Final Order 4

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 23 RC ARC 16/26
MOHINDER KUMAR SEKHRI Vs. BUDH RAM
01.04.2026
At 3.30 PM.
Present: None.
1. As per ahlmad report, no leave to defend application has been filed till date
either physically or by way of e-filing.
2. Perusal of record shows that the summons under the Third Schedule were
issued to the respondent vide order dated 09.01.2026 and the was served by way
of affixation on 25.02.2026. Thus, the respondent stood served on 25.02.2026 but
no leave for contesting the matter has been sought within the prescribed period.
3. Submissions heard. Record perused.
4. In the landmark case of
Prithipal Singh Vs. Satpal Singh (2010) 2 SCC 15,
the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the statutory period of 15 days for filing of
leave to defend application is inflexible. Hence, no extension can be granted. In the
present matter, application for leave to defend has not been filed despite service
on 25.02.2026. Thus, no grounds for contesting the eviction petition has been
sought within 15 days from the date of service of summons. However, even if,
application for leave to defend has not been filed, the court still ought to satisfy
itself that all ingredients of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act have been made out. In
this context, reliance is placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
in the case of Ramesh Basandara Vs. Moti Ram, 2003 RLR 539.
5. The present petition has been filed by averring that the mother of the
petitioner namely, Smt. Raj Rani had purchased property bearing no.1654-1656,
Contd…………..
-- 1 of 4 --
-2-
Namdewallan, Himmat Garh, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006 jointly in the name of
Raj Rani, Mohinder Kumar and Praveen Kumar vide Registered Sale Deed dated
18.04.1984. That at the time of purchase of property, the petitioner and his brother
were minors. That the tenanted premises consists of one room admeasuring
7’6X9’X9’ on the ground floor, H.No.1656, Himmatgarh, Gali Lehswa, Bazar
Sita Ram, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises) and more
specifically shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the petition. It is
further averred that respondent is tenant in respect of one room situated on ground
floor on monthly rent of Rs.20/-. It is further averred that the property consists of
ground and first floor. That the mother of the petitioner expired on 02.03.2009 and
his brother Praveen Kumar also expired on 29.08.2016. That after the death of
mother and brother of petitioner, the petitioner became the sole and absolute owner
of the property. That the portion of mother of petitioner was under the tenancy of
the father of respondent and after his death, the respondent became the tenant. The
respondent is running his shop under the name and style of M/s Chacha Chunni Lal
Sweet Corner at Y-3/41, Mangolpuri, Delhi-110083 and is not using the tenanted
room. That the petitioner is 61 % handicapped and is unable to walk without an
attendant. The family of the petitioner consists of himself, his wife, two sons and
one daughter. That the tenanted room under the tenancy of the respondent is suitable
for the bonafide need of petitioner and his son, therefore, the petitioner requires the
tenanted room for his requirement.
Hence, it is prayed that eviction order may be
passed in favour of the petitioner.
6. Alongwith the eviction petition, petitioner has filed copy of sale deed in
faovur of the petitioner, copy of the death certificate of mother and brother of the
petitioner, copy of Aadhar Card of petitioner and his children alongwith disability
Contd…………..
-- 2 of 4 --
-3-
documents and site plan.
7. Section 25-B (4) of the Delhi Rent Control Act provides that
the tenant shall
not contest the prayer for eviction unless they file an affidavit stating the ground on
which they seek to contest the application for eviction and obtains leave from the
controller. Such leave for contesting has to be sought within 15 days from service
of summons. Since such leave has not been sought within 15 days, the assertions
made by the landlord in the application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted
by the tenant and the petitioner shall be entitled for an order for eviction on the said
ground.
8. The respondent, therefore, deemed to have admitted the relationship of
landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. Further, respondent
is also deemed to have admitted that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises
for the bonafide need of his dependent son and that no other reasonably suitable
accommodation is available to the petitioner.
It is also well settled law that a
landlord is the best judge of his requirement and whether or not the tenanted
premises is adequate for running of the business of the petitioner, is not for the
tenant or even the court to decide. In this regard the ratio of the Hon’ble High Court
of Delhi in the case of Tarun Kumar Vs. Parmanand Garg in RC. Rev. No. 56/2018
decided on 09.11.2023, is to be noted where it was held as under :-
“52. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has repeatedly
held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the landlord and
dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to be best
utilized by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his property
and the best person to decide which property is to utilized in what
way is the landlord himself. In addition, the respondent also cannot
dictate as to how the landlord is to utilize his property.
53.The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their
Contd…………..
-- 3 of 4 --
-4-
specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. It is
not within the purview of the court to impose directives on the
landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage of the
tenanted premises. Essentially, the courts should refrain from
prescribing any standard or guidelines for the landlord’s residential
choices.”
9. Further, in the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery
2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his
requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got
complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K
Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff-
landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for
starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
10. Therefore, the eviction petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control Act is
allowed and an eviction order is passed u/s 14 (1) (e) r/w Section 25-B of Delhi
Rent Control Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents in respect
of tenanted premises i.e.
one room admeasuring 7’6X9’X9’ on the ground floor,
H.No.1656, Himmatgarh, Gali Lehswa, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi-110006, more
specifically shown in red colour in the site plan filed with the eviction petition. It is
made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to get the eviction order executed
before the expiry of six months running from today.
11.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Gaurav Goyal)
ARC-1, Central, THC
01.04.2026
-- 4 of 4 --