Final Order 10

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 1 of 22
IN THE COURT OF MS DHANASHREE DEKA
SCJ-CUM-RC CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
RC ARC No. 164/2025
Smt. Meera Singh
W/o Late Shri Pushp Raj Singh,
R/o 4490, Second Floor, 7/21,
Makhan Lal Street, Ansari Road,
Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002.
……… Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Parbhat Arora
S/o Shri Prem Chand Arora,
Tenants of One room on Ground Floor,
4490, 7/21, Makhan Lal Street,
Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002.
2. Smt. Renu Arora
W/o Shri Parbhat Arora
Tenants of One room on Ground Floor,
H. No. 4490, (Ground Floor), 7/21, Makhan Lal Street,
Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002.
Also At:
10267-B, West Gorakh Park,
Street No. 1, Shahdara, Delhi-110032.
……… Respondents
Under Section : 14(1)(e), DRC Act
Date of institution : 25.03.2025
Date of decision : 07.04.2026
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide application under
Section 25B(4) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 of the
respondents seeking permission for leave to defend the eviction
petition.
-- 1 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 2 of 22
2. Vide the present eviction petition, the petitioner is
seeking eviction of respondents from one room (length 17’-4 ½”
breadth 12’-4 ½”, height – 11’-11”) on ground floor of property
bearing no. 4490, 7/21, Makhan Lal Street, Ansari Road, Darya
Ganj, New Delhi-110002, as shown in red colour in the site plan
annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as “
Tenanted
Premises”) under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as
“DRC
Act”).
3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner, as per the
eviction petition, is that her husband and mother-in-law,
namely
Sh. Pushp Raj and Smt. Raj Kumari respectively were the joint
owners of eastern half portion of property bearing no. 4490, 7/21,
Makhan Lal Street, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New
Delhi-110002, by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated
01.04.1971. Thereafter, Smt Raj Kumari expired. Vide decree
dated 20.05.1974 passed by Ld. ADJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in
a partition suit pending between the Sh. Pushp Raj Singh and his
elder brother i.e. Sh. Vijay Raj Singh, Sh. Pushp Raj Singh
became the exclusive owner of the eastern half portion of the
aforesaid property, which comprises of the tenanted premises.
The tenanted premises was let out to the respondents by Sh.
Pushp Raj Singh vide rent deed dated 01.07.1993 at monthly rent
of Rs. 425/-, which was later enhanced to Rs. 999/-.
Subsequently, Sh. Pushp Raj Singh expired on 06.06.2020,
leaving behind his wife (petitioner herein), one son and two
daughters. The aforesaid son and two daughters executed
-- 2 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 3 of 22
registered Relinquishment Deed dated 16.10.2020 in favour of
the petitioner and as such, petitioner became the owner/landlady
of the entire Ground and Second Floor with Terrace/Third Floor
of the eastern half portion of property bearing no. 4490, 7/21,
Makhan Lal Street, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New
Delhi-110002. Sh. Pushp Raj Singh, during his lifetime, had sold
first floor of aforesaid property vide two sale deeds, both dated
23.10.1997.
4. As per the eviction petition, the petitioner’s son is a
Colonel in the Army and he visits her occasionally and his
wife/Akriti Singh stays with the petitioner most of the time. A
full time servant also stays with the petitioner for her help. The
two daughters of the petitioner are married and they, alongwith
the respective husbands and children, visit the petitioner
frequently and stay with her. Currently, the petitioner is residing
on the second floor of property bearing no. 4490, 7/21, Makhan
Lal Street, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002, which
interalia has two bed rooms, which are insufficient to
accommodate the petitioner and her family when they visit her.
The petitioner states that there are 07 rooms and one semi room
on the ground floor of eastern portion of property bearing no.
4490, 7/21, Makhan Lal Street, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New
Delhi-110002 which are in possession of old tenants and she now
wants to get the same vacated and use it for her residential need.
It is stated that petitioner wants to use the aforesaid ground floor
for her bedroom, bathroom, pooja room as well as to
accommodate her full time domestic help and kitchen. The
petitioner also wants to provide some space to her daughter-in-
-- 3 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 4 of 22
law/Akriti Singh so that she can start her consultancy business
therein and stay with the petitioner. Petitioner wants to have
some space therein for parking family car and wants to leave
some space as open space for natural light to flow in. Stating that
the tenanted premises is required by the petitioner so that she can
convert it into her bedroom and further stating that petitioner has
no other accommodation for the aforesaid purpose, petitioner
seeks vacant possession of the same.
5. Notice of this eviction petition was sent to the
respondents in the prescribed format which was duly served on
the respondents, in response to which the respondents filed joint
leave to defend application accompanied by affidavit.
6. The respondents filed leave to defend application on
the following grounds :-
(i) The tenanted premises does not fall within the limits to
which the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applies.
(ii) Petitioner has no locus to file the present petition as
she is not the sole owner of the tenanted premises.
Relinquishment deed dated 16.10.2020 relied upon by the
petitioner in support of her ownership claim is a procured
document, executed in violation of law without paying accurate
stamp duty. Petitioner has not filed any document to show that
pursuant to any partition, Sh. Pushp Raj Singh became owner of
the tenanted premises.
(iii) There is no relationship of landlord-tenant between the
petitioner and the respondents and the rent receipt dated
04.03.2020 filed by the petitioner is a forged document.
-- 4 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 5 of 22
(iv) The petitioner has wrongly mentioned the address of
the tenanted premises as Municipal No. 4490 whereas plot no.
7/21 has municipal no. 4482 to 4490. As per respondents, the
property under possession of the respondents does not bear no.
4490 but is part of plot no. 7/21, which has municipal numbers
4482 to 4490.
(v) The petitioner has no bonafide need to accommodate
her family members on the second floor and for herself to shift to
the tenanted premises as her son never visits her and her
daughter-in-law also does not stay with her. The petitioner has
also not placed any document on record to show that she is
suffering from knee pain, diabetes etc. so as to justify her need
for the tenanted premises at the ground floor.
(vi) The second floor of the property concerned where the
petitioner is currently residing is sufficient to meet the projected
need of the petitioner.
(vii) The property comprising the tenanted premises,
consists of three floors, having area of 257 sq. yds. and same is
more than sufficient to accommodate entire family of the
petitioner.
(viii) The petitioner is in vacant physical possession of
ancestral property bearing no. 269, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar,
Khari Baoli, Delhi-110006 belonging to Late Sh. Pushp Raj
Singh.
(ix) The petitioner is seeking to evict the respondents with
malafide intention to sell or rent out the tenanted premises
subsequently for higher rent.
(x) The petitioner has filed wrong and incomplete site plan
as she has not filed complete site plan of plot no. 7/21, Makhan
-- 5 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 6 of 22
Lal Street. Further, petitioner has filed two site plans, which are
not identical, thereby giving rise to triable issue.
(xi) That the respondents are senior citizens and respondent
no-1, who is a practicing advocate, is also a heart patient, who
has been using the tenanted premises as his office and it would
be detrimental to his professional interest if respondents are
evicted from the same at such old age.
(xii) That the present petition is barred by Section 14(6) of
DRC Act as the tenanted premises was acquired by the petitioner
on 16.10.2020.
In above background, the respondents seeks leave to
defend the present eviction petition.
7. Petitioner filed Reply to the leave to defend application
of the respondents whereby petitioner denied the contents of the
leave to defend application and reiterated the contents of the
eviction petition. It is averred that relationship of landlord and
tenant exists between the parties.
8. Respondents filed Rejoinder to the Reply of the leave
to defend application denying the contents of the aforesaid Reply
and reiterating the averments of the leave to defend application.
9. Arguments heard. Record perused.
10. In a bonafide necessity eviction petition under Section
14(1)(e) of the Act, three aspects are required to be seen by the
court for decreeing the eviction petition.
Firstly, there must be a
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Secondly,
-- 6 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 7 of 22
it is to be seen whether the landlord requires the tenanted
premises for his bonafide need and/or the need of his family
members.
Thirdly, it has to be seen whether the landlord has an
alternative suitable accommodation.
11. The respondent has taken the plea that the tenanted
premises, which is situated in Darya Ganj, Delhi does not fall
within the limits to which the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as ‘
DRC’) applies. It was argued on
behalf of respondent that petitioner has not filed any notification
on record to show that DRC Act applies to the area of Darya
Ganj. Now, Section 1(2) of DRC Act provides that DRC Act
extends to the areas within the limits of the New Delhi Municipal
Committee and the Delhi Cantonment Board and to such urban
areas within the limits of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as
are specified in the First Schedule of the Act. The First Schedule
of the DRC Act specifies the areas, which immediately before
07.04.1958, were included in the following Municipalities:
(i) Municipality of New Delhi;
(ii) Municipal Committee, Delhi;
(iii) Notified Area Committee, Civil Station, Delhi;
(iv) Municipal Committee, Delhi-Shahdara;
(v) The Notified Area Committee, Red Fort;
(vi) The Municipal Committee, West Delhi;
(vii) The South Delhi Municipal Committee; and
(viii) The Notified Area Committee, Mehrauli.
12. From a plain reading of the aforesaid provisions, it can
be deduced that the DRC Act would apply to any urban area
-- 7 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 8 of 22
which fell within one of the aforesaid eight areas specified in the
First Schedule of DRC Act as on 07.04.1958. The proviso to
Section 1(2), DRC Act empowers the Central Government to
extend the said Act to any other urban area included within the
limits of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) by notification.
Thus, notification is required only for areas to which the DRC
Act is subsequently extended and not for areas which already fell
within the First Schedule of the DRC Act.
13. Reverting to the present matter, the tenanted premises
is situated in Darya Ganj, Delhi. As per Section 1(2) of DRC Act,
the said Act applies to urban areas which fall within the limits of
Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Section 1(2) of the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 provides that the said Act
extends to Delhi. Section 2(10) of said Act defines ‘Delhi’ as
entire area of the Union territory of Delhi except New Delhi and
Delhi Cantonment. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that
the area of Darya Ganj is an urban area of Delhi, and same does
not fall in the areas of New Delhi or Delhi Cantonment. Taking
judicial notice of the fact that Darya Ganj is an urban area and
that it does not fall in the areas of New Delhi or Delhi
Cantonment, it is deduced that the area of Darya Ganj fell within
the limits of Municipal Corporation of Delhi when said Act came
into force. Notably, the area of Darya Ganj is duly mentioned in
the current Schedule-14 of Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,
1957. As noted above, the DRC Act applies to all urban areas
falling within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Therefore, it can be concluded that when the DRC Act came into
force in the year 1958, same applied to the area of Darya Ganj as
-- 8 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 9 of 22
said area fell within the limits of Municipal Committee, Delhi
mentioned in 1st Schedule of the DRC Act. Therefore, the
requirement of issuance of separate Notification under DRC Act
for such area would not arise. In view of above discussion, DRC
Act is found to apply to the tenanted premises in the present
matter.
Ownership of tenanted premises and relationship of landlord-
tenant between petitioner and respondents :
14. The respondents have raised the contention that the
petitioner has no locus to file the present eviction petition as she
is not the sole owner of the tenanted premises.
Per contra,
petitioner has averred that eastern half portion of property
bearing 4490, plot no. 7/21, Makhan Lal Street, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002, which comprises of the tenanted
premises, were jointly owned by her husband/Pushp Raj Singh
and her mother-in-law/Raj Kumari. Subsequently, Smt. Raj
Kumari expired and vide judgment/decree dated 20.05.1994
passed in a partition suit, Sh. Pushp Raj Singh became exclusive
owner of aforesaid property. After demise of Sh. Pushp Raj
Singh, the three children of the petitioner executed
relinquishment deed dated 16.10.2020 in her favour, thereby
making her the exclusive owner of aforesaid property. In support
of her claim of ownership, petitioner has filed sale deed dated
01.04.1971 executed by one Sh. Narsingh Bahadur Singh in
favour of Pushp Raj Singh & Smt. Raj Kumari qua property
bearing Municipal No. 4482 to 4490, 7/21, Kashyap Lane,
Makhan Lal Street, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi. Petitioner
has also filed relinquishment deed dated 16.10.2020 whereby her
-- 9 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 10 of 22
three children relinquished their respective shares in property
bearing no. 4490, 7/21, Makhan Lal Street, Ansari Road, Darya
Ganj, Delhi in favour of the petitioner. By virtue of the two
aforesaid deeds, petitioner has successfully established that her
status qua the tenanted premises is akin to that of an owner.
Respondents have not really countered the claim of ownership
made by the petitioner nor have they brought any material on
record to create doubt over the two aforesaid deeds relied upon
by the petitioner. In fact, the only contention of the respondents
is that petitioner is not the sole owner of the tenanted premises.
Respondents have not stated as to who else owns the tenanted
premises apart from the petitioner and thus, said contention is a
vague and bald assertion, giving rise to no triable issue. Further,
it is implicit in the aforesaid contention of the respondents that
petitioner is at least a co-owner of the tenanted premises. If
petitioner is assumed to be merely a co-owner, as alleged by the
respondents, even then, it is now well settled that a co-owner is
complete owner in respect of the entire property and is competent
to file eviction petition without impleading other co-owners and
is to be considered as owner for the purposes of Section 14(1)(e)
of DRC Act. In this regard, reference is made to the case titled,
Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak AIR 1977 SC 1599 and Pal Singh vs.
Sunder Singh AIR 1989 SC 758. Thus, no merit found in above
contention of the respondents.
15. Respondents’ contention that petitioner has not filed
any document of the partition suit, whereby her husband/Pushp
Raj Singh became owner of the tenanted premises, is found to
hold no water. This is for the reason that petitioner has already
-- 10 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 11 of 22
filed sale deed dated 01.04.1971 executed in favour of Sh. Pushp
Raj Singh and Smt. Raj Kumari qua the property comprising the
tenanted premises. Even if it is assumed that no partition had
taken place between Sh. Pushp Raj Singh and Sh. Vijay Raj
Singh, even then, Sh. Pushp Raj Singh would continue to be co-
owner of the property concerned. The present petitioner, being
the widow of Sh. Pushp Raj Singh, would inherit the share of Sh.
Pushp Raj Singh, who have since expired and thus, would be
competent to file the present eviction petition. Regarding
respondents’ contention that relinquishment deed dated
16.10.2020 has been executed in violation of law, it would
suffice to say that respondents have no locus to dispute the said
deed executed between members of petitioner’s family, as they
are not claiming themselves to be owners of the tenanted
premises nor have brought any material to counter the ownership
documents of the petitioner.
16. Respondents have raised the contention that there is no
relationship of landlord-tenant between the petitioner and them.
In support of her averment that she is the landlord of the tenanted
premises, petitioner has filed rent deed dated 01.07.1993,
whereby tenanted premises was rented out to the respondents by
her husband/Sh. Pushp Raj Singh. In the entire leave to defend
application, respondents have not disputed the execution of
aforesaid rent deed. Thus, court has no reason to disbelieve the
aforesaid rent deed, as per which, respondents are tenants in the
tenanted premises.
-- 11 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 12 of 22
17. Although respondents have not denied or disputed rent
deed dated 01.07.1993, but they have alleged that rent receipt
dated 04.03.2020 filed by the petitioner is forged. The above
contention is found to be devoid of merit considering that
respondents have not really disputed the execution of rent deed
dated 01.07.1993, whereby they were inducted as tenants in the
tenanted premises. Respondents have also not disputed the
various other rent receipts filed by the petitioner, apart from rent
receipt dated 04.03.2020, wherein respondents are mentioned as
tenants in the tenanted premises. In nutshell, even if rent receipt
dated 04.03.2020 is not considered, status of respondents in the
tenanted premises is still found to be that of tenants by virtue of
rent deed dated 01.07.1993 and the various other rent receipts
filed by the petitioner.
18. The respondents have next contended that petitioner
has wrongly mentioned the address of the tenanted premises as
Municipal No. 4490 whereas plot no. 7/21 has municipal no.
4482 to 4490. A plain reading of the eviction petition reveals that
the tenanted premises is stated to be situated in the eastern half
portion of property bearing no. 4490 in plot no. 7/21. Now, even
if it is assumed that plot no. 7/21 has other properties as well
bearing municipal numbers 4482 to 4490, same is not relevant
for deciding the present eviction petition, which is filed qua the
tenanted premises situated in property no. 4490 alone. The
respondents’ contention that the property under their possession
does not bear the municipal number 4490 is a bald plea as
respondents have not brought any material to establish the same.
-- 12 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 13 of 22
19. The petitioner has, therefore, probabilized her case that
she is the landlord and owner of the tenanted premises and the
respondents are her tenants for the purpose of section 14(1)(e) of
Delhi Rent Control Act.
Requirement of premises bonafide by the petitioner for herself
and for members of her family dependent upon her and non-
availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation:
20. Respondents have disputed the bonafide need of the
petitioner stating that petitioner’s son never visits her as relation
between them is not cordial and that petitioner’s daughter-in-law
also does not stay with her. The above contention of the
respondents are bald pleas, unsupported by any material on
record. Thus, Court finds no reason to disbelieve the averment of
the petitioner that her son, who is a colonel in the Army, visits
her whenever he is stationed in Delhi. As far as the daughter-in-
law is concerned, even if it is assumed that she is not currently
residing with the petitioner, same is not a ground to disbelieve
the petitioner’s case that once she has reconstructed the property,
thereby providing space for her daughter-in-law’s business, said
daughter-in-law would spend time with her with a view to taking
care of the petitioner, who is stated to be an old lady of about 65
years.
21. Respondents have also disputed the petitioner’s
averment that she has health ailments including knee pain,
requiring her to shift to the ground floor. Respondents’ claim that
petitioner has filed no document in support of her aforesaid
averment is falsified by the various medical documents on
-- 13 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 14 of 22
record, which shows that petitioner is undergoing treatment for
ailments including diabetes. Even otherwise, the advanced age of
65 years of petitioner is sufficient reason for her to claim
residence on the ground floor. Accordingly, court finds no
illegality or lack of bonafide in the claim of the petitioner seeking
the tenanted premises on the ground floor, as said age of the
petitioner itself entitles her to exercise the option of not having
climb the stairs to her current residence at the second floor, if she
can shift to her alternate accommodation on the ground floor.
Thus, petitioner’s need of the tenanted premises on the ground
floor appears to be bonafide.
22. Respondents have claimed that petitioner has suitable
alternative accommodation to meet her requirement. The
availability of alternate accommodation with the petitioner, as
alleged by the respondents, will now be discussed. Respondents
claimed that the second floor of 4490, 7/21, Makhan Lal Street,
Darya Ganj, Delhi is sufficient for the petitioner’s requirement.
However, petitioner has already averred in the eviction petition
that the second floor has one drawing room and two bed rooms,
only one of which has attached bathroom, apart from a kitchen, a
separate bath, varandah and courtyard, which are not sufficient to
accommodate the petitioner’s entire family. As per the eviction
petition, petitioner has bonafide need of at least five rooms,
which she will use as her bedroom, bathroom, pooja room &
servant room, kitchen and some space for her daughter-in-law’s
consultancy business. Apparently, the second floor which has
only two bedrooms is insufficient to accommodate the aforesaid
need of the petitioner.
-- 14 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 15 of 22
23. Proceeding further, respondents have contended that
the property comprising the tenanted premises, which consists of
three floors with area of 257 sq. yds., is sufficient to
accommodate entire family of the petitioner. However, it is
already averred in the eviction petition that the first floor of the
aforesaid property was sold off by Sh. Pushp Raj Singh vide
registered sale deeds dated 23.10.1997 and that the third
floor/terrace only has a
barsati, which is used for storage
purpose. In view of above averments of the petitioner,
respondents ought to have explained as to how first and third
floor of aforesaid property are available for use of the petitioner
but he has not explained the same. Regarding the second floor,
petitioner has already stated the same to be insufficient for her
residential need and in the discussion made above, court has
already recorded its finding that the aforesaid second floor is not
suitable or sufficient to meet the requirement of the petitioner.
Thus, said contention gives rise to no triable issue.
24. The respondents have further contended that the
petitioner is in vacant physical possession of ancestral property
bearing no. 269, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, Khari Baoli,
Delhi-110006 belonging to her husband/Pushp Raj Singh. In her
counter affidavit, petitioner has categorically stated that her
husband has no concern with the aforesaid property and that
same belongs to his two brothers,
namely, Sh. Vijay Raj Singh
and Sh. Hans Raj Singh. Since petitioner has categorically denied
having any concern with aforesaid property, it was incumbent
upon the respondents to bring some material on record to show
that aforesaid property is indeed owned by the petitioner/her
-- 15 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 16 of 22
husband or is available to her as an alternate suitable
accommodation. However, respondents have brought no such
material on record. It may be mentioned here that the
photographs filed by respondents do not, by any stretch of
imagination, establish that aforesaid property is owned or
available to the petitioner. Therefore, said contention does not
give rise to any triable issue.
25. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has other
premises available for her stated requirement, even then the
choice is left to the landlord/petitioner to decide as to which of
such premises she should occupy and the tenant does not have
any say in this matter. In the case of
Ravichandran and Ors. Vs
Natrajan Nadar and Ors. (2004) 1 MLJ 458, the following was
held:
“Even assuming that other premises are available, then
the choice is left to the landlord to decide as to which
non-residential premises he should occupy, and the
tenant cannot have any say in the matter. If the landlord
is able to show the bonafide, then the tenant cannot
dictate terms to the landlord that he should occupy some
other building and not the one mentioned in the
petition.”
26. In the case of
Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem
Machinery AIR 2000 SC 534, the Hon'ble Supreme court held
that 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.
27. In crux, it is not for the respondents to dictate to the
petitioner that she should use some other accommodation, even if
same is available to her. The tenanted premises belong to the
-- 16 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 17 of 22
petitioner and it is for the petitioner to see whether it is suitable
for her requirement or not. It is the right of the petitioner to
choose a property which is going to be more convenient for her
residential need. If the tenanted premises is suitable as per her
needs, the petitioner has every right to possess the said premises
and the respondents cannot contend that the petitioner should
manage her affairs otherwise. While deciding the question of
bonafide requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to
make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have
adjusted. In view of the above discussion, the allegation of the
respondents that the petitioner has alternative suitable
accommodations does not give rise to any triable issue.
Other Pleas
28. Next, respondents have contended that the petitioner
seeks to get the tenanted premises vacated only to sell the same
or let it out at higher rent. Same does not give rise to any triable
issue. This is for the reason that in case petitioner sells or rents
out the tenanted premises at higher rent after obtaining its
possession from the respondents, the respondents herein have the
remedy of getting back the possession of the property under
Section 19 of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
29. The respondents have also contended that the petitioner
has not filed complete site plan of plot no. 7/21, Makhan Lal
Street. The said contention is found to be vague and cryptic, as
respondents have not specified as to how and in what manner,
site plan filed by the petitioner is incomplete or how the same
lacks any material particular. In other words, respondents have
-- 17 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 18 of 22
not explained as to how the tenanted premises is incorrectly or
incompletely depicted in the site plan of the petitioner. Perusal of
the petitioner’s site plan reveals that same depicts the entire
ground floor of property bearing no. 4490, 7/21, Makhan Lal
Street, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, Delhi and the tenanted
premises is depicted therein in red.
Prima facie, nothing in the
aforesaid site plan gives the impression that same is incomplete.
Respondents have filed a site plan of their own but they have not
explained as to how the same differs from the one filed by the
petitioner. Thus, no such triable issue raised by the respondents
in this regard.
30. Respondents have also contended that petitioner has
filed two site plans at Annexure-C and Annexure-F and that said
site plans are not identical. During the course of arguments, Ld.
counsel for petitioner clarified that the site plan in Annexure-C is
part of rent deed dated 08.07.1993 in Annexure-B, whereas the
site plan in Annexure-F is the one filed in support of the present
eviction petition. Respondents’ claim that the two site plans are
not identical is vague in nature as respondents have not explained
how the two site plans are contrary to or differ from each other.
Thus, respondents have failed to raise any triable issue on this
count.
31. Respondents have raised the plea that they are senior
citizens and respondent no-1 has been using the tenanted
premises as his office for practicing as advocate. It is further
averred that respondents would be subject to extreme hardship if
the petitioner is allowed to evict the respondents from the
-- 18 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 19 of 22
tenanted premises at such old age. Court is of the considered
opinion that the hardship of the tenant cannot be looked into
while deciding the present petition. Court cannot determine the
present petition only on the basis of sympathy for the
respondents, ignoring the bonafide need of the petitioner for her
own property.
32. Lastly, respondents have contended that the present
petition is barred by Section 14(6) of DRC Act as the tenanted
premises was acquired by the petitioner on 16.10.2020 and a
period of five years had not expired since 16.10.2020 till filing of
the present petition. It is correct that petitioner became sole
owner of the property comprising the tenanted premises by virtue
of relinquishment deed dated 16.10.2020 but even before said
deed was executed, petitioner was a co-owner of aforesaid
property, being the widow/Class-I legal heir of erstwhile owner,
namely, Sh. Pushp Raj Singh and she was not a stranger to the
property. As such, petitioner did not acquire the property
comprising the tenanted premises through relinquishment deed
dated 16.10.2020 but she merely became the sole owner on
execution of said deed. Section 14(6) of DRC Act applies only
when landlord acquires the premises by way of transfer and such
landlord was a stranger to the property prior to such transfer. In
this regard, reliance is placed on the case titled
Ajay Kumar
Gupta Vs. Prakash Chand Gupta & Ors., wherein Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi has held as under :
"8. The aforesaid reflects that the subject premises fell into
the hands of the landlords after members of the same
family initiated certain steps inter se themselves. Also, that
they all had been/ were co-owners of the subject premises
at some point of time. Thus, the said steps were of a nature
-- 19 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 20 of 22
akin to a family settlement. The learned ARC has rendered
his findings proceeding on the said basis, and in line with
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. N.
Sarin vs. Major Ajit Kumar Poplai 1966 SCR (1) 349 on
the scope and intent of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act.
9. This Court is in complete agreement with the aforesaid
findings of the learned ARC. In the considered opinion of
this Court, the bar under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act
comes into play only when "... ...a landlord has acquired
any premises by transfer......", and where, in the present
case, the landlords were not rank outsiders/ third parties,
were, admittedly, owners of the subject premise before
through lineage, and all subsequent documents were
executed inter se members of the same family, it cannot be
held that there was an acquisition by transfer as envisaged
in Section 14(6) of the DRC Act. Even otherwise, the
tenant was unable to show as to how the said Gift Deed
dated 24.12.2021 would come under the ambit of the bar
under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act. This gives no reason
for this Court to disagree with the findings rendered by the
learned ARC qua the above."
33. Reliance is also placed on case titled
Onkar Singh Vs.
Saheb Ditta Mal Kohli 1970 RCR 18, wherein the Hon’ble High
Court of Delhi has held as under :-
“It is clear from the language particularly in view of the
background of the object of sub-section (6) that the transfer
must be by a voluntary act of the landlord who transfers.
An acquisition of the property by inheritance can by no
stretch of imagination be said to be such a voluntary
transfer even if the property comes to the heir by means of
will. According to the argument advanced, even in a case
where the landlord filed a petition on the ground of
personal bonafide requirement and died during the
pendency of the petition wherein his heirs are brought on
the record as his legal representatives, the petition will be
defeated because the heirs have obtained the property by
transfer and will not have completed the requisite period of
five years after acquisition of the property. In my opinion,
the word “transfer” in sub-section (6) of section 14 of the
Act contemplates only a voluntary transfer and not a
transfer by inheritance. That being so, there is no substance
in the objection as to the maintainability of the petition by
the respondents before the expiry of five years from the
date when he acquired the property by inheritance.”
-- 20 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 21 of 22
34. In the present matter, the factum of relinquishment of
the shares of the three children of the petitioner in the property
concerned in favour of the petitioner cannot be said to be
acquisition of the property by way of transfer, so as to attract the
bar contained in Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Hence, respondents have failed to raise any triable issue on this
count.
35. The net result is that petitioner has been able to
establish that the tenanted premises is required bonafide by her
and that she has no other reasonably suitable alternative
accommodation for the purpose. The respondents have failed to
raise any reasonable triable issue. The application for leave to
defend is dismissed.
36. Since the application seeking leave to defend has been
dismissed, the petitioner is entitled for an eviction order.
Accordingly, eviction order is passed in favour of the petitioner
and against the respondents directing the respondents to vacate
the tenanted premises i.e. one room (length 17’-4 ½” breadth
12’-4 ½”, height – 11’-11”) on ground floor of property bearing
no. 4490, 7/21, Makhan Lal Street, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi-110002 as shown in red colour in the site plan filed
with the eviction petition, in terms of Section 14(1)(e) r/w
Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The landlord,
however, shall not be entitled to obtain possession thereof before
the expiration of a period of six months from the date of this
order.
-- 21 of 22 --
RC ARC No. 164/25 Meera Singh Vs Parbhat Arora & Anr
	Page 22 of 22
36. No order as to costs. File be consigned to Record
Room.
Announced in the open court
on 7th April, 2026
(This order contains 22 pages and
each page is duly signed by me)
(DHANASHREE DEKA)
SCJ-cum-RC(Central),
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
-- 22 of 22 --