Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, Senior Advocate with Mr. R. S. Bisht and Mr. J.S v. NEW LIGHT TRADING COMPANY & ORS

Judgment

1. The petitioner/ landlord filed the Eviction Petition, E. No.39/2020, before the learned Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi1 against the respondents/ tenants being two companies and their respective directors, qua the premises bearing Shop No.520, Ground Floor, Katra Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110 0062. 2. It was the case of the landlord before the learned RC that though the said petition was initially filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B and Section 14(1)(a), (b) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19583, 1 Hereinafter ‘learned RC’ 2 Hereinafter ‘subject premises’ 3 Hereinafter ‘the Act’ RC.REV. 218/2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:23.12.2025 03:39:20 the landlord subsequently withdrew the same with respect to Section 14(1)(a), and then also with respect to Section 14(1)(b) and (j), and pursued the same only under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act; on the ground that his younger son was unemployed, and wished to start his own business from the subject premises, as also he did not have any other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available to fulfil the said bona fide requirement of his son. In support of his claims, the landlord relied upon one Sale Deed dated 11.06.2002 (Ex. PW1/1) executed in his favour by his brother, Mr. Ashok Kumar, who had obtained rights in the same through testamentary devolution by way of Will dated 24.01.1983. 3. In response thereto, it was the case of the tenants in their written statement before the learned RC that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties; further that since the younger son of the landlord was already having an income, the landlord had no bona fide requirement for the subject premises; and lastly, that there were numerous alternative accommodations available with the landlord. As per tenants, the landlord could not have become the owner of the subject premises vide the

said Sale Deed dated 11.06.2002 (Ex. PW1/1), since the said Mr. Ashok Kumar was merely one of the legal heirs of the erstwhile owner and there was no partition between him and the other legal heirs. Also, the alleged Will dated 24.01.1983 (Ex. PW2/R1) by which the said Mr. Ashok Kumar acquired rights in the subject premises was also not produced by the landlord before the learned RC. Further, the tenants never tendered any rent to the landlord. Also, since it was evident from the Income Tax Returns filed by the son of the landlord that he was not dependent upon his father, there was no bona fide requirement by the landlord. Lastly, there were RC.REV. 218/2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:23.12.2025 03:39:20 other alternative accommodations available with the landlord wherefrom his son could run his business. 4. In replication, the landlord pled that he was the absolute owner of the subject premises by virtue of the proper and duly registered Sale Deed dated 11.06.2002, as also that the income of the son of the landlord as per his Income Tax Returns was through fixed investments made by him, and not by his own business/ employment. He further reiterated that all the alternative accommodations alleged by the tenants were otherwise occupied by different members of his family, and the subject premises was the only suitable accommodation for his son. 5. After evidence was led by both parties, the learned RC heard both the parties and thence proceeded to pass the order dated 27.11.20214 dismissing the Eviction Petition of the landlord. 6. Hence, the present petition filed by the landlord seeking setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the learned RC. 7. Before this Court, Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, learned senior counsel for the landlord submitted that the learned RC has gone above the board in an eviction proceeding under the Act and ventured into the issue of title of the landlord, as also the aspects of bona fide requirement and alternative accommodations have also been decided by the learned RC against the tenets of the Act. 8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that even though the Sale Deed (Ex. PW1/1) based whereon the landlord was claiming title was not attested by two witnesses, however, since the same was a duly registered and valid document with all necessary specifications, there was no lacuna 4 Hereinafter ‘impugned order’ RC.REV. 218/2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:23.12.2025 03:39:20 in the title of the landlord, since Mr. Ashok Kumar, who executed the said Sale Deed (Ex. PW1/1), obtained his rights in the subject premises by virtue of a Will (Ex. PW2/R1), for which probate has already been granted by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay on 30.08.2013 in Testamentary Petition No.65/2013. Hence, there was no other (chain of) documents required by the landlord. In this regard, the learned senior counsel submitted that non-reliance upon the said Will (Ex. PW2/R1) by the learned RC since it was not properly registered is liable to be set aside. Moreover, what was before the learned RC was only the first page of the said Will and not the complete document, hence no inference could have been drawn therefrom. 9. In any event, relying upon Smt. Shanti Sharma & Ors. vs. Smt. Ved Prabha & Ors.5, learned senior counsel submitted that in an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, the landlord was not required to prove his ownership of the subject premises in absolute terms, but only show a better title than that of the tenant. Then, relying upon Sri Ram Pasricha vs. Jagan Nath & Ors.6, followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Subhash Jain versus Ravi Sehgal7, the learned senior counsel submitted that the tenants had no right to question the history of ownership of the subject premises and were, as such, estopped from questioning the title of the landlord, especially in view of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Lastly, relying upon Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi8 5 1987 SCC (4) 193 6 (1976) 4 SCC 184 7 209 (2014) DLT 423 8 157 (2009) DLT 450 RC.REV. 218/2020 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:23.12.2025 03:39:20 and Bharat Bhushan Vij vs. Arti Teckchandani9, the learned senior counsel submitted that it was not the concern of the tenants as to how the landlord acquired the subject premises, as also that proceedings under the Act had to be distinguished from those in a suit for title, respectively. 10. Regarding bona fide requirement of the landlord, relying upon Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery10, learned senior counsel submitted that the landlord is the best judge of his needs, and further relying upon Joginder Pal vs. Naval Kishore Behal11 followed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Labhu Lal vs. Smt. Sandhya Gupta12, the learned senior counsel submitted that it is a moral obligation of a parent to settle their children and help them attain economic independence, and such a need by a landlord is undoubtedly bona fide under the Act. 11. Lastly, relying upon Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.13 and Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr Mahesh Chand Gupta14, learned senior counsel submitted that it is not up to the tenant to dictate the terms of how the landlord can otherwise adjust himself without getting possession of the subject premises, and mere presence of other accommodations is not enough, as the landlord has the right to decide whether an alternative accommodation is reasonable and suitable after considering all relevant factors. 12. Based thereon, learned senior counsel submitted that since there are errors apparent on the face of record, the impugned judgment is liable to be