M/S MEGA OVERSEAS PVT LTD v. RAHUL GOEL

Judgment

#1. The respondent/ landlord1 filed an Eviction Petition being E.P. No.78636/2016 under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582, against the petitioner/ tenant3 before the learned Additional Rent Controller-01, Central District, Tis Harari Courts, Delhi4, seeking eviction from property bearing no.4980/40, ground floor, front portion, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110 002.5 2. Succinctly put, it was the case of the landlord therein that the subject 1 Hereinafter referred to as “landlord” 2 Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” 3 Hereinafter referred to as “tenant” 4 Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC” 5 Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises” RC.REV. 52/2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:09.01.2026 17:39:31 premises earlier belonged to his late grandfather, Sh. Mangal Sen, however, subsequent to his death, by virtue of a Will dated 14.05.1990 (Will), the same came into the share of his late father, Sh. Ramesh Goyal. Thereafter, based on the said Will, in a Suit for declaration bearing no.307/1998 entitled ‘Harish Goel vs. Rajeshwar Goel & Anr’. vide order/ judgment dated 08.12.1999 (judgment), the interests/ rights qua the subject premises

which came to the share of his father was affirmed. Subsequent to the demise of his father Sh. Ramesh Goyal, to demarcate the respective shares of his legal heirs, namely Sh. Neeraj Goel, Smt. Manju Goel and the landlord, they entered into a Memorandum of Settlement dated 16.07.2012 (MoS), whereafter a Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.12.2014 (MoU) was also executed inter se the landlord and his uncle Sh. Harish Goel. Based thereon, he became the owner/ landlord of a portion of the subject premises, i.e., 75% of the tenancy. 3. As per landlord, the tenant was initially inducted in the subject premises by his late grandfather Sh. Mangal Sen, and after his demise, he was paying the rent to his uncle Sh. Harish Goel and Smt. Manju Goel. As such, since there was severance of estate and a huge portion of the tenancy fell to his share, he issued a letter dated 08.12.2014 (letter) to the tenant requesting him to attorn the tenancy in his favour, however, despite due receipt, the tenant did not attorn the landlord. Additionally, till recently, the landlord was assisting his mother in her business of electronics with his brother Sh. Neeraj Goel, however, owing to disputes between them, they could no longer continue working together. Further, as he had gained experience and intended to start his own business, there was a bona fide requirement for the subject premises as the same was in the locality where RC.REV. 52/2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:09.01.2026 17:39:31 there were various other shops selling electronic goods, and as he had no suitable alternative accommodation(s) available with him. 4. After service, in its application under Section(s) 25B(4) and 25B(5) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend, the tenant denied the unregistered MoS and MoU and the letter, as also the landlord tenant relationship as it was tendering the rent to Sh. Harish Goel and Smt. Manju Goel. Also, the Site Plan filed by the landlord was incorrect and bereft of material particulars of all the accommodations in the entire property where the subject premises was situated. Further, the Eviction Petition was not maintainable as the landlord could not claim ownership and eviction qua the three separate tenanted shops, and since there was no partition by metes and bounds in terms of settled law, partial eviction was not permissible under the DRC Act. Also, as per tenant, since the landlord became the owner of the subject premises by virtue of the MoU, the Eviction Petition was not maintainable in view of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act as it had been filed within five years thereof. Lastly, the landlord was already running two businesses and there was no description of the new business which he intended to commence. More so, the landlord already had suitable and sufficient alternative accommodation(s) in the same property where the subject premises was situated as also various shops in Chandni Chowk and Lajpat Nagar, as well. 5. In response thereto, as per landlord, the Eviction Petition was maintainable as a single proceeding with respect to a composite and indivisible tenancy covering the entire front portion/ a single tenanted unit, i.e., subject premises and the tenant was in occupation of an undivided area without any internal partitions, despite there being three shutters due to the RC.REV. 52/2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:09.01.2026 17:39:31 size of the premises. The entire property where the subject premises was situated, having other accommodations were either occupied or belonged to the other members of his family by virtue of the said Will. 6. Thereafter, the learned ARC vide an order dated 23.09.20196, after holding that on account of admission and severance of estate there existed a landlord tenant relationship between the parties and there was a genuine bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord, passed an order of eviction in favour of the landlord. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant filed the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the learned ARC. 8. This Court vide order dated 27.01.2020 granted stay on the execution arising out of the impugned order dated 23.09.2019, and thereafter vide order dated 10.12.2024 fixed the use and occupation charges, which was rectified later on vide subsequent order dated 13.02.2025. 9. Mr. Akhil Mittal, learned counsel for the tenant submitted that since the landlord sought eviction of 75% of the single composite tenancy of the tenant without remaining 25% of the tenancy without any physical partition by metes and bounds between the landlord and others, partial eviction qua the subject premises was not maintainable. In view of the MoS and MoU being unregistered a full-fledged trial was called for. In support thereof, the learned counsel relied upon Sayesh Chandra Sarkar vs. Haji Jillar Rahman7, Keshav Prasad Singh Bahadur of Damraon vs. Mathura Kaur 6 Hereinafter referred to as “impugned order” 7 1918 (27) Calcutta Law Journal 438 RC.REV. 52/2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:09.01.2026 17:39:31 & Ors.8, Nani Bai vs. Gita Bai Kom Rama Gunge9, Jawahar Lal vs. Ravinder Kumar Khanna & Anr.10, Vinod Ahuja vs. Anil Bajaj & Anr.11, Sukh Dev Raj Sharma vs. Kuljeet Singh Jass12, O.P. Gupta vs. R.K. Sharma,13 Gopal Das & Sons vs. Dinseshwar Nath Kedar14 and Sh. Najmul Arafeen Chawla & Anr. vs. Dr. Mohd. Najeeb.15 10. Mr. Akhil Mittal, learned counsel then disputed the Site Plan filed by the landlord and submitted that no positive material was placed to show his bona fide requirement being honest and genuine or that alternative accommodation(s) within the property where the subject premises was situated and at multiple places in Delhi, which could not satisfy his bona fide requirement. Barring the aforesaid, Mr. Akhil Mittal, learned counsel did not raise and/ or press any other issues. 11. Per Contra, Ms. Deepika V. Marwah, learned counsel for the landlord, supporting the impugned order, submitted that there was severance of estate by virtue of the judgment whereby the Will was legally affirmed and decreed, and it was thereafter that both MoS and MoU demarcated the respective shares of the legal heirs of late Sh. Ramesh Goyal whereby the landlord herein acquired 75% of the share of the tenancy. The learned counsel placed reliance upon SK Sattar SK Mohd. Chowdharv vs. Gundappa Amabadas Bukate16, Sait Nagjee Purushotam