Final Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: 16 RC ARC 25/25
SUNITA LAKRA Vs. SH RAM BABU GUPTA
07.02.2026
Present: Sh. Navin Kumar Ld. Proxy counsel for petitioner.
1. Summons issued under the third Schedule received back with the remarks
that despite attempt on 18.12.2025, 24.12.2025 and 29.12.2025, the tenanted
premised was found locked and therefore service was affected by way of
affixation at the tenanted premises on 29.12.2025. Photograph verifying the
affixation has also been annexed .
2. In Gurdev Singh Bindra Vs. Ranbir Singh 169 (2010) DLT 680, it was
observed by the Hon’ble court that the landlord has no Responsibility against the
tenant to furnish any other address except the tenanted premises. Further, in
Shyam Sunder Wadhawan Vs. Vivek Arya RC REV No. 294/17 & CM No.
14886/14 dated 09.09.2014, it was held by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi that
service done by affixation is valid service under the DRC Act in case tenant
refuses or avoids service of the summons.
3. Considering the fact that three attempts were made to find the tenant on
three different dates and at different times i.e. at 11:40 am on 18.12.2025, at
02:45 PM on 24.12.2025 and at 11:45 am on 29.12.2025, it is apparent that the
tenant is avoiding the service of the summons.
4. Accordingly, respondent is deemed to have been served on 29.12.2025.
5. As per reader report, no leave to defend application has been either e-filed
or physically filed.
-- 1 of 4 --
6. Ld. Counsel for petitioner also affirms that no leave to defend application
has been filed by respondent.
7. Submissions heard. Record perused.
8. 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 29.12.2025. Thus, no grounds for contesting the eviction petition
has been sought within 15 days from the date of service of summons.
9. The present petition has been filed by averring that respondent is a old
tenant in Shop no. N-30, at Ground Floor, Part Pvt. No. N-19, Munshi Lal
Building, Connaught Place, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises)
and more specifically as shown in red colour in the site plan annexed with the
petition. It is stated that the tenanted premises was purchased by Sh. Vijay Kumar
Lakra (husband of the petitioner) jointly with Sh. H.P. Soeone. It is further
averred that in the year 2010 the said H.P. Soeone executed release deed in favour
of the petitioner with respect to the tenanted premises. It is further stated that
thereafter respondent started tendering rent to the husband of the petitioner. It is
stated that the husband of the petitioners demised on 04.11.2022 leaving behind
the petitioner and their son Varun Lakra. It is stated that the said son Varun Lakra
has already executed a relinquishment deed with respect to the tenanted premises
in favour of the petitioner. Hence, it is stated plaintiff is the owner/landlord of
the tenanted premises in question.
-- 2 of 4 --
10. It is stated that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for the
bonafide requirement of her daughter-in-law who wishes to run her boutique and
sell designer suits. It is averred that the tenanted premises is situated in
Connaught Place and therefore is most suitable location for the said requirement.
It is also averred that no other vacant alternative accommodation is available with
the petitioner for the said requirement. Further, it is stated that the petitioner has
also filed a separate petition with respect to the mezzanine floor of the shop in
question. Accordingly, it is prayed that an eviction order may be passed in favour
of the petitioner.
11. Alongwith the petition, petitioner has filed original site plan, copy of sale
deed dated 27.09.2006, copy of receipts dated 26.08.2019 and 28.08.2020, copy
of cheque no. 225608 dated 26.08.2019 of Rs. 1596/- in favour of Vijay Kumar
Lakra, copy of chequ no. 225609 dated 26.08.2019 of Rs. 1596/- in favour of
Vijay Kumar Lakra, copy of legal notice dated 22.04.2025, copy of returned
envelope, copy of speed post receipt, copy of tracking of speed post receipt.
12. 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.
-- 3 of 4 --
13. Hence, the respondent is deemed to have admitted the relationship of
landlord and tenant between the petitioner and the respondent. Respondent is also
deemed to have admitted that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for the
bonafide need of the daughter-in-law of the petitioner for starting of her boutique
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 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."
14. 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 respondent in respect
of tenanted premises i.e. Shop no. N-30, at Ground Floor, Part Pvt. No. N-19,
Munshi Lal Building, Connaught Place, Delhi and 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.
15. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Sh. Rupinder Singh Dhiman
ACJ/CCJ/ARC, NDD, PHC
New Delhi :07.02.2026
-- 4 of 4 --