SMT. DURGA DEVI JAIN v. DR HARISH CHANDER BANGA

Judgment

#1. The present petition under Section 25 (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581 seeks the following prayers: - “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to: - (a) Summon/ call for the records of the Ld. Trial Court of Sh. Sachin Sangwan, ARC, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in RC No. 6212 of 2016, titled as Smt. Durga Devi Jain versus Dr. Harish Chander Banga, decided vide judgment dated 25.09.2018, and after perusing the same; (b) set aside the impugned judgment dated 25.09.2018 by the Ld. Trial 1 DRC Act Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 Court of Sh. Sachin Sangwan, ARC, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, whereby the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to dismiss the petition filed by the petitioner; and Such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case be also passed in favour of petitioner and against respondent to meet the ends of justice.”

#2. The present petition assails the judgment dated 25.09.20182 passed in RC ARC No. 6212/20163 by the learned ACJ cum CCJ cum ARC, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi 4 , whereby the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Acts preferred by the present Petitioner against the present Respondent, was dismissed.

#3. The Petitioner in her eviction petition had stated that she is the owner/landlady of the property bearing No. 90, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi5, and on the ground floor of the said property, one shop admeasuring 20 ft. x 20 ft.6 was let out in favour of the Respondent, vide a lease deed in the year 1985, for a period of 11 months and at the time of filing the eviction petition, the rent for the tenanted premises was INR 1,925/- per month, excluding other charges. It was stated that the Respondent is a doctor by profession, and he was running his clinic from the tenanted premises, and subsequently he had further sub-let a portion of the tenanted premises, in favour of M/s Lal Pathlabs, without the written consent, knowledge or 2 Impugned Judgment 3 Eviction Petition/Eviction Proceedings 4 Learned ARC 5 Subject Premises/Property No. 90 6 Tenanted Premises Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 permission of the Petitioner and M/s Lal Pathlabs was carrying on its business from the tenanted premises. It was stated that the Respondent did not require the tenanted premises as he occasionally opened his clinic, and most of the times, the same was being opened by M/s Lal Pathlabs.

#4. Subsequently, an amended eviction petition was filed by the Petitioner, wherein it was stated that the tenanted premises were bona fidely required by the Petitioner for herself and her grandson, i.e., Mr. Rishab Jain, who was unemployed and he wanted to start his own business of diamonds and jewellery from the tenanted premises, as the same was situated at a prime location and there was no other suitable commercial accommodation available in Delhi or outside Delhi in her grandson’s name. The Petitioner further stated that her family is also the owner of another property bearing No. 87, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi 7 , and in the said property the family of the Petitioner was residing, and since the said property was not in a good condition, the family of the Petitioner had to shift to Jangpura Extension, in December, 2016.

#5. It was the case of the Respondent that when the tenanted premises were let out to him, he was assured that he shall never be disturbed and he could set up his permanent medical practice from the tenanted premises. The

Respondent further stated that Mr. Rishabh Jain is not the real grandson of the Petitioner, as he is the son of Mr. Praveen Jain, who is the son of Sh. Ram 7 Property No. 87 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 Kumar Jain (Petitioner’s husband) and his other wife Smt. Kanta Devi. It was further stated that Mr. Rishabh Jain intended to pursue Chartered Accountancy and even if Mr. Rishabh Jain intended to start his own jewellery business, there existed ample space and opportunity with him, as his family members were already running jewellery business from Bhogal, New Delhi. It was further stated that there existed ample space with the Petitioner in the form of commercial premises at Hari Nagar Ashram itself, as Smt. Kanta Devi was the owner of property No. 87, where several shops were lying vacant. It was stated that the Petitioner had not disclosed that the entire second floor of the subject premises, i.e., property No. 90 had been sold by the Petitioner to M/s Sona Steel Work. It was further stated that the Petitioner had suppressed the fact that she was also the owner of ground floor and basement of property No. 88, Hari Nagar Ashram8.

#6. Thereafter, the leave to defend was allowed by the learned ARC and evidence was led by both the parties and the impugned judgment was passed by, thereby dismissing the eviction petition filed by the Petitioner. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

#7. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the husband of the Petitioner had two wives, namely, the Petitioner herself and Smt. Kanta Devi, who also happened to be the real sister of the Petitioner, and 8 Property No. 88 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 admittedly, the entire family of the Petitioner, i.e., her husband, Smt. Kanta Devi, two sons, namely, Mr. Praveen Kumar and Mr. Vimal Jain, along with their wives and children, were all residing under one roof. The said fact was admitted by the Respondent in his cross-examination dated 04.07.2018, and thus, the entire unit was one family, and the accommodation of any member of the family could be made available for the bona fide need of the grandchildren. The relevant portion of the said cross-examination is reproduced as under: - “It is correct that petitioner, her husband, his second wife and all of the children reside together as a joint family.”

#8. It was further argued that the DRC Act does not define the term “family”. It was submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, in various judgments, had held that in context of DRC Act, family of the landlord would comprise of all those members of a family who stay under one roof, including step sons, step grandsons, etc., and for the purposes of DRC Act, a relative staying under the same roof may also be considered to be a part of the family of the landlord. In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon the following judgments: - i. ii. K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal9; Gobind Das v. Kuldip Singh10; iii. Manju Devi v. Pratap Singh11. 9 1996 (9) SCALE 375, Para(s) 32, 33 10 1971 AIR (Del) 151, Para(s) 7, 8 11 2015 SCC OnLine Del 7516, Para(s) 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019

#9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that since the Respondent had admitted in his cross examination dated 04.07.2018 that the entire family of the Petitioner was residing under one roof, and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court that the same would be construed as a joint family, the tenanted premises could be made available for the bona fide need of her grandson, and the only caveat being that the properties held in the name of other family members of the Petitioner were not suitable for the bona fide need of Mr. Rishabh Jain. In this context, reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Shyam Bihari Singh v. Sushila Devi12, and particularly on the following paragraph: - “11. It was then contended that the very fact that one of the rooms could be spared for a shop would mean that the landlady had sufficient residential accommodation available with her. Merely because the chemist shop was opened in a room, which was previously being used for residential purposes, would not, by itself, landlady had sufficient residential prove or show accommodation. It may be necessary, as in this case, that the son of the landlady must start earning a livelihood. In order to do so the landlady had sacrificed her comforts and altered the use of the room. The use was altered because of necessity. For reasons beyond the landlady's control it became necessary that one of the residential rooms should be used for a shop. It may be that the accommodation which remained with the landlady may still be sufficient and adequate for residential premises but the mere fact that a room was converted into a shop would not, by itself, prove that the accommodation that remained with the landlady was sufficient.” 12 1982 (21) DLT 35 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019

#10. With respect to availability of the shops situated in Bhogal, it was stated by the Petitioner that the same had been disclosed, and that one of the shops was occupied by the father of Mr. Rishabh Jain for carrying on his own gold business. Qua another shop in Bhogal market, from where business was done in the name and style of “Silver House” by the other son of the Petitioner, namely Mr. Vimal Jain, it was stated that the same had also been disclosed, and it had been clearly stated that the said shop was occupied by the second son of the Petitioner. It was further submitted that the said shops in Bhogal Market were not suitable for the bona fide need of Mr. Rishabh Jain, as it had been clearly stated in the eviction petition that the latter intended to start an independent business as a diamond merchant, and thus, Mr. Rishabh Jain could not be expected to share the same either with his father or his uncle, from where they were already running their respective jewellery businesses.

#11. With respect to availability of property No. 87, Hari Nagar Ashram, it was submitted that the same was held in the name of Smt. Kanta Devi, i.e., the other grandmother of Mr. Rishabh Jain, and the said property was not suitable for the bona fide need of Mr. Rishabh Jain, and even if it is presumed that the said property was available, Mr. Rishabh Jain cannot be compelled to satisfy his need from the said shops. It was further submitted that the tenanted premises was a building open from two sides and was located on the main Mathura Road, Ashram, New Delhi. It was stated that the property No. 87 was situated in a narrow lane, adjacent to the tenanted premises and the said Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 property consisted of six shops and faced a local shopping complex, where a vegetable market was set up every evening, and thus, the said property was not suitable for the bona fide need of Mr. Rishabh Jain, as a sophisticated business such as a diamond showroom could not be run from shops facing a vegetable market, and the tenanted premises, in comparison to property No. 87, being situated on the main road, was much better suited for the bona fide need of Mr. Rishabh Jain, as the tenanted premises would have better footfall, apart from having adequate parking space available

#12. It was further submitted that a landlord is free to choose a property from where he intends to carry on the business, and a tenant could not object to it. It was further submitted that the availability of other alternate accommodations was to be considered in the hand of the Petitioner, who had filed an eviction petition. To support the same, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Satish Kumar & Anr. v. Kanwar Raj Singh13, and particularly on the following paragraph: - in support “8. Qua contention a) the petitioners have alleged the respondent has an alternative accommodation at 2729- 31, Gali Pattewali, Naya thereof has placed a Bazar, Delhi-110006 and photograph at page No.257 of the paperbook showing an office of M/s. Solan Shimla Transport Company Private Limited in the said shop. The respondent explains in his reply to the application for leave to defend that from the said shop his son is carrying transport business, however it is not suitable as it lies in a narrow lane/gali and even the vehicles of his son cannot enter or be parked in the small lane/gali and are rather parked in front of this very subject property. Even otherwise, per settled law it is an owner who has to 13 2020 (4) AD (Delhi) 517 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 take a call to decide as to which of his shop(s) is most suitable for his business. A tenant cannot dictate his own terms to the landlord. If the respondent says shop at property viz 2729-31, Gali Pattewali, Naya Bazar, Delhi-110006 is not suitable for his purpose, the petitioners cannot dictate their terms upon him and ask him to forget about the tenanted shop, hence, contention a) is rejected. Even otherwise, the concept of alternative accommodation as to which property is the most suitable for the landlord has to be seen from the point of view of the landlord. The tenant cannot dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner landlord should use his own property. (See Viran Wali vs Kuldeep Rai Kochhar 174 (2010) DLT 328).”

#13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in furtherance of the aforesaid, had placed reliance upon the following judgment(s): - i. ii. Ram Prasad Singh v. Mukand Lal14; Har Lal Gupta v. Anil Aggarwal15; iii. Shri Babu Ram Gupta v. Shri Chander Prakash16; iv. Madhu Sudan Kakkar v. Jawahar Lal17. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

#14. Per contra, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the Petitioner had nowhere revealed the fact of Smt. Kanta Devi being the wife of Sh. Ram Kumar Jain in the entire eviction petition, and that the said fact had been mentioned only in the present petition. It was further argued that 14 1952 O AIR (P&H) 189, paragraph 5 15 2021 LAWPACK (Del) 86206, paragraph 4, 8 16 2023 (298) DLT 586, paragraph 18, 19, 20 17 2017 (238) DLT 515, paragraph 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 it was the Respondent who had brought the said fact on record, along with the fact that Mr. Praveen Jain was not the son of the Petitioner, but of Smt. Kanta Devi.

#15. Learned counsel for the Respondent had further submitted that the findings of the learned ARC in the impugned judgment were based on careful perusal, consideration and analysis of the entire pleadings and the evidence placed on record. It was submitted that the Petitioner had wrongly mentioned that the eviction petition was filed through her General Power of Attorney, i.e., her elder son namely Mr. Praveen Jain; however, a perusal of the record would reflect that the eviction petition was filed by the Petitioner and thereafter, the amended eviction petition was filed through Mr. Praveen Jain.

#16. Attention of this Court was further drawn to the impugned judgment to contend that the learned ARC had categorically dealt with the issue of Mr. Praveen Jain being the son of Smt. Kanta Jain and it was further submitted that the learned ARC had further observed that the Petitioner had failed to prove that Mr. Praveen Jain was the son of the Petitioner, and consequently, Mr. Rishabh Jain was the step grandson of the Petitioner.

#17. It was further submitted that the Petitioner had sought an additional amendment to the eviction petition, whereby the alleged bona fide requirement had been changed from being for Mr. Rishabh Jain, to being for her granddaughter; however, the same had been withdrawn subsequently by the Petitioner. It was argued that such conduct on the part of the Petitioner, in Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 repeatedly changing the alleged bona fide requirement, clearly demonstrated a lack of consistency and genuineness, thereby rendering the present bona fide requirement a mere sham.

#18. Learned counsel for the Respondent had further drawn attention of this Court to the cross examination dated 20.09.2016 of Mr. Praveen Jain, to contend that it was put to the latter that he was not the biological son of the Petitioner, but of Smt. Kanta Jain. The relevant portion of the said cross examination is reproduced as under: - “Cross examination of PW-1, i.e., Mr. Praveen Jain dated 20.09.2016 …It is wrong to suggest that I am not the biological son of petitioner. It is further wrong to suggest that I am biological son of Smt. Kanta Devi Jain. Vol. My father Shri Ram Kumar Jain firstly married Smt. Kanta Devi Jain and later on he married Smt. Durga Devi Jain. It is correct that in the case filed by Smt. Kanta Devi against Smt. Meera Banwari, she had given me a Power of Attorney and mentioned in the same as being her son. It is also correct that subsequently during the pendency of present eviction petition, in the eviction petition filed by Smt. Kanta Devi Jain against Shri Subhash Chand Jain, she had appointed me as an attorney, being her son.” It was submitted that Mr. Praveen Jain had admitted that Smt. Kanta Devi had filed another eviction petition against one Smt. Meera Banwari, and had executed a Power of Attorney in his favour for filing the said petition, wherein he had been described as her son. It was further submitted that, even during the pendency of the present eviction proceedings, Smt. Kanta Devi had filed another eviction petition against Sh. Subhash Chand Jain, and in the said petition as well, she had appointed Mr. Praveen Jain as her attorney, Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 describing him as her son. The same had also been admitted by the Petitioner in her cross-examination dated 03.03.2016, and the same is reproduced as under: - “Cross examination of PW-2, i.e., Smt. Durga Devi Jain dated 03.03.2016 It is incorrect to suggest that I am also falsely stated that Sh. Parveen Jain is my son. It is correct that Smt. Kanta Jain had stated in her eviction petitions against post office, Smt. Meera Banwari and Sh. Subhash Chand that Sh. Parveen was her son and she required premises for her sons and their families inclusive of Sh. Vimal Kumar.”

#19. It was further submitted that the Petitioner had suppressed the alternate properties available with her, as well as those available with Smt. Kanta Jain, namely, properties bearing Nos. 87 and 88, and that the same had been brought on record by the Respondent. Attention of this Court was drawn to the cross-examination of the Petitioner, dated 16.07.2014, and particularly to the following portion(s): - “Cross examination of PW-2, i.e., Smt. Durga Devi Jain dated 16.07.2014 …It incorrect that I am the owner of the ground floor and basement of property bearing no. 88, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi. The ground floor has two shops. One shop has been sold by me to M/s Bhardwaj Chemist but I do not remember the year. One shop and basement is still with me. It is correct that in property bearing no. 87, Hari Nagar, Ashram, New Delhi, there were seven shops. One shop was got vacated by Smt. Kanta Jain from the postal department and was merged in the residential portion. It is correct that the shop that was got vacated by Smt. Kanta Jain from Ms. Meera Banwari is with us. Our goods are lying there. The shop adjacent to the shop Ms. Meera Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 Banwari has been let out to one Dr. Devender Jain. The two shops adjacent to the clinic of Dr. Jain are in possession of our relative.

#20. It was further submitted that during the course of trial, the Petitioner had amended the eviction petition and the Respondent had been granted an opportunity to cross examine the Petitioner and Mr. Praveen Jain. It was further submitted that property No. 87, in the meantime, had been demolished and reconstructed. Attention of this Court was further drawn to the cross examination of Mr. Praveen Jain, dated 06.02.2018, to contend that he had refused to answer questions qua the property No. 87 and the same had been observed by the learned ARC as well. It was further stated that Mr. Praveen Jain in the said cross examination had admitted that the said property had been reconstructed and it had five floors and it was further admitted that the ground floor of the said property was commercial in nature, having shops and open space. The relevant portion of the said cross examination is reproduced as under: - “Cross examination of PW-1, i.e., Mr. Praveen Jain dated 06.02.2018 I am presently residing at B-Block, Jungpura for about last one year and three months. It is correct that property No.87 has been reconstructed after demolition of the entire property. It is correct that there are five floors. (Vol. There is basement and four other floors in property No.87 alongwith stilt parking.) It is wrong to suggest that there no stilt parking and there is regular ground floor beside four other floors. At this stage, witness is shown photograph of property No.87 by the counsel for respondent and asked to identify the stilt parking. After Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 seeing the photograph, witness has identified the place where stilt parking is situated. The said place is now point A (encircled), the photograph is now Ex.PW1/R1. (Vol. I do not have concern with property No.87 as on date since my brother looks after the same). I do not know that the place where the shutters are seen (encircled) in the photograph, are shops or not. I have not filed any photograph or site plan of property No.87 after its re-construction. (Vol. I do not have any concern with the property No.87) Court Observation: Witness has all of a sudden started refusing to give answers qua Property No.87 which initially he was giving. It is correct that prior to reconstruction, there was shops on the ground floor in Property No.87 which had been let out to various tenants. It is correct that reconstruction was made after tenants were evicted from the property. (Vol. Some of them were evicted and some of them voluntarily left the property). I am not aware whether none of the earlier tenants were re-allocated shops in property No.87 after its re construction. I also do not know if the shops at the ground floor are lying vacant. I do not know whether the entire property No.87. is commercial or not after its re-construction. I go to Ashram almost daily for various purposes but I do not go to property No.87. It is correct that I cross the shop/clinic of respondent when I enter the lane from Ashram. I have not noticed whether there are two bigs shops in property No.87. (Vol. I cross the lane on car and do not look side ways while driving).” It was further submitted that Mr. Praveen Jain, had further deposed in the said cross examination that his brother, Mr. Vimal Jain, would be able to explain the situation qua property No. 87; however, Mr. Vimal Jain was not produced before the learned ARC to explain the same. Reliance was placed on the following portion(s) of the said cross examination: - Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 “…My brother Mr. Vimal Jain is in Delhi. He only knows about property No.87 and can tell about the same. (Vol. He knows about the same for last two months) Court Query: Witness states prior to two months, there were no shops in property No.87, nor there were any shutter gates in the said property. It is correct that my brother can explain as to the situation at site/property No.87 presently.”

#21. Learned counsel for the Respondent had further submitted that the arguments of the Petitioner that being a joint family, any member of the family could seek accommodation for another member of the family, and the learned ARC had failed to appreciate that the Petitioner could seek eviction for Mr. Rishabh Jain as her stepson, are untenable. It was submitted that even if it is presumed that any member of the joint family could seek eviction for the need of another member, then the accommodation available with the joint family would also have to be considered when the question of availability of alternate accommodation is being dealt with. Attention of this Court was drawn to the cross examination of Mr. Praveen Jain, dated 20.09.2016, to submit that the latter had admitted that the properties of both, Smt. Kanta Devi and the Petitioner, were available to the family for use, and thus, while asserting the jointness of the family, the Petitioner cannot on the other hand allege that the properties available to the family cannot be considered. The relevant portion(s) of the said cross examination is reproduced as under: - “Cross examination of PW-1, i.e., Mr. Praveen Jain dated 20.09.2016 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 It is correct that my father Shri Ram Kumar Jain, Smt. Kanta Devi and Smt. Durga Devi, myself, my wife and children as well as my youngest brother Shri Vimal Jain, his wife and children all reside together. It is also correct that the shops / properties belonging to Smt. Kanta Devi Jain as well as Smt. Durga Devi Jain are available to the entire family for use.”

#22. Learned counsel for the Respondent had placed reliance upon the following portion(s) of the impugned judgment to contend that the learned ARC had rightly dealt with the Petitioner’s plea regarding the suitability of the tenanted premises. It was further submitted that the learned ARC had rightly held that Mr. Rishabh Jain could not be said to be dependent upon the Petitioner, when a number of suitable accommodations were available with his real grandmother, i.e., Smt. Kanta Devi. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced as under: - “However, the question is regarding the proving of dependency first and the suitability plea cannot be pressed upon by a family member to prove dependency. For example, if a person is owning a three bedroom house, he cannot say that he is dependent on the head of the family for his residential requirement as said head of family is having a five bedroom house and same is better suited to him as he will have better quality of life in a bigger house. As per section 14(l)(e) of DRC the suitability plea can be raised only by landlord or the person on behalf of whom landlord is collecting the rent, inter se the rented premises and the other properties of landlord or such person. Here, the exact language of section 14(l)(e) has to be reproduced. Section 14(l)(e) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 provides that Controller may make an order for recovery of possession of tenanted premises on the ground (e) "that the premises let for residential purposes are required bonafide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 reasonably suitable residential accommodation". As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India 2008(6) SCALE 326 the words "let for residential purposes" shall be deemed to be omitted and the provision shall apply to non residential premises also. It is to be noted that the last part of the section 14(1)(e) in regard to non availability of alternative suitable accommodation refers to "landlord or such person" and not "landlord or such member or such person". This omission by legislature is deliberate and has a significant purpose to serve. It means that suitability cannot be of such dependent member between properties available to him of his own or his nearer relations vis landlord. a vis Consequently, it implies that dependency has to be absolute and not relative. Resultantly the alleged member of family cannot claim to be dependent on his step grand mother when number of properties are available to him through his real grand mother who is also part of same joint family. the properties of his farther relations i.e. It is not the case of petitioner that real grandmother of Risbah Jain is on bad terms with him and is not ready to give him an inch of her property for use. It is to be noted that admittedly even real uncle of Rishab Jain i.e. Vimal Jain is having commercial property at Bhogal. Further, it is nowhere claimed by petitioner that real grandfather of Rishab Jain i.e. Ram Chander has no commercial property. Therefore, in the given circumstances, the basic fact that Rishab Jain is dependent on her step grand mother i.e. petitioner for his need of commercial property is not proved.”

#23. Learned counsel for the Respondent, in support of his contentions hereinabove, had placed reliance upon the following judgment(s): - i. Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta18; 18 (1999) 6 SCC 222 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:20.05.2026 17:41:29 RC.REV. 30/2019 ii. Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal19; iii. M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma & Ors.20; iv. Bharat Glass and Plywood Co. v. Sushan Pal Soni21; v. Kanta Gupta v. Goverdhan Dass Daga22. REJOINDER SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

#24. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that mere non-disclosure of property No. 88 in the eviction petition would not render the same non- maintainable. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the latter had been cross examined by the Respondent with respect to property No. 88. It was further submitted that this Court, in catena of judgments, had held that once leave to defend is granted, and if there existed a property which had not been disclosed in the eviction petition, and it was eventually found that such property was not suitable for the bona fide need, then mere non-disclosure of the same would not amount to concealment. Reliance was placed on the following judgments and particularly on the following paragraphs: -

#1. Vinod Gupta v. Kailash Aggarwal & Ors.23; “17. Thus, the landlord being the best person to choose how much space is needed for him/her or his family member dependent upon