Mr. Rajat Aneja, Advocate v. ANAND TYAGI

Judgment

1. The respondent/ landlord1 filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 entitled ‘Anand Tyagi vs. Sardar Harbans Singh’ being RC/ARC No.84/2017 before the learned ACJ/ CCJ/ ARC (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi3, seeking eviction of the petitioner/ tenant4 from the tenanted shop, i.e. shop on the ground floor of the property bearing no.WZ-11, Kailash Park, main Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110 0155, on the grounds of bona fide requirement for commencing a new business of selling electronics and communication items for his son, as there was no other suitable 1 Hereinafter referred to as “landlord” 2 Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” 3 Hereinafter referred to as “ARC” 4 Hereinafter referred to as “tenant” 5 Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises” RC.REV. 304/2018 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:27.10.2025 16:58:11 alternate accommodation available with him. 2. Succinctly put, it was the case of the landlord that the tenant was inducted in the subject premises in the year 1965 by the late father of the landlord, and since the year 1980, rent was being paid to the late father of the landlord, i.e., Sh. Gokul Chand Tyagi @ of Rs. 5/- per month and after his death to the landlord as the subject premises devolved upon him by virtue of a partition @ of Rs. 200/- per month with effect from 2010 till June 2016. Thus, he was a tenant of the landlord all throughout. It was also the case of the landlord that the subject premises was needed for his bona fide requirement as his son Sh. Shantanu Tyagi, who had experience and qualifications in the field of sales, wanted to commence a new business of selling electronics and communication items, and there were no other suitable alternative accommodation available with him for that purpose. Since the tenant defaulted in paying rent since June 2016, the landlord issued a Legal Notice dated 04.01.2017 to him. In response thereto, though the tenant, sent a Money Order of Rs. 1,400/- towards rent for the period from July 2016 to January 2017, along with his reply dated

17.01.2017, however, he denied the existence of any bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord. 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, the tenant disputed the ownership of the landlord; and the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties as the tenancy stood in

the name of M/s. Sewak Steel Furniture, a partnership firm with Sh. Harbans Singh and Sh. Preet Pal Singh as its partners, as also since a previous Eviction Petition no. 201/82 filed under Section 14(1)(a) & (j) of RC.REV. 304/2018 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:27.10.2025 16:58:11 the DRC Act by the same landlord against the same tenant had already been dismissed by the learned ARC on 21.03.1986, holding that there was no existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. Further, the landlord had several alternate accommodations in the form of property nos. WZ-69 and WZ-31 at Basai Darapur, Delhi-110 015, in addition to other property nos. A-1, B-1, WZ-57, 13/3741 at Sudama Puri, Delhi-110 032. Lastly, since the son of the landlord was already employed, there was no bona fide requirement for the subject premises. 4. In response thereto, the landlord denied all the aforesaid contentions of the tenant. In turn, the tenant, in his rejoinder, reiterated the same contentions raised by him in his application seeking leave to defend and denied the case of the landlord. 5. Reckoning that the tenant was unable to raise any triable issue qua there being no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, and there being no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord, as also there being no available alternative accommodation for the landlord, the learned ARC vide order dated 15.05.20186 allowed the Eviction Petition of the landlord 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. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant has filed the present revision petition. Vide order dated 10.10.2018 notice was issued by this Court and subsequently two applications, i.e., CM APPL. 14107/2019 and CM APPL. 4115/2023 for taking on record subsequent developments along 6 Hereinafter referred to as “impugned order” RC.REV. 304/2018 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:27.10.2025 16:58:11 with additional documents qua the landlord having possession of the property bearing no. WZ-11, Kailash Park, Opposite Kriti Nagar, New Delhi-110 015, and property bearing no. A-1, Sudama Puri, Moti Nagar, New Delhi-110 032, filed by the tenant, were allowed by the Court vide order dated 09.02.2024. In effect, the documents filed therewith are also to be taken into consideration by this Court. 8. Once again, the tenant has moved another application being CM APPL. 62844/2025 for placing on record photographs of the property bearing no. A-1, Sudama Puri, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, which is listed today along with the petition. Interestingly, on 19.09.2025 and

25.09.2025, the learned counsel for the tenant had already concluded his arguments, and there was not a whisper made by him qua any of the above, now belatedly sought to be filed by him. Therefore, at this stage, when the matter is listed today only for the landlord to file documents in compliance with the last order dated 25.09.2025, this Court sees no reason for allowing the present belated application whereby the tenant seeks to add onto his existing case. 9. In any event, firstly, the said application is bereft of any plausible and/ or cogent reasons for non-filing of the accompanying photographs of the shop at any time before, and secondly, the said photographs are unverified, uncorroborated, and without any particulars for taking the same on record. Reference in this regard is made to Gaya Prasad vs. Pradeep Srivastava7 and Kuldeep Singh vs. Sanjay Aggarwal,8 wherein it is held that the tenant has to make out a case so as to convince the Court 7 (2001) 2 SCC 604 8 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8562 RC.REV. 304/2018 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:27.10.2025 16:58:11 that the subsequent event(s)/ occurrence(s) carry such gravity that it would amend/ extinguish/ mould the nature/ character of the entire proceedings before the Court which incontrovertibly would have a fundamental bearing on the final relief sought. In the present case, the tenant has not been able to make out any case which can occasion this Court to take them on record. Thus, mere filing of such photographs, whose relevance is shrouded in mystery, cannot be a ground for consideration at the time of adjudicating an application after arguments have already been concluded. Moreover, they were not before the learned ARC at the time of adjudication of the application for leave to defend of the tenant. The tenant, thus, cannot also be permitted to improve his case by filing belated applications. Therefore, as a sequitur, CM APPL.62844/2025 stands dismissed. 10. Mr. Rajat Aneja, learned counsel for the tenant, referring to Sanjay Chugh vs. Opender Nath Ahuja,9 submitted that there was no landlord- tenant relationship between the parties, as the landlord had failed to produce any document showing the ownership of the subject premises. Regarding alternative accommodations, he submitted that the landlord has concealed the existence of alternative accommodations and the filing of multiple Eviction Petitions as also that the landlord has already taken vacant possession of property bearing no. A-1 Sudama Puri, New Delhi, on 30.09.2017, and of the property bearing no. WZ-11, Kailash Park, Opposite Kriti Nagar, New Delhi, during the pendency of the present revision petition. Thus, admittedly there are alternative accommodations 9 207 (2014) DLT 271 RC.REV. 304/2018 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:27.10.2025 16:58:11 present with the landlord, and since the son of the landlord, for whom the subject premises is being sought, is in fact, already working as a professional, there is no bona fide requirement of the subject premises. As such, the tenant was able to raise triable issues before the learned ARC. In support thereof, he refers to the case of Mattulal vs. Radhev Lal10 and Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand.11 11. Per contra, Mr. Varun Tyagi, learned counsel for the landlord, submitted that it was an admitted fact that the tenant was paying rent to the landlord, as also since the learned ARC has affirmed the said fact vide the impugned order. As such, there was/ is a landlord-tenant relationship. Regarding alternative accommodation, qua property no. A-1 Sudama Puri, New Delhi, although the said property was to be used for setting up a factory to manufacture corrugated boxes, however, as it is situated in a non-conforming area, the same is not suitable for commercial or industrial activities. Qua property bearing no. WZ-11, Kailash Park, Opposite Kriti Nagar, New Delhi, the same was sought to be vacated for the use of Sh. Abhimanyu Tyagi, the other son of the landlord, and in fact, he is already running an eating point under the name of “Chowringee Rolls” from the said property, and thus, as the said property(s) were unfit/ unavailable for the need as raised in the Eviction Petition, there was a bona fide requirement for the subject premises. 12. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents on record as well as the case laws cited by them. 13. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to examine the quintessential