Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005238

CM(M) 1705/2019

Page 1 of 13

$~31(Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 1705/2019 & CM APPL.51556/2019

DR O M PARMAR

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.Neeraj Yadav, Adv.

versus

HARSH VARDHAN NAYYAR

..... Respondent

Through:

Ms.Samapika

Biswal

and

Mr.Aman Kumar Yadav, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T(O R A L)

%

24.11.2022

1.

Eviction Petition E18/2012 was instituted by the respondent

Harsh Vardhan Nayyar against the petitioner Dr. O M Parmar, seeking

eviction of the petitioner under Clause (a) of the proviso to Section

14(1)¹ of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the DRC Act), in respect

114. Protection of tenant against eviction –

(1)Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree

for the recovery of possession of anv promises shall be made by any court or Controller in favour of

the landlord against a tenant:

Provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an

order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only,

namely: —

(a)that the tenant has neither paid nor tendered the whole of the arrears of the rent legally

recoverable from him within two months of the date on which a notice of demand for the

arrears of rent has been served on him by the landlord in the manner provided in section

106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882;

(b)that the tenant has, on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, sub-let, assigned or otherwise

parted with the possession of the whole or any part of the premises without obtaining the

consent in writing of the landlord;

(c)that the tenant has used the premises for a purpose other than that for which they were

let—

(i)if the premises have been let on or after the 9th day of June, 1952, without obtaining

the consent in writing of the landlord; or

(j)if the premises have been let before the said date without obtaining his consent;

(d)that the premises were let for use as a residence and neither the tenant nor any member of

his family has been residing therein for a period of six months immediately before the

date of the filing of the application for the recovery of possession thereof;

(e)that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for

occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him,

if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and

that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential

accommodation;

Digitally Signed

By:SUNIL SINGH NEGI

Signing Date:01.12.2022

17:54:30

Signature Not Verified

Neutral Citation Number : 2022/DHC/005238

CM(M) 1705/2019

Page 2 of 13

of the premises at No. 32, First Floor, Shankar Market, Connaught

Place, New Delhi-110001 (“the tenanted premises”). The eviction

petition averred that the premises had been let out to the present

petitioner Dr. O M Parmar by the predecessor-in-interest of the

respondent Dr. Sushila Nayyar, for running a clinic at a monthly rent

of ₹ 1,200/- including electricity, water charges and other charges.

2.

For ease of reference, allusion to the petitioner and the

respondent would be made, hereinafter, as “Parmar” and “Nayyar”

respectively.

3.

The petition alleged that Parmar was in default of rent since 1^st

January 2001, despite service of legal notice on him, by Nayyar, on

30^th September 2010. In the circumstances, Nayyar, invoking Clause

(a) of the proviso to Section 14(1) of the DRC Act, [which for ease of

reference, would be cited hereinafter as Section 14(1)(a)], sought that

Parmar be evicted from the tenanted premises.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause, "premises let for residential purposes"

include any premises which having been let for use as a residence are, witho