 +0530
28) Lastly, it is contended that sufficient space is available with the
portioner at the ground floor itself. It is contended that petitioner is in
possession of about 800 sq. ft. of the area on the ground floor. However,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court have repeatedly
held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the landlord and
dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to be best
utilized by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his property and is
the best person to decide which property is to be utilized in what way.
Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in
case of Praveen & Anr. Vs. Mulak Raj & Ors. RC Rev. 417/2016 in this
regard. Thus, the court cannot make choices for the landlord as to how he
should run his business. It is also pertinent to note though with the leave
to defend application counter site plan was filed by respondent, however,
the said counter site plan was not tendered in evidence by the respondent
and only when confronted in cross examination did, he admit the same.
In the case of V.S. Sachdeva Vs.M.L. Grover 1997 (2) RCR 302, it
was held that if no site plan is filed by tenant, then the site plan filed by
the landlord is deemed to be correct. Also, in the case of Rishal Singh
Vs. Bohat Ram & Ors. 2014 (144) DRJ 633, the Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi held that it is settled law that when the tenant contests the accuracy
of the site plan filed by the landlord, he is required to file a copy of the
site plan, he believes to be correct so as to guide the Court in finding the
discrepancies in the site plan filed by the landlord. It was observed that
without such site plan being filed, the mere contentions raised to this
effect will be considered meritless. The said conduct of non-tender of the
site plan by the respondent shows that plea regarding 800 sq ft being
available with petitioner at ground floor is a bald averment.
Moreover, in the said counter site plan as well no dimensions have
been mentioned for assisting the plea of respondent that 800 sq ft of area
is available with petitioner on the ground floor. Per Contra, as per the
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 21 of 23
GAURAV Digitally signed by
GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:53:18 +0530
dimensions given in site plan of the petitioner, the said area is around
400 sq ft only. No contradictory material is on record to show that it is
800 sq ft. In this regard, the decision of the Hon’ble High Court passed in
the case of Mohd. Naseer Vs. Mohd. Zaheer and Anr. RC Rev. No.
267/2016 dated 03.11.2016 is to be noted in which it was held that mere
raising of baseless contentions against the landlord cannot be a
ground denying eviction order to the landlord. Furthermore, while
deciding the question of bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is
quite unnecessary to make an endeavor as to how else the landlord
could have adjusted. It is not for the court or the tenant to dictate to the
landlord to adjust in a smaller portion when on the contrary he can use
the tenanted premises. Therefore, even if the landlord has other
commercial premises available to him and even if the landlord is
carrying on other businesses, since the petitioners intend to use the
premises in occupation of the tenant for needs of business already being
carried out from subject premises, the Court cannot intervene in the
same. Even in the case of K.K. Sarin Vs. M/s Pigott Chapman & Co. 46
(1992) DLT 352, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that the tenant has
to produce material on which he is relying upon. Since no material has
been placed on record by the respondent, there is no reason to believe
that the petitioner has alternative reasonable accommodation. Also, in
case the petitioner fails to occupy the premises as has been claimed by
him, the Delhi Rent Control Act also provides for recovery of possession
by the respondent/tenant of the tenanted premises for his re-entry and
occupation. It is pertinent to note herein the case of Ravichandran and
Ors. Vs Natrajan Nadar and Ors. (2004) 1 MLJ 458, wherein it was
held:
“Even assuming that other premises are available, then the
choice is left to the landlord to decide as to which non-
residential premises he should occupy, and the tenant
cannot have any say in the matter. If the landlord is able to
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 22 of 23
Digitally signed
GAURAV by GAURAV
GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:53:13 +0530
show the bonafide, then the tenant cannot dictate terms to
the landlord that he should occupy some other building
and not the one mentioned in the petition.”
29) Thus, it is neither open for the court nor for the tenant to
decide as to how else the landlord could make adjustments in his
property. Hence, in the light of the aforesaid observations and findings,
I find that petitioner has been able to establish his bonafide need and
respondents have failed to show any suitable alternative
accommodation for the said bonafide need.
RELIEF
30) Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, I hold
that the petitioners have been able to establish the ingredients of the
eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The net result is
that petitioner has been able to establish that the tenanted premises is
required bonafidely by hem for the expansion of business of Rajiv Gupta
and Alka Gupta and that no other reasonably suitable alternative
accommodation is available to them for this purpose. Respondents have
failed to prove their defense. Accordingly, petition stands allowed and
eviction order is passed in terms of Section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents
with respect to the tenanted premises i.e. one shop bearing no. 4329,
situated at 3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and more specifically
shown in red color in the site plan Ex. PW-1/1A. No order as to
costs.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by
(Announced in the Open Court)
GAURAV GAURAV GOYAL
GOYAL Date: 2026.07.04
12:53:08 +0530
(GAURAV GOYAL)
ARC-01, Central District, THC
Delhi/04.07.2026
RC ARC No. 78599/2016 Rajiv Gupta HUF Vs. Mani Ram & Sons Page no. 23 of 23
[ad_1]
Source link
