Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, Mr.Gaurav Chaudhary, Mr. Rishabh Malhotra, and Mr. Rishabh, Advocates v. KULDEEP KUMAR JAIN

2. Mr. Pradeep Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the petitioners submits, that the respondent had deliberately concealed the availability of Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:05.04.2025 16:23:12 RC.REV. 120/2025 suitable, alternate accommodations with him, viz. No. 4279-4283, Main Bazar Paharganj, New Delhi and No. 32, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi, on which ground alone the eviction petition was liable to be dismissed.

3. Mr. Arya draws attention of this court to written statement dated

13.05.2019 filed by the petitioners, in which this fact was specifically pleaded; and submits, that while passing the impugned judgment the learned Rent Controller has failed to appreciate that the respondent is guilty of intentional concealment and non-disclosure of the alternate accommodation available with him. Issue Notice.

4. 5. Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, learned counsel for the respondent appears on advance copy; accepts notice; and submits, that the learned Rent Controller, after taking note of all the alternate premises that were subject of the proceedings has returned individual findings qua each of them in the impugned judgment. It is pointed-out that the premises that were subject matter of the eviction petition was Shop No. 4281, Main Bazar, Paharganj, Delhi, which is the ground floor shop on a 30 ft. road in the commercial hub of Delhi, i.e. Paharganj. The learned Rent Controller observed as follows : “49. Qua the alternate accommodations, the respondent has argued that the following properties are available with the petitioner:- i) Property No. 4283, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. ii) Portion of property No.4280, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi. Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:05.04.2025 16:23:12 RC.REV. 120/2025 iii) Property No. 9174, 3rd and 4thFloors, Gali No.4, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi-110055 iv) Property No.32, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi- 110055 v) Property No.4277-4283, Main Bazar Paharganj, New Delhi.” Re : Portion of property No. 4280, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi “55. This Court finds no merits in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the respondent that since the petitioner already has back portion of property No.4280 and shop No.4283, there is no requirement of shop No.4281 i.e. the tenanted premises in question. As discussed, the tenanted premises in question is on the main road and as is apparent from the site plan, duly proved by the petitioner, shop No.4280 is on the back side of shop No.4281, having the entry through a passage. It goes without saying that a shop on main road is better both in terms of commercial viability and ease of access, it need not be said that it is more visible too. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the back portion of the property No.4280 cannot be called a suitable alternative to the tenanted premises in question.” Re : Property No. 9174, 3rd and 4th Floors, Gali No. 4, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, New Delhi “56. Similarly, the properties on the third and the fourth floors of property No.9174, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, cannot be compared to the tenanted premises in question.” Re : Property No. 4283, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi “57. Qua property No.4283, it is an admitted case that the said property is being used for Abhay Vastra Bhandar Pvt. Ltd. and the very need of the petitioner is that the said shop is to be merged with the tenanted premises in question so as to create bigger business/commercial space for himself and his sons. The law does not permit the tenant to dictate terms nor can the tenant in the matter at hand, make choices for the petitioner so as to disentitle Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:05.04.2025 16:23:12 RC.REV. 120/2025 him from expansion of his business. It is settled law that the ultimate master is the landlord and he cannot be forced to sacrifice his choices only so that the tenant does not feel inconvenience.” Re : Property No. 32, Main Bazar, Paharganj, New Delhi “58. Respondent’s witness Sh. Ritesh Kumar in his cross- examination on 30.11.2023 has categorically stated that there are no shops on ground floor in property No.32, Main Bazar,Paharganj and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the same cannot be compared to the tenanted premises in question, which is on the ground floor in a thirty feet road.” Re : Property No.87, Krishna Gali, Paharganj, Delhi “59. Similarly, qua property No.87, Krishna Gali, Paharganj also, it can be said that property on account of it being situated in not so wide lane, is not comparable to the tenanted premises in question. It may be highlighted here that in testimony of RW Ritesh, it has specifically come that the said property is not on a wide road.”

6. Mr. Garg accordingly submits, that the learned Rent Controller reached the conclusion that the respondent has bona-fide need for the demised premises and there is no alternate accommodation which is reasonably suitable for him. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as follows : “63. It is clear that once the landlord establishes its bonafides, the hardship of the tenant cannot be taken into consideration for declining an eviction. If it is accepted that tenancy should be protected either on the ground of long residency or because of non-availability of house with the tenant, no landlord will ever be able to get an eviction order. Even otherwise, the law contemplates a buffer period of 6 months for the tenant in which he can arrange for a shelter. “64. To sum up, the concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by realities of Signature Not Verified Signed By:ANJALI KAUSHIK Signing Date:05.04.2025 16:23:12 RC.REV. 120/2025 life. As long as the landlord is able to establish that he/she in good faith and genuinely wishes to occupy the premises in possession of the tenant and that good faith or genuineness is of a reasonable man, it would not be open to the Controller to weigh the claim of the landlord in a fine scale.”

7. It is the settled position of law that the scope of interference in the revisional powers of the High Court under section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is limited. Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act, may be noticed at this point : 25-B. Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.— * * * * * (8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section: Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit.

8. In its decision on section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act, in Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua,1 the Supreme Court has relied upon its earlier decisions in Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.2 and Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal,3 and has held as follows: “Scope of revision 22. We are, in fact, more concerned with the scope and ambit of the proviso to Section 25-B(8). The proviso creates a distinct and unequivocal embargo by not providing an appeal against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller over an 1 2 3