$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: 20.02.2025 + RC.REV. 15/2025, CM APPL. 10512/2024 PRABHATI LAL NOW DECEASED THROUGH THEIR LEGAL HEIRS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manish Kumar & Mr. Ashwani Kumar, Advocates.

versus NEETU NANDA .....Respondent Through: Ms. Upasana Pahuja, Ms. Mehak Chaudhary & Mr. Pranav Sahni, Advocates for R-1 with R-1 in person.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)

1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the Court.

2. This Court had examined the Impugned Order on 15.01.2025 and passed a detailed order. The relevant extract of the order dated 15.01.2025 is set out below:

“7. The present Petition has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner impugning the order dated 06.07.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi with respect to the premises i.e., property bearing no. 3772, Gali Ram Nath Patwa, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”]. By the Impugned Order, the leave to defend Application filed by the Petitioner has been dismissed.

8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Order suffers from an infirmity. It is submitted that the Respondent is not the owner of the subject premises. In addition, it is submitted that the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 15/2025 Page 1 of 14 need as projected by the Respondent is not bonafide.

9. The record reflects that the Petitioner admits that he is the tenant, he however states that the Respondent is not the owner of the subject premises. The learned Trial Court has dealt with this objection in the Impugned Order and has found that the Respondent has provided the entire chain of documents with respect to her ownership. The Respondent was found to have received the subject premises on a transfer from her predecessor-in-interest. The law on this aspect is well settled. All that the 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 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”]. Reliance is placed on Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha[(1987) 4 SCC 193] in this regard.

10. The learned Trial Court has given a finding that the Respondent is a co-owner of the subject premises, and thus is the landlord.

11. On the aspect of bona fide need, the need as projected by the Respondent is for her own residence. There was no challenge on this aspect by the Petitioner, none is submitted before this Court either. So far as concerns the availability of alternate suitable accommodation, the learned Trial Court has given a finding that no details of the suitable alternate accommodation have been provided and merely a bare reference has been made that there is an alternate accommodation available with the Respondent/landlord. The Courts have settled the law on this aspect as well.

11.1 The provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act have been provided with care by the legislature, not only is the accommodation to be ‘alternate’, but it is also required to be suitable. This has been elucidated by the Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand Gupta[(1999) 6 SCC 222], which has held that for an Eviction Petition to fail on the ground of availability of alternate suitable accommodation, the availability of another accommodation must be suitable and convenient in all respects as compared to the tenanted accommodation from which the landlord seeks eviction of the tenant. The relevant extract of Shiv Sarup case is extracted below:

“14. The availability of an alternative accommodation with the landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation, suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation, may have an adverse beari