RC.REV. 63/2017

Page 1 of 24

$~41

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on : 12.07.2023

Judgment pronounced on: 31.10.2023

+

RC.REV. 63/2017, CM APPLs. 40266/2017, 2189/2020

TILAK RAJ BHASIN & ANR. ……… Petitioners

Through: Mr. Rajesh Bhatia, Mr.

Shivam, Advs.

Versus

DALIP KUMAR AHUJA ……… Respondent

Through: Mr. Dilip Singh, Mr. Raj

Lakshmi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

JUDGMENT

:

JASMEET SINGH, J

1.

The petitioners and respondent are referred as landlords and tenant

respectively in the present judgment.

2.

Landlords are aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order dated 12.08.2016

passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (in short “learned

Bhasin through LR’s vs. Dalip Kumar Ahuja” wherein the eviction

petition filed by the landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent

Control Act, 1958 (in short “DRC Act”) against their tenant was

dismissed.

Digitally Signed

By:AMIT ARORA

Signing Date:01.11.2023

12:00:50

RC.REV. 63/2017

Page 2 of 24

3.

The primary reason for dismissing the eviction petition by the learned

ARC was that the landlords were unable to prove their bonafide

requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.

FACTS/PLEADINGS

4.

Smt. Savitri Rani Bhasin is the owner of the entire property bearing no.

C-152, Rishi Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi and the tenant was inducted in

one shop situated on the ground floor of property bearing No. C-152,

Rishi Nagar, Shakur Basti, Delhi – 34 (in short “tenanted premises”)

in the year 1980.

5.

The tenanted premises were let out for commercial purpose and it is

being used for commercial purpose. The tenant is running a business

under the name of M/s Ahuja Decorators. The rate of rent of the

tenanted premises at the time of filing the eviction petition was Rs.

360/- per month excluding other charges.

6.

Smt. Bhasin had filed an eviction petition against their tenant under

section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act on the ground of bonafide

requirement.

7.

It was stated in the eviction petition that Smt. Savitri Bhasin is living at

the first floor of the premises bearing no. C-152, Rishi Nagar, Shakur

Basti, Delhi – 34 with her family members in a joint family. Family of

Smt. Bhasin consists of her husband namely Sh. Tilak Raj Bhasin, her

son Sh. Anil Bhasin, her daughter in law Smt. Kavita Bhasin, Sh. Yatin

and Ms. Ananya being the grand children of the Smt. Bhasin.

8.

Smt. Bhasin contends that the tenanted premises is required for her

grandson namely Yatin Bhasin, who is pursing B.Tech from Maharaja

Digitally Signed

By:AMIT ARORA

Signing Date:01.11.2023

12:00:50

RC.REV. 63/2017

Page 3 of 24

Agrasen University as he wants to start his own business and is

dependent on the landlords and the landlords have no other alternative

accommodation.

9.

During the pendency of the proceedings, Smt. Bhasin had expired and

her LRs (Tilak Raj Bhasin “husband” and Anil Bhasin “son”) were

substituted in the eviction petition.

10.As regards the accommodation is concerned, it is stated that there is

one shop (yellow in site plan) which is run by Anil Bhasin who is

running a business of electrical goods from the said shop. The other

portion (shown in blue) is in occupation of another tenant namely Sh.

Vijay Bahadur Saxena along with his family members for the

residential purpose and the portion (shown in orange color) is being

used by the landlords for the purpose of garage parking of vehicles for

the last more than 21 years.

11.After receiving summons, tenant filed leave to defend application, the

said application was dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2013. The said

order was challenged before this Hon‟ble Court and tenant was granted

leave to defend vide order dated 27.11.2014.

12.Subsequently, written statement was filed by the tenant before the

learned ARC contesting that there are several sho