Mr. Ajaya Bhardwaj, Mr. Harshit Bhardwaj and Mr. Shubham, Advs v. MOHAN LAL

Judgment

1. The petitioner/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition on dated 26.09.2011 being eviction petition no. E-25/2011 (RC/ ARC no. 206/2016) under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act2, 1958 against the respondent/ tenant3 seeking eviction of Shop No. 2 property No. F-171/4, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi4 as the Site Plan, before learned Additional Rent Controller, Karkardooma Court, Delhi5, as there was a bona fide requirement for his own commencing business. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘tenant’ 4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject shop’ 5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ARC’ RC.REV.49/2018 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:43:58

2. It was his case in the amended eviction petition that being a senior citizen with no other source of income, he required the subject shop for doing business so that he may get sufficient income. As per the landlord, the tenant

was originally inducted by Smt. Shakuntala Devi6, by way of an oral agreement from whom the landlord herein purchased the property wherein the subject shop is situated. 3. In the application for leave to defend, the tenant claimed that the landlord had no bona-fide requirement for the subject shop and that the petition was per se not maintainable as the landlord was only an attorney of the erstwhile owner Smt. Shakuntala Devi. 4. Even though the learned ARC in the order dated 11.04.2012 observed that since the tenant had not disputed the existence of landlord tenant relationship, he was therefore estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from challenging the title of his own landlord, however, since the tenant was able to raise triable issues regarding the landlord not disclosing the precise nature of his alleged bona fide requirement, and though the landlord had pleaded an intention to run a business, the landlord not specifying the kind of business he wanted to run, the said application for leave to defend of the tenant was allowed by the learned ARC vide the same order on 11.04.2012. 5. The said order was challenged by the landlord before this Court, only to be withdrawn later. 6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the erstwhile landlord’ RC.REV.49/2018 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:43:58

6. In his amended written statement also, the tenant did not dispute the landlord tenant relationship regarding the subject shop and submitted that he had been duly paying the rent to the landlord regularly but since 15.03.2007, it was not being accepted by the landlord. It was also his case therein that the landlord had suppressed material facts about ownership of several properties in the vicinity, including House/ Shop No. 172-A, Laxmi Nagar, and one shop and the first floor in the suit premises itself. 7. Thereafter, both parties had led their respective evidences and the learned ARC passed judgment dated 03.11.20177 whereby the eviction petition of the landlord was dismissed. 8. Resultantly, the landlord seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment vide the present revision petition. 9. Mr. Ajaya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for landlord commenced his submissions relying upon the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court in RC.REV. 43/2018 entitled H.S. Banka vs. Hari Krishna Sharma wherein under very similar circumstances the order allowing an application for leave to defend of another tenant of the landlord qua the very adjacent shop to the subject shop was set aside. 10. Mr. Ajaya Bhardwaj further submitted that the learned ARC has erred in arriving at a contrary finding as it is not necessary for the landlord to aver and/ or disclose the exact nature of business he intends to commence, and the landlord only has to establish a genuine, honest and concerning bona fide requirement as also that the subject shop is the suitable space for that 7 Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned judgment’ RC.REV.49/2018 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:43:58 purpose. For this, it is not relevant is the landlord has any other alternative accommodation available with him. In any event, the tenant has no say in any of the above. 11. For this, Mr. Ajaya Bhardwaj relying upon Noor Mohammd vs. Kanta Aggarwal8 submits that under similar circumstances this Court allowed the eviction petition of the landlord on the ground of bona fide requirement of the shop, despite his having other shops in the very same premises. Further he relies upon Sarla Ahuja vs. Union India Insurance Company Ltd.9 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is sufficient for a landlord to assert that he requires the subject shop for his bona fide use, leaving no choice to the tenant for interfering therewith. Lastly, he relies upon Prativa Devi vs. T.V. Krishnan10 wherein it was held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement and it is no concern of the Court to dictate the landlord. 12. Per contra, Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the tenant submitted that since the landlord failed to disclose the nature of the business he proposed to commence, he did not have a bona fide requirement of the subject shop. The same, he submits, is clear from his own his cross- examination before the learned ARC wherein he has deposed as under: “I will decide about the nature of business to be run by me in the tenanted property in question, after it is vacated by the respondent.”