Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Mr. Alankar Tewari, Mr. Tejas Gupta and Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advs v. NIHAL CHAND

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 before the learned ARC, Pilot Court (Central), Delhi,3 seeking eviction of the petitioner/ tenant4 from shop bearing private no.2A situated on the ground floor of property bearing municipal no. 682, Katra Hira Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 0065. 2. In a nutshell, as per landlord, initially Shop no. 682/1 was under the tenancy of one M/s. Jawahar Singh Man Singh, and Shop no. 682/2 was 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. 292/2017 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35 under the tenancy of M/s. Harbans Lal Chander Prakash. Thereafter, the latter shop was subsequently divided by a wooden partition in two portions. Resultantly, the front portion bearing pvt. no. 2B, came under the occupation of M/s. Harbans Lal Sadhna, while the rear portion bearing pvt. no. 2A came under the occupation of Mr. Chander Prakash Chawla i.e., the adoptive father of the tenant herein. Later on, the landlord became the owner of all the aforesaid shops including the rear shop bearing pvt. no. 2A by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 20.03.1985. 3. Succinctly put, as per landlord, since his existing business of pure cotton fabric and mink blanket was diminishing, he intended to switch to business of sarees, lehengas, gowns, dress material, readymade suits, and other allied products, for which, he had a bona fide requirement of the subject premises in addition to the two shops and adjoining chabutra already in his possession. The landlord also declared that apart from the subject premises, he was in possession of three other properties, which were either in dilapidated condition, or occupied for residential use, or were under the tenancy of another tenant. As such, the landlord did not have any other suitable alternative accommodation for his requirement. 4. Upon service of summons, the tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend under Sections 25B(4) and (5) of the DRC Act. Primarily it was the case of the tenant that since the landlord had multiple other commercial accommodations in his possession, he had no bona fide requirement for the subject premises. RC.REV. 292/2017 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35

5. The learned ARC, after considering the material on record and

hearing the parties, vide order dated 12.04.20176 dismissed the application for leave to defend of the tenant observing that the tenant failed to raise any triable issue therein. As such, the eviction petition of the landlord stood allowed. 6. Hence the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 12.04.2017 passed by the learned ARC. 7. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, learned counsel for the tenant, at the outset relying upon Chander Prakesh vs. Maneel Bansiwal7 submitted that there is no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord as [i] his contention of the existing business having reached a saturation point and become unprofitable is without merit and with no substantiation; and [ii] for starting a new business though he always had two vacant adjoining shops already in his possession, but instead he lets them out to seasonal vendors on a revenue-sharing basis; and [iii] the subject premises is situated in a predominantly wholesale cloth market where business is generally conducted telephonically and retail consumer presence is minimal and running a saree business there was implausible. 8. Then relying upon Rampat vs. Ganaga Devi8, Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand9, Prahlad Rai Mittal vs. Rita Devi10, Khem Chand & Ors. vs. Arjun Jain & Ors.11, the learned counsel submitted that the landlord has sufficient alternative accommodation in his possession. 6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’ 7 264 (2019) DLT 194 8 217 (2015) DLT 568 9 21 (1982) DLT 378 10 196 (2013) DLT 703 11 2013 (138) DRJ 154 RC.REV. 292/2017 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35

9. Further, relying upon Santosh Devi Soni vs. Chand Kiran12, Kishore & Anr. vs. Prabodh Kumar & Ors.13, Joginder Dev vs. Uzma Sajid14, Surender Garg vs. Mohit Jindal15, the learned counsel submitted that since the eviction petition was filed for ‘additional’ accommodation in contradistinction to ‘lack of’ alternative accommodation’, application seeking leave to defend of the tenant ought to have been granted by the learned ARC. 10. Lastly, relying upon M/s S.K. Seth and Sons v. Vijay Bhalla16, Rakesh Kumar v. Pawan Khanna17, Gurbachan Singh Sachdeva v. Gurbachan Singh Puri18, the learned counsel submitted that the learned ARC failed to appreciate that the tenant had raised triable issues warranting leave to defend. 11. Per contra, Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, learned counsel for the landlord, supporting the order passed by the learned ARC, submitted that the landlord required the subject premises to meet his bona fide need, particularly, in view of the declining profit of his existing business, and as the subject premises was contiguous to the shops already in the landlord’s possession, it would provide adequate and convenient space for the proposed venture. Moreover, he submitted that the market wherein the subject premises is situated had undergone significant transformation with a majority of the new establishment now engaged in similar saree and allied product businesses. 12 JT 2000 (3) SC 397 13 (2012) 132 DRJ 562 14 2020 I AD (DELHI) 349 15 RC REV 360/2012 16 2012 IX AD (DELHI) 314 17 195 (2012) DLT 341 18 207 (2014) DLT 641 RC.REV. 292/2017 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35

12. Further, the learned counsel submitted that although the landlord has other premises, however, they are not suitable for his requirement since either they are being used for residential purposes or tenanted or in a dilapidated condition. In any event, as per the learned counsel, it is the exclusive prerogative of the landlord to decide the nature of business and the premises from which he wishes to conduct the business. 13. Lastly, the learned counsel submitted that dismissal of the earlier eviction petitions, which were disclosed by the landlord before the learned ARC, had no bearing on the present eviction petition. To buttress all of the aforesaid contentions, reliance was placed upon Anil Bajaj & Anr. v. Vinod Ahuja19, Sh. Ashok v. Sh. Gagan20, Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua21, Satish Chand and Another v. Girdhar Gopal Gupta and anr.22 and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company23. 14. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties as also gone through the documents on record as also the judgments cited by both the parties at Bar. 15. The DRC Act was enacted to protect tenants from arbitrary eviction while also regulating the rate of rent. In view thereof, Section 14 of the DRC Act, in particular, prohibits anyone like the learned ARC from passing an eviction order unless the landlord establishes one of the specific grounds enumerated under Section(s) 14(1)(a) to 14(1)(l) of the Act. The same being an exception to the general rule of protection granted to the tenants. In effect, though the DRC Act grants explicit protections to