Final Order 26

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. TANIA SINGH,
SCJ-cum-RC (NORTH EAST), KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI
RC/ARC No. 04/2023
CNR No. DLNE03-000045-2023
SHREE THAKUR BHAWANI SINGH DHARAMASHALA
SURKSHA SAMITI
Through its President namely Sh. Balraj Singh Rawat
Situated at X-9/38, Gali No. 9A Brahmpuri
Delhi-110053 ...Petitioner
VERSUS
SH. RAJENDRA ARORA
S/o Sh. Krishna Lal
R/o X-9/23, Gali No. 9,
Brahmpuri, Delhi-110053
Also At:-
X-9/38, Gali No. 9A,
Brahmpuri, Delhi-110053 ...Respondent
Date of Filing : 16.01.2023
Date of Order : 04.08.2026
Decision : Eviction Order
Passed
APPLICATION FOR EVICTION UNDER SECTION 14 (1) (e)
READ WITH SECTION 25-B OF DELHI RENT CONTROL
ACT, 1958
ORDER
1. Present petition U/Sec. 14 (1) (e) of Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”) has been filed
by the petitioner for eviction of the respondent from
the tenanted
premises i.e. One Shop situated at X-9/38, Gali No. 9A
Brahmpuri, Delhi-110053, as shown in red colour in the site plan
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tenanted Shop') in favour of the
petitioner and against the respondent.
RC/ARC No. 04/2023
	Shree Thakur Bhawani Singh Dharamshala Suraksha Samiti Vs. Sh. Rajendra Arora 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
2. It is averred that the petitioner is a registered Dharamshala
as on 03.07.1974 under the Registrar of Socities, Delhi and the
petitioner is the owner/landlord of the Tenanted Shop by virtue of
Affidavit dated 20.04.1974 which was executed by Sh. Bhawani
Singh S/o Sh. Hari Singh to make a dharamshala and mandir. It is
further stated that petitioner had let out the property/premises to
the respondent namely Rajendra Arora against monthly rent of
Rs. 2500/- excluding other charges. It is alleged that respondent is
a habitual defaulter in making payment of rent since
February-2022 despite repeated demands. Due to default of the
payment of rent, the tenancy of the respondent was terminated
from 30.09.2022 and he was asked to hand over the vacant and
peaceful possession of the Tenanted Shop within 60 days of
receipt of the notice.
3. The petitioner avers that the Tenanted Shop is required
bona fide for the use of parking as the petitioner provides its
premises on minimum fare to poor and middle class people for
the purpose of small celebrations like marriage, birthday parties,
etc. due to which there remains huge chaos of parked vehicles on
the road itself which causes heavy traffic for other vehicles. It is
prayed that an eviction order may be passed against the
respondent and in favour of petitioner.
4. I have carefully gone through the entire record and heard
Ld. Counsel for the petitioner.
5. In order to bring a case within the purview of section
14(1)(e) of DRC Act, the following requirements have to be met:
RC/ARC No. 04/2023
	Shree Thakur Bhawani Singh Dharamshala Suraksha Samiti Vs. Sh. Rajendra Arora 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
i). that there exist a landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties,
ii). that the petitioner/landlord is the owner of the
tenanted premises,
iii). that the tenanted premises are required by the
petitioner for his bona fide need or need of his
family members.
iv). that the petitioner does not have any other
alternative suitable accommodation.
6. It is settled law that the burden on the tenant is limited in
the sense that if the affidavit filed by him discloses such facts as
would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an order for recovery
of possession on the ground specified in Clause (e) of the proviso
to Section 14(1) of DRC Act, the leave to defend should be
permitted. It is not required by law that unless the tenant
establishes a strong case as would non-suit the landlord, leave to
defend application should not be granted. However, leave to
defend cannot also be granted for mere asking or in a routine
manner which will defeat the purpose behind the special
provisions of Chapter III-A of DRC Act. For availing leave to
defend u/s 25-B(5), a mere assertion per se would not suffice as
Section 14(1)(e) creates a presumption subject to the satisfaction
of Rent Controller in respect of the bona fide need of the
petitioner which is rebuttable with some material of substance to
the extent of raising a triable issue. The tenant is expected to put
in adequate and reasonable materials in support of the facts
pleaded in the form of declarations in the affidavit. Though the
satisfaction of the Rent Controller is subjective, degree of
probability is one of the preponderance forming the subjective
RC/ARC No. 04/2023
	Shree Thakur Bhawani Singh Dharamshala Suraksha Samiti Vs. Sh. Rajendra Arora 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
satisfaction of the Rent Controller. In this regard, reliance is
placed on the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of
Abid-Ul-Islam Vs. Inder Sain Dua (2022 6 SCC 30).
7. Perusal of the record would reveal that the notice of the
eviction petition issued to the respondent in the prescribed format
vide order dated 28/03/2023 and the respondent was duly served
on 13.04.2023 and thereafter, an application seeking leave to
defend was filed on his behalf on 26.04.2023. Reply to the
aforesaid application was filed on behalf of petitioner on
19.09.2023. It is pertinent to note here that multiple opportunities
have been granted to the respondent to argue on application
seeking leave to defend, but the respondent did not argue on the
same. As such, his right to argue on the application seeking leave
to defend has been closed vide order dated 04.08.2026 itself and
the matter has accordingly been put up for orders after hearing
arguments on behalf of the petitioner.
8. Present petition has been filed on the ground that the
petitioner is a registered Dharamshala as registered on 03.07.1974
under the Registrar of Societies, Delhi and the petitioner is the
owner/landlord of the Tenanted Shop by virtue of Rent
Agreement dated 12.05.2005 which was executed by Thakur
Bhawani Singh in favour of the respondent to run a shop at the
tenanted premises, as shown in red colour in the site plan filed
alongwith the eviction petition (hereinafter referred to as the
Tenanted Premises). It is pleaded that the tenanted premises is
required bonafide by the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose as it
does not have any other reasonably suitable accommodation for
the same.
RC/ARC No. 04/2023
	Shree Thakur Bhawani Singh Dharamshala Suraksha Samiti Vs. Sh. Rajendra Arora 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
9. Since the respondent has failed to advance submissions on
his application seeking leave to defend despite opportunities
having been granted to him, the respondent is deemed to have
admitted that petitioner is owner of the tenanted premises and that
there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the
petitioner and the respondent. He is also deemed to have admitted
that the petitioner requires the premises bonafide for its own
requirement as it intends to utilize the same for purposes
mentioned above and that it does not have any other reasonably
suitable accommodation.
CONCLUSION:
10. Therefore, the eviction petition u/s 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act is allowed and an eviction order is passed
under Section 14 (1)(e) r/w Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent
Control Act in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent
in respect of property no.
i.e. One Shop situated at X-9/38, Gali
No. 9A Brahmpuri, Delhi-110053
, more specifically shown in red
colour in the site plan filed with the eviction petition.
11. However, this order shall not be operative before the expiry
of six months from today keeping in view Sec. 14 (7) of the
D.R.C. Act.
12. File be consigned to the Record Room after due
compliance and as per rules.
Announced in the open Court (TANIA SINGH)
today i.e. on 04/08/2026 SCJ-cum-RC (NORTH-EAST)
KKD COURTS, DELHI
RC/ARC No. 04/2023
	Shree Thakur Bhawani Singh Dharamshala Suraksha Samiti Vs. Sh. Rajendra Arora 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --