Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 3 RC ARC 627/24
MUKESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. VIMLESH GAUR
12.12.2025
Present: Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ld. Counsel for petitioner with
petitioner in person.
None for respondent.
Publication report filed by petitioner. Taken on record.
As per alhmad report, the process issued to the respondent
via Reg. AD to the tenanted premises received back with remark “no such
person”. Further via ordinary process, summons received back with report
dated 05.12.2024 that person namely Tarvinder was found at the given
address who stated that Vimlesh Gaur (respondent) has not been residing at
this address for last 3-4 months. Hence, affixation was carried out on
05.12.2024.
Additionally, publication was also carried out in the
newspaper Veer Arjun dated 18.11.2025.
Submissions heard. Record has been perused.
In
Shyam Sunder Wadhavan Vs. Vivek Arya RC Rev. N.
294/17 & CM NO. 14886/14 dated 09.09.2014, it was held by the Hon’ble
High of Delhi that service done by affixation is a valid service.
Hence, in view of aforesaid discussion and observations,
respondent is deemed to be served at tenanted premises by way of affixation
on 05.12.2024. Further substituted service through publication has also
been effected on 18.11.2025.
Present is a petitioner under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section
25B of DRC Act. As per ahlmad report, no leave to defend application has
-- 1 of 4 --
been filed on behalf of respondent. Even though leave to defend has not
been filed within prescribed period, court is still ought to satisfy itself that
all ingredients of section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act have been made out.
Reliance is placed upon case titled as
Ramesh Basandara Vs. Moti Ram,
2003 RLR 539.
Heard. Perused.
Briefly stated the facts of petition are such that petitioner is
the landlord/owner of three storey premises bearing no.431, Haveli Haider
Kuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 having inherited from his father Late
Sh. Mahender Kumar. That respondent is a statutory tenant. That old
tenancy was created by father of petitioner in the year 1985 in respect of
one room on first floor of property bearing no. 431, Haveli Haider Kuli,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 as shown in red color in site plan filed with
petition (
hereinafter referred to as “tenanted premises”).
That tenancy was for Rs.40/- per month excluding
electricity and water charges.
That tenanted premises is lying locked since long. That
there are three rooms on ground floor, one small room, one tin shed on first
floor on right hand side and one room on second floor, which are in
possession of petitioner. That rooms on ground floor are being used for
residential purposes by petitioner. That room on first and second floor is
used by son of petitioner Sh. Ashish Kumar Sharma for running coaching
classes and teaching students of 11 and 12 class. The said accommodation is
very small for conducting coaching classes as in each batch there are 20-25
students.
Hence, petitioner requires tenanted premises for Bonafide
need of his son namely Ashish Kumar Sharma. That neither the petitioner
-- 2 of 4 --
nor his son has any other alternate suitable accommodation for running
coaching classes. That eldest son is dependent upon petitioner for
accommodation.
Petitioner has placed on record copy of judgment and
decree dated 10.01.2002 passed by the then Civil Judge, Delhi in the suit
filed by father of petitioner against the same respondent, wherein the court
had given the finding with respect to ownership of the father of petitioner in
the same property. Further, along with petition, petitioner has filed site plan,
copy of adhar of petitioner and his son Sh. Ashish Kumar, copy of rent
receipts, copy of electricity bill in the name of petitioner, copy of last paid
property tax in the name of father of petitioner, copy of water bills in the
name of father of petitioner.
Section 25B (4) of DRC Act provides that,
“The tenant on whom the summons is duly
served (whether in the ordinary way or by
registered post) 'in the form specified in the
Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer
for eviction from the premises unless he
files an affidavit stating the grounds on
which he seeks to contest the application for
eviction and obtains leave from the
Controller as hereinafter provided; and in
default of his appearance in pursuance of
the summons or his obtaining such leave,
the statement made by the landlord in the
application for eviction shall be deemed to
be admitted by the tenant and the applicant
shall be entitled to an order for eviction on
the ground aforesaid.”
Hence, respondent is deemed to have admitted the
relationship of landlord and tenant between petitioner and respondent. He is
also deemed to have admitted that the petitioner requires tenanted premises
-- 3 of 4 --
for bonafide need of his eldest son for starting coaching classes and that no
other reasonably suitable accommodation is available to petitioner.
In the case titled as
Ragavendra Kumar Vs Firm Prem
Machinery AIR 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.”
Hence, as a consequence thereof, an eviction order is
passed U/s. 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act in favour of petitioner and against the
respondent in respect of
one room on first floor of property bearing no. 431,
Haveli Haider Kuli, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 as shown in red color
in site plan filed with petition. However, this order shall not be operative
before the expiry of six months from today keeping in view Section 14(7)
of DRC Act.
File be consigned to the Record Room after due
compliance.
(DIVYA GUPTA)
ARC-02 (Central), THC,
12.12.2025
-- 4 of 4 --