Bhasin, Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Ms. Muskan Nagpal and Mr. H.S. Mahapatra, Advocates v. AMIT CHAUDHARY ANR. Through

Judgment

1. The respondents/ landlords1 filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,2 entitled (cid:145)Amit Chaudhary & Anr. vs. Mohd. Arif(cid:146) being RC ARC 749/19 before the learned CCJ/ ARC (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi3, seeking eviction of the petitioner/ tenant4 from the tenanted shop(s), i.e., two shops on the ground floor of the built-up property bearing no. 5689 (New) and 7586, 7587 (Old) situated at Gali Hanuman Mandir (Sholal), Factory Road, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, Delhi-110 0555, on the grounds of bona 1 Hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)landlord(cid:148) 2 Hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)DRC Act(cid:148) 3 Hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)learned ARC(cid:148) 4 Hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)tenant(cid:148) 5 Hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)subject premises(cid:148) RC.REV. 270/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:03.11.2025 17:58:00 fide requirement for expansion of business run by landlord no.1, as there was no other suitable alternate accommodation available for the said purpose. 2. Briefly put, it was the case of the landlords in the Eviction Petition that the tenant was inducted in the subject premises by the erstwhile owner

i.e. Shri Mohd. Ahsan Qureshi for which the tenant was paying rent @ of Rs.150/- (revised Rs.200/-) per month, for which he was issued rent receipts. Subsequently, by virtue of Sale Deed(s) dated 20.12.2013, the landlords became joint owners of the subject premises. Having stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owner, they acquired both ownership rights and landlord title. The landlords initially started a business of selling bags in the year 1998. Then the landlord no. 2 started a firm under the name and style M/s. (cid:145)Sai Bag Factory(cid:146) from a shop bearing no. 11379, at Singhara Chowk, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, Delhi-110 055 in 2011, and the landlord no. 1 started his own business of selling and manufacturing bags under the name and style of M/s. (cid:145)Mahadev Traders(cid:146) at a shop on the ground floor of the subject premises in 2017, for which he had filed the GST bills. Since their businesses required multiple production and manufacturing related activities, and the landlords were already utilizing/ occupying the other floors of the subject premises, a bona fide requirement for the two shops at the subject premises arose for expanding their business to display and store bags, establish an office area, and provide proper seating for customers. Moreover, they had no suitable alternative accommodation available with them. 3. Upon service, the tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) and (5) of the DRC Act, wherein, succinctly put, RC.REV. 270/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:03.11.2025 17:58:00 the tenant denied that the landlord no.1 was operating any business of selling and manufacturing bags under the name M/s. (cid:145)Mahadev Traders(cid:146) from the subject premises, and that there was no documentary evidence to substantiate the existence of the aforesaid firm owing to the fact that the ITR and GST Certificates filed by him were false/ fabricated. The tenant also disputed the Site Plan. As per him, since the very inception the subject premises was used only as a godown and not as a shop/ showroom by the landlords and their father, i.e., Sh. Mohan Lal, and thus, there was no bona fide requirement of the subject premises. Further, taking benefit of the Legal Notice dated 05.02.2016 issued by the landlords, it was his case that since there was an issue of non-payment of the due rent by the tenant, it resulted in termination of the tenancy and hence the learned ARC had no jurisdiction to entertain the Eviction Petition. It was also his case that the landlords were unable to show that they were occupying the remaining floors of the subject premises. In fact, most of the shops/ godowns of the subject premises are/ were lying vacant and within the possession of the landlords and as such the vacant floors were suitable alternative accommodation(s) for his alleged bona fide requirement. Also, by virtue of Sale Deed(s) dated 30.08.2012, the landlords and their respective wives became the owners of the commercial property bearing nos. 11377 and 11378, situated at Chowk Singhara, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi-110 0556, which were/ are lying vacant, and hence there were alternative accommodations available with the landlords. 4. During the pendency of the Eviction Petition before the learned ARC, vide order dated 01.08.2023, his application under Order VIII rule 6 Hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)joint property(cid:148) RC.REV. 270/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:03.11.2025 17:58:00 1A(3) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to place on record photographs, a CD, and a pen drive, to show the alternative accommodation(s) present with landlords was dismissed, since such documents could not be filed with the leave to defend application. However, vide order dated 02.11.2023 this Court in CM (M) No. 1487/2023 permitted certain photographs to be taken on record. 5. Finding that the tenant was unable to raise any triable issue qua landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, or bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlords, or availability of any alternative accommodation with the landlords, the learned ARC vide order dated

03.08.20247 allowed the Eviction Petition of the landlords and directed eviction of the tenant from the subject premises, albeit, after the period of six months, in terms of Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, are over. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant filed the present revision petition against the impugned order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the learned ARC. 7. The primary thrust of Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant, is qua the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The learned counsel submitted that the learned ARC had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the lis between the parties since the Legal Notice dated

05.02.2016, which was concealed by the landlords, encapsulates the fact that the tenant paid rent @ of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the landlords for occupying the subject premises, and thus in the light of Section 3(c) read with Section 50 of the DRC Act, the impugned order 7 Hereinafter referred to as (cid:147)impugned order(cid:148) RC.REV. 270/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:03.11.2025 17:58:00 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned counsel further submitted that there exists a Rent Agreement dated

03.03.2000, executed inter se the father of the tenant, one Shri Abdul Jabbar, and the erstwhile owner, i.e., Mohd. Ahsan Qureshi, qua the subject premises, wherein, by virtue of paragraph 6 of the said Rent Agreement, if the erstwhile owner wishes to sell the subject premises, it would be first offered to the tenant. Moreover, no attornment letter was issued by either the erstwhile owner or by the landlords informing the tenant about the sale of the subject premises. Based thereon, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel relying upon Vijay Kumar Ahluwalia and Ors. vs. Bishan Chand Maheshwari and Ors.8, submitted that non-attorning by the landlords is a sufficient ground for allowing the leave to defend application of the tenant. 8. With respect to bona fide requirement, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel submitted that there was no Registration Certificate under the Shops & Establishments Act or any bank account statement/ bills to show that business under the name of M/s. Mahadev Traders was/ is being run from the subject premises. Also, as per the learned counsel, the Income Tax Certificates filed by the landlords were fabricated/ fake, since the returns were filed in the year 2019, i.e., just before the Eviction Petition was filed. Similarly, the GST Certificate pertains to M/s. Mahadev Traders, which was although established in the year 2017 however, the said Certificate was issued on 13.07.2018, which is a year later, just before filing of the Eviction Petition, more so, the said Certificate does not specify the location from which the business is being operated, and thus as 8 (2017) 3 SCC 189 RC.REV. 270/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:03.11.2025 17:58:00 per Bharat Glass & Plywood Co. vs. Sushan Pal Soni,9 triable issues were raised before the learned ARC qua there being no bona fide requirement. 9. Lastly, relying upon Joginder Dev vs. Uzma Sajid10 Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel submitted there were alternative accommodation(s) available with the landlords, considering that they are the joint owners and have/ had vacant possession of the commercial property bearing nos. 11377 and 11378, both situated at Chowk Singhara, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi-110 055. 10. Barring the aforesaid, Mr. Amit Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant has not put forward any other arguments. 11. Per contra, Mr. Digvijay Singh Jaswal, learned counsel for the landlords, submitted that it was an admitted position that the tenant was paying rent to the erstwhile owner @ of Rs. 150/- per month against receipts and pursuant to the Sale Deed(s) dated 20.12.2013, the landlords were owners/ landlords of the subject premises. The learned counsel then submitted that the tenant vide reply to the Legal Notice dated 12.02.2016 has himself denied all averments made by the landlords qua payment of rent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month. The learned counsel further submitted that there is no requirement on the part of the landlords to file Registration Certificate under the Shops & Establishment Act or any bills since the GST Certificate and Income Tax Certificates were already on record to show/ disclose the existence of the said business and thus the bona fide requirement of the landlords. In any event, the learned counsel submitted 9 2014: DHC:1550 10 264 (2019) DLT 489 RC.REV. 270/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:03.11.2025 17:58:00 that the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act are summary in nature and as such the DRC codex does not make the filling of any of the aforesaid Certificates mandatory for showing his bona requirement. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that the property jointly owned by the landlords and their wives was earlier booked by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) during its construction, leading to the work being stopped midway. Consequently, the aforementioned property remains in a dilapidated/ derelict condition, leaving the landlords with no alternative accommodation. 12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents and pleadings on record as well as the case laws cited by them. 13. Admittedly, since there is no dispute regarding the payment of rent by the tenant qua the subject premises @ of Rs. 150/- to the erstwhile owner against rent receipts, as also the Sale Deed(s) dated 20.12.2013 whereby the landlords herein have stepped into the shoes of the erstwhile owners, the issue of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties stood proven. The learned ARC, in view of the same, has held as under:- (cid:147)Respondent has not disputed that the petitioners are the owner of the property. He has also not disputed that he is the tenant in the shop at ground floor of the property. As such, it is held that landlord tenant relationship exists between the parties(cid:133) (cid:133)(cid:148)

14. This Court is in agreement with the said findings arrived at by the learned ARC, more so, as held in Shanti Sharma and others vs. Ved RC.REV. 270/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:03.11.2025 17:58:00 Prabha and ors.11 the landlord is only required to show a better title than that of the tenant. Thus, the same needs no further adjudication. 15. Qua the bona fide requirement of the landlords, since the Income Tax Certificates and GST Certificates, which are governmental statutory and credible documents, pertain to a period just prior to the filing of the Eviction Petition, although the tenant had denied the credibility of the said Certificates, however, the same being statutory documents and since the time period of issuance thereof is immaterial, there is no reason for doubting them. While considering an application whereby the tenant is seeking leave to defend in an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the yardstick applicable is completely distinct from that of a normal suit. In fact, in the present scenario as per the law laid down in Precision Steel Engineering Works and Another vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal12 and Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh13, since the proceedings before the learned ARC were of a summary nature, based on the material filed/ available and being satisfied with the veracity of the said Certificates, the learned ARC found them sufficient/ adequate for the limited purpose of establishing the existence of M/s. Mahadev Traders. As such, this Court agrees with the findings of the learned ARC in the impugned order qua that there is no (cid:147)(cid:133) (cid:133)reason to disbelieve the GST certificate in the absence of any material proof. It is therefore held that the claim regarding business of Mahadev Traders has to be believed(cid:133)(cid:148). 16. In any event, a landlord under the DRC Act only needs to show his