O R D E R

% 17.02.2025 CM Appl.9290/2025[Exemption from filing certified copies]

1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. 2. The Application stands disposed of.

RC.REV. 53/2025 & CM Appl.9289/2025[Stay]

3. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner impugning the order dated 12.08.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ARC-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the premises i.e., private shop no. 40 (old) New No. 10, in property no. 1977, Ground Floor, Katra Lachhu Singh, H.C. Sen Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi – 110006 measuring 8.6 X 6 sq. ft. as shown in red colour in the site plan [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. By the Impugned Order, the leave to defend Application filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed as the learned Trial Court has found no triable issue in the matter.

4. The only issue that is raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner is on the availability of alternate suitable accommodation. It is the case of the Petitioner that there are three shops available on the first floor along with rest of area of the property bearing no. 1977 and also the second floor of the property bearing no . 1977.

5. So far as concerns, the submissions made qua the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and ownership of the subject premises, it is settled law that what a landlord has to prove is a better title than the tenant to seek his eviction from the subject premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 [See : Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha; (1987) 4 SCC 193]. In addition, once a tenant makes an averment that he is a sitting tenant of the predecessor-in-interest of the landlord, as has been done in the present case, the provision of Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 122 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) becomes applicable which states as follows:

“ 116. Estoppel of tenants and of licensee of person in possession. –– No tenant of immovable property, or person claiming through such tenant, shall, during the continuance of the tenancy, be permitted to deny that the landlord of such tenant had, at the beginning of the tenancy, a title to such immovable property; and no person who came upon any immovable property by the licence of the person in possession there of shall be permitted to deny that such person had a title to such possession at the time when such licence was given.”

6. The learned Trial Court has examined this aspect and found that the landlord-tenant relationship has not been denied by the Respondent. So far as concerns, the bona fide requirement, the requirement as set out by the Respondent is that she is a senior citizen and she requires the subject premises for setting up her own business. The learned Trial Court has examined this requirement and found that no triable issue exist qua the requirement. Prima facie this Court finds no infirmity with either of these findings.

7. So far as concerns, the second of floor of property bearing no. 1977, it has been stated in the Reply to the Application for leave to defend, the same is being used by the Respondent for her residential accommodation. The issue before this Court is thus limited to the availability of three shops on the first floor of property bearing no. 1977.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner requests for some time to prepare on this aspect and address his submissions.

9. Prior to issuing Notice in the matter, this Court deems it expedient to hear the Respondent as well. For this purpose, let a complete set of the paper book be supplied to the Respondent. A copy of the complete set of paper book be supplied to the learned Counsel for the Respondent who appeared before the learned Trial Court. An affidavit of service be filed within a week.

10. At request, list on 28.03.2025.

11. In the meantime, the parties shall file their short note of contentions in the matter, not exceeding three pages, along with the compilation of judgme