Interim Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 1 of 12
RC ARC 31/24
ANIL KUMAR VERMA Vs. SUSAMMA JOHN
15.04.2026
Present : Plaintiff in person.
Ms. Jyoti Singh, Ld. Proxy Counsel for defendant.
Be put up for orders at 04:00 PM.
(Mayank Mittal)
SCJ-cum-RC, North-West,
Rohini Courts, Delhi/15.04.2026
At 04:00 PM
Present : Plaintiff in person.
1. Vide this order I shall dispose of an application filed by LRs
of the respondent/tenant Sh. V. O. John seeking leave to defend
the present eviction petition.
2. Before proceeding with the application, for convenience and
better understanding the brief facts of the petition filed by the
petitioner are set out as below:-
Petitioner is the sole, absolute and lawful owner of flat no.
730, Janta Flats, Pocket-VI, Sector-2, Rohini, Delhi-110085
(Ground Floor). It is stated that the tenancy between the earlier
landlord/owner Sh. Radhey Lal Verma and Sh. V. O. John was
created @ Rs. 1,500/- per month. It is stated that the tenant has
not paid rent since 04.11.1999. In oral family settlement, the suit
premises came in the share of petitioner. At present petitioner is
-- 1 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 2 of 12
residing in Flat no. MU Block, 56-D, near double water tank,
LIG DDA Flats, Pitampura, Delhi-110088, having two rooms
with his two brothers, namely, Vinod Verma and Sunil Verma
who are owners of the same. The present accommodation in
which the petitioner is residing is inadequate and brothers of the
petitioner want petitioner to leave the said premises. It is stated
that petitioner is facing great hardship due to paucity of
accommodation. Petitioner is having four daughters and wife
who are residing with petitioner. It is stated that two married
daughters frequently visit the house of petitioner and
accommodation is also required for them. One room is required
for guest, one room for dinning, one room for pooja purposes and
one room for petitioner and his wife. Due to shortage of
residential space, there is no privacy left in the personal life of
petitioner who requires separate rooms for himself as well as for
his growing up children. It is stated that the space available with
petitioner is not sufficient for his family to live comfortably and
as such petitioner and his family require tenanted premises
bonafidely to meet the requirement of space for their residential
purpose. There is no alternate reasonable space available with
petitioner except the aforesaid tenanted premises to meet his
bonafide residential requirements.
3. Pursuant to the receipt of notice, the LRs of respondent made
their appearance in the court and have applied for leave to defend
by way of the application in hand. In their reply opposing the
application, the LRs of respondent have made the following
averments:-
-- 2 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 3 of 12
(i) Respondents have never signed any rent agreement either
with petitioner or his father. Therefore, there was no occasion to
pay rent either to petitioner or his father.
(ii) Respondents are in possession of subject flat since 1994
agreed to purchase from the father of petitioner. Neither the
father of petitioner nor petitioner was interested to retain the
subject one room DDA Janta Flat as they were having different
other premises to reside. Father of petitioner took Rs. 1.5 Lakhs
from respondent no. 1 after handing over the possession in 1994
and agreed to execute necessary transfer documents at the time of
final payment of balance Rs. 50,000/-. But later father of
petitioner including petitioner and their family became dishonest
and started claiming back the subject flat through criminal
intimation etc. against respondents. It is stated that before
respondents could take steps for the transfer of subject flat father
and mother of petitioner both were murdered. Petitioner and his
brother were accused for the said murder and later convicted.
(iii) Initially, the subject flat was one room flat which was re-
built with all the expenses borne by respondents by way of two
rooms, common latrine and bathroom and a kitchen and gates
changed etc. Over the period, respondents have borne Rs.10
Lakhs in the construction etc. being the owner by adverse
possession of the subject flat. It is stated that respondents
continued occupation and possession of the subject flat since
1994 led to adverse possession of respondents due to the hostility
-- 3 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 4 of 12
of petitioner claiming the subject flat but did not initiate any
claim for re-possession till 2006 against respondents.
(iv) Respondents have been continuously paying all the
charges of electricity, water etc. with respect to subject flat
though petitioner clandestinely changed the said connections in
his name from the name of erstwhile owner of flat without
having the occupation or possession of the subject flat. It is stated
that petitioner has been illegally trying to dispossess respondents
from the subject property by illegal means i.e. disconnecting
water and electricity supply connections of subject flat and
making criminal intimidation to respondents. It is averred that
petitioner in 2008 filed rent control eviction petitions against
John Joseph i.e. father of husband of respondent no.1, who never
lived in Delhi. The said petitions were contested by the husband
(late Sh. V. O. John) of respondent no.1. The said petition was
also allegedly for bonafide requirement. The said petition was
rejected by the then Ld. R.C. due to the disqualification of
petitioner as per the alleged facts of the said petition for bonafide
requirement. In the said petition, petitioner alleged husband of
respondent no.1 as "Tenant" falsely and fraudulently.
(v) It is stated that respondent continued with the possession
and the occupation of the subject flat. Husband of the respondent
no. 1 died on 13.04.2024. Respondent no. 3 is daughter of
respondent no.1 and after her marriage is not living in the subject
flat with the respondents. Subject Flat is occupied continuously
by respondent no.1 who is homemaker and dependent on her son
-- 4 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 5 of 12
ie. respondent no.2, who is working in a Private Firm and both of
them have no other place to reside other than subject flat.
(vi) It is stated that contents of the subject petition of petitioner
are all false and fabricated and the documents filed thereto which
are relating respondents are all forged. That no rent, much less
Rs. 1,500/- were ever paid by respondents or late Sh. V. O. John
because they were/are never the tenant of petitioner or his father,
the alleged bonafide requirement is vehemently disputed; the
notices served by petitioner upon respondent were all replied the
replies have been concealed by petitioner; Petitioner is not the
sole and absolute owner of the said flat; Petitioner has various
other accommodation concealed from this Court; brothers of
petitioner are not residing at residence of petitioner; the
residential accommodation of petitioner is not insufficient; no
hardship is caused to petitioner regarding accommodation and
petitioner has alternative accommodation. The Site Plan filed is
false and incorrect. Rent agreements dated 29.01.1996,
07.10.1998 and 27.03.1995 allegedly relied & filed by petitioner
have forged signature of respondent no. 1. Title documents and
deeds alleged to be in the name of father (late Sh. Radhey Lal) of
petitioner is not legally admissible documents of Transfer as per
law and the alleged title deed of the said flat is in the name of Sh.
Kamal Kumar not transferred in the name of the father (late Sh.
Radhey Lal) of petitioner.
4. The petitioner also filed a counter affidavit of affidavit for
leave to defend application wherein again disputing the averment
-- 5 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 6 of 12
of the respondent, his averments in the application were
reiterated.
5. For the purpose of supporting in his case, the petitioner has
relied on following documents:-
a. Photocopy of document pertaining to suit/tenanted premises;
b. Legal notice dated 30.08.2008;
c. Application to Police Station Rohini, Sector 3, Delhi dated
08.08.2008;
d. Copy of written statement dated 16.08.2010;
e. Certified copy of order dated 20.04.2024;
f. Certified copy of application (legal heir);
g. Copy of Aadhar Card of Anju John;
h. Certified copy of affidavit of Anju John;
i. Death certificate of Mr. V. O. John;
j. Copy of aadhar card of Sushma John;
k. Copy of aadhar card of Sh. AJO John;
l. Copy of judgment of High Court of Delhi dated 06.08.2012;
m. Copy of aadhar card of Sh. Anil Verma;
n. Copy of rent agreement with rent deed;
o. Rent agreement.
6. For the purpose of supporting of their case, the LRs of
respondent have relied on following documents:-
a. Copy of summons of E.No.321/08;
b. Copy of judgment and judicial proceedings of E.No.321/08;
c. Site plan of suit/tenanted premises.
-- 6 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 7 of 12
7. I have already heard the arguments advanced by the Ld.
Counsels for both the sides on the application, have considered
their written submissions and have also gone through the material
available on record. In order to succeed in a petition for eviction
filed under section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, a
petitioner must establish that:
i. He is owner and landlord in respect of the tenanted premises.
ii. He requires the premises bonafide for himself or for any
member of his family dependent upon him.
iii. He has no other reasonable alternate suitable accommodation.
8. Before I start appreciating averments made in the affidavit
and arguments advanced by respective counsel for the parties, it
is important to note as to what is the test which is to be deciding
the leave to defend application. In this regard, law is well settled
through various judgments of Hon'ble Apex court and Hon'ble
High Court of Delhi. It is important to refer some these
decisions:-
In case of
Inderjeet Kaur vs Nirpal Singh, VII(2001)
SLT 602=(2001) 1 SCC 706, wherein it was held as under:
“A landlord, who boanfidely requires a premises
for his residence and occupation should not suffer for
long waiting for eviction of a tenant. At the same
time, a chant cannot be thrown out from a premises
summarily even though prima facie he is able to say
that the claim of the landlord is not bonafide or
untenable and as such not entitled to obtain an order
of eviction. Hence the approach has to be cautious
and judicious in granting or refusing leave to defend
to a tenant to contest an eviction petition within the
board scheme of Chapter IIIA and in particular
-- 7 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 8 of 12
having regard to the clear terms and language of
section 25B(5).”
In
Aggarwal Papers vs Mukesh Kumar (deceased)
through LR's 194 DLT 605, it was observed by Hon'ble Justice
M L Mehta that;
“Though, I am conscious of the fact and to
which, there is no dispute that the landlord is the best
judge of his affairs and also choices, and the tenant
cannot dictate as to how the landlord has to live and
utilize his premise; but, at the same time, it is also
settled principles of law in such cases that the mere
wish or desire of the landlord or his decision to get
the tenanted premises vacated is not the decisive
factor. It is not that whatever he would say, in every
case, would be taken to be as gospel truth. If that was
so, then, on the mere asking of every landlord that he
needs the premises for setting up an office for his or
his family member's business and he is the judge and
master of his decisions and choices, the statutory
protection afforded to the tenant, would become
meaningless. That is not the intent of the legislation.
The applicability of above proposition is only after
the landlord is able to demonstrate that his assertion
of requirement of the tenanted premises is authentic
and genuine. If he is able to show and demonstrate so,
then certainly neither the tenant nor this court could
dictate terms upon him as to how and in what manner
he should utilize his premises. The projected
requirement of the tenanted premises, based on his
subjective decision, is required to be tested by the
Court...........it is necessary to bear in mind that when
leave to defend is refused the party seeking it is
denied an opportunity to test the truth of the
averments of the opposite party by cross examination
and rival affidavits may not furnish reliable evidence
for concluding the point one way or the other.”
9. The present petition has been filed by petitioner against the
respondent for getting the premises in question vacated on the
-- 8 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 9 of 12
ground of bona fide requirement of petitioner and her family
members for the purposes of their residence. The respondent has
filed the leave to defend application within time stipulated by law
and same has been duly replied on behalf of petitioner. For
deciding the application seeking leave to defend, the court has to
consider broadly three aspects which are, firstly, the existence of
landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, secondly,
the applicability of Delhi Rent Control Act and thirdly whether
the petitioner has been able to prove bona fide requirement of
premises for himself or for any of his family members.
10. In the case at hand, the applicant/respondent has sought the
leave of defend and has challenged the petition of petitioner on
number of grounds. The first and primary ground for challenging
the petition is the non existence of landlord and tenant
relationship between the parties. It has been alleged that the
respondents had occupied the premises in question in year 1994
on the basis of agreement to sell entered into between the father
of petitioner and the respondent and that the respondent has
never paid rent either to petitioner or the father of petitioner. It
has been alleged that both the rent agreements filed on behalf of
petitioner are false and fabricated and even on the basis of those
agreements, no tenancy can be said to have come into existence.
It is alleged that as respondent was paying the electricity and
water charges, however, the petitioner has clandestinely changed
the said connection in his own name. The petition has also been
challenged on the ground that the petitioner does not otherwise
require the premises as his brothers are not residing with him and
-- 9 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 10 of 12
the place available with the petitioner is not falling short in
accommodation and even otherwise, as the present residence is
far away from the premises in question, the premises in question
cannot be considered to be additional or alternative residential
accommodation for the family of petitioner. The respondent has
also challenged the site plan filed by the petitioner.
11. In its reply, the petitioner has denied all the
allegations/grounds taken by respondent in leave to defend
application and has submitted that all the allegations/grounds are
false and concocted.
12. To begin with, it is noted that as far as the ground of
availability of alternative accommodation taken by respondent is
concerned, the respondent has not filed the details of alternative
premises available with the petitioner. It was the responsibility of
the respondent to point out the alternative accommodation
available with the petitioner. In the absence of pointing out,
availability of particular place, the claim of respondent in this
regard has been mere bald allegations. As far as,
insufficiency/unreasonableness of premises in question for the
requirement of the petitioner is concerned, it is for the petitioner
to examine and consider the sufficiency/reasonableness of the
premises in question for his need. The tenant cannot advise or
dictate the sufficiency/reasonableness of the premises
suited/unsuited to the requirement of the petitioner.
13. As far as, the ground of existence of landlord and tenant
relationship between the parties is concerned, it is noted that the
petitioner has relied upon one legal notice dt. 30.08.2008 issued
-- 10 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 11 of 12
on behalf of petitioner to Jhon Joseph, the complaint filed by
petitioner to SHO PS Rohini, Sector-3 mentioning Jhon Joseph to
be his tenant, written statement filed by the respondent in the
previous petition for eviction instituted on behalf of petitioner,
the proceeding before the Ld. ARC in the previous petition for
eviction, rent agreement dt. 29.01.1996 between the father of
petitioner and Sh. John V.O. and rent agreement dt. 27.03.1995
between father of petitioner and Sh. John V.O. From any of the
documents filed on behalf of petitioner, it cannot be said that
existence of landlord and tenant relationship has been admitted
on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner has even not filed any
rent receipt allegedly signed by respondent or her predecessor.
The petitioner has also not filed any other proof of accepting rent
from the respondent or her predecessor. The rent agreement dt.
29.01.1996, though executed between the father of petitioner and
Sh. John V.O, however, the said rent agreement on the face of it
seem to have been signed by the respondent. It cannot be
understood whether Sh. John V.O was the tenant in whose name
the rent agreement dt. 29.01.1996 was typed or the respondent
who has allegedly signed it was tenant. Similarly, in rent
agreement dt. 27.03.1995 also, though Sh. John V.O is stated to
be tenant, however, same was signed by the respondent. During
argument, the said inconsistency has not been explained on
behalf of petitioner. Further, even if the same was considered to
be a mistake, it has not been explained as to why the same
mistake was repeated in the subsequent rent agreement as well.
14. From the above discussion, on the basis of documents and
submissions the petitioner could not show the existence of
-- 11 of 12 --
RC ARC 31/24 Anil Kumar Verma V. Susamma John Page No. 12 of 12
landlord and tenant relationship between the parties.
Accordingly, present leave to defend application is allowed and
respondent is given liberty to file WS within 30 days from today
and to supply the copy of same to the petitioner on the same date,
on which it will be filed in court, against proper receiving. The
Petitioner shall file rejoinder, if any on NDOH alongwith list of
witnesses and the affidavit of all the witnesses to be examined by
petitioner during PE.
15. The petitioner shall supply 20 days advance copy of
affidavit of all the witnesses, list of witnesses and rejoinder to the
respondent against proper receiving.
16. Be put up for petitioner’s evidence on 08.06.2026.
Announced in the Open Court
on 15.04.2026
(Mayank Mittal)
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller,
North West District : Rohini Courts : Delhi
-- 12 of 12 --