CM(M) 784/2022

Page 1 of 26

$~34 (Appellate)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

CM(M) 784/2022 & CM APPL. 34641/2022

RAVINDER SURI & ORS.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Adv.

versus

DAYAWATI (SINCE DECEASED) THR LRS .... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Ajay Gupta, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

%

01.09.2022

1.

Eviction Petition E-155/2014 (New No. 77604/2016) was

instituted by the respondent Dayawati against the petitioners, before

the learned Additional Rent Controller (―the learned ARC‖) seeking

eviction of the petitioners from Shop No. 203, Ground Floor, Chawri

Bazar, Delhi-110006 (―the tenanted premises‖, hereinafter), under

clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14(1)¹ (hereinafter referred to as

―Section 14(1)(e)‖) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (―the DRC

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 any premises 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:-

*****

(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 suitably

residential accommodation;

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, without

the consent of the landlord, used incidentally for commercial or other purposes;

2022:DHC:3463

CM(M) 784/2022

Page 2 of 26

Act‖). The respondent pleaded, in the said petition, that she required

the tenanted premises for her two sons and three grandsons.

2.

On 4^th August 2018, the respondent filed an application, before

the learned ARC, seeking leave to withdraw E-155/2014, stating that

she was ―no more interested to continue the petition‖. Accordingly,

vide order dated 7^th August 2018, E-155/2014 was dismissed as

withdrawn.

3.

15 days thereafter, on 20^th August 2018, the respondent filed

Eviction Petition E-724/18 (from which the present proceedings

emanate), praying for eviction of the petitioners from the tenanted

premises, claiming that that the tenanted premises were required by

her daughters-in-law to run a boutique.

4.

Given the location of the tenanted premises, in the busy

Chandni Chowk area, the respondent contended, in the eviction

petition, that the tenanted premises constituted the most suitable

accommodation from where her daughters-in-law could profitably

operate the boutique.

5.

Leave to defend the eviction petition, was granted to the

petitioners by the learned Additional Rent Controller (―the learned

ARC‖), vide order dated 13^th May 2019.

6.

Having reproduced the rival contentions of the parties before

him, the learned ARC entered his observations, on the application for

leave to defend, thus:

2022:DHC:3463

CM(M) 784/2022

Page 3 of 26

―No documentary proof that the said property bearing no.

1198 is residential has been placed on record by the petitioner,

even though, the petitioner has stated to be residing on the

said address. However, there is no denying that there are

shops on the lower ground floor. Perusal of the site plan relied

upon by the petitioner herself shows that there is a basement,

ground, first and second floor. At one place, the petitioner is

alleging the said property is to be residential and later on has

alleged that there are shops on the ground floor