M/s Gainda Lal Ram Narayan & Anr. vs Shri Narayan Shamnani

Amit Sharma, J.

These petitions have been filed under Section 25-B (8) of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958^{11.For short, ‘DRCA’}, assailing the impugned orders whereby the respective applications seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the petitioners in separate eviction proceedings instituted by the respondent/landlord have been dismissed. The present petitions seek to challenge the orders dated 02.07.2015 [RC.REV. 507/2015 and RC.REV. 563/2015] passed by learned SCJ-cum-RC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, and order dated 14.10.2025 [RC.REV. 99/2016] passed by learned ARC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Orders’]. The demised premises in issue are: -

The present petitions have been disposed of by way of a common judgment as the landlord in all these petitions are same and bona fide requirement for which the demised premises are required is also the same.

In RC.REV. 507/2015, the impugned order dated 02.07.2015 passed in Eviction Petition No. 36/2014 has been challenged. The prayers sought in the said revision petition read as under: -

In RC.REV. 563/2015, the impugned order dated 02.07.2015 passed in Eviction Petition No. 35/2014 has been challenged. The prayers sought in the said revision petition read as under: -

In RC.REV. 99/2016, the impugned order dated 14.10.2015 passed in E-22/2014 has been challenged. The prayers sought in the said revision petition read as under: -

The brief facts common to the present petitions and necessary for disposal of these petitions are as under: -

It is pertinent to note here that the petitioners had filed their respective leave to defend applications raising various triable issues against the eviction petitions filed by the respondent. On perusal, the triable issues raised in the said applications by the respective petitioners are as follows: -

In response to the application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the petitioners, the respondent had refuted the aforesaid averments and had submitted that no triable issues have been raised on behalf of the petitioners and their applications are devoid of any merit. It was stated that his grandson-Gaurav has already been assisting him in his alleged business; however, he is presently doing a temporary job in a Call Centre in Gurugram, Haryana, and intends to leave the said job permanently to actively participate in the proposed business of the respondent. It was further stated by the respondent that other grandson-Rahul Aggarwal is also willing to join his business. It was the case of the respondent that he has no concern with the business of his son run in Canada. It was further stated that the respondent intends to shift his commercial activities from upper floors to ground floor to enable him to enjoy the upper floor for residential purposes exclusively, and to accommodate his entire family members during their visit and stay with him in India.

It was stated that the Shop No. 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, is a part of the property owned by the respondent and is in under the tenancy of M/s Karachi Halwa House who was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owner. Further Shop No. 5, Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, is not owned by the respondent and is owned by someone else and is occupied by Karachi Hair Dressers. The respondent owns the entire property bearing 370 sq. yds. which is numbered as 1, 3, and 5 Bhagat Singh Marg, whereas shop No. 5 is a part of the property owned by the respondent and is under the tenancy of M/s. Karachi Halwa House and is on the ground floor. It is further stated that it is only for the sake of convenience that respondent has given his correspondence address as “5 Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi” as he is residing on the first floor of the said property.

It is further stated by the respondent that shop No.1/4 Bhagat Singh Market is under the possession of M/s Midair Express (P) Ltd. from where the said company is running its business. The said shop was let out to M/s Mid Air Express by previous landlord before the entire property was sold to the respondent. The daughter of respondent-Poonam is one of the directors in the said company besides the other directors who are not his family members. The said premises is under the tenancy of the said company, and the respondent has no concern with the same except being owner of the said property.

It is further the case of the respondent that the residential flat at Kundli, Sonipat, Haryana is in the name of his wife and is lying vacant. As the said house is situated outside Delhi, the same is not suitable for the respondent to use it for commercial purposes. The premises/shop nos. 9 and 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Lane, New Delhi, are two garages being purchased and owned by respondent’s son and the said shops have been let out by his son to Rajni Sethi Beautician in the month of April, 2013 and the respondent has no concern with the said shops. Further, Shop No. 1/6 Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi is under the tenancy of M/s Explore India Travel Organiser for more than 10 years, and the said shop is not available with him. It is further stated, in the reply, that respondent’s son is settled in Canada and is running business of travel agency and in order to promote tourism in India is sending tourist for which respondent’s firm make arrangement for hotel bookings, transportation, site seeing etc., but for all intents and purposes, his son has his own independent business and the respondent has nothing to do with the same. The respondent intended to shift his commercial activities from upper floor to ground floor to enable him to enjoy the upper floors for residential use exclusively for accommodation of his family members, who frequently visit India, as hardships and inconvenience, on account of meagre space on upper floors for residence, was caused to them.

It is further stated that one commercial property no. 2E/11, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi, was inherited by the petitioner-Yogesh Jain and the entire ground floor of the said property is in possession of said petitioner and is lying vacant. The said commercial property is situated on the main road which is more suitable for the petitioner-Yogesh Jain to start his business.

At this stage, it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the present petitions, applications, CM APPL. 45244/2023 in RC. REV. 563/2015 and CM APPL. 45245/2023 in RC. REV. 99/2016, were filed by the petitioners-tenants seeking leave of the Court to place on record subsequent events. The learned Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2023 had allowed the aforesaid applications on the submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the same may be considered as per law. The same was, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent.

In the aforesaid applications, it was stated that the respective applicants got to know that the respondent/landlord had, during the pendency of the instant petitions, got the vacant and peaceful possession of as many as five shops which were situated on the ground floor in the same locality and said shops are lying vacant and are more than enough to meet the alleged bonafide requirement portrayed by the respondent. It was further stated that the respondent despite getting the possession of the aforesaid five shops had not utilised any of these shops to meet his alleged bonafide requirement. It was further stated that the respondent has available with him shop No.1/6, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi (300 sq. ft.), which was earlier leased out by him to one M/s Explore India Travel Organiser by Lease Agreement dated 31.03.2004 as the vacant possession of the said shop was handed back to the respondent by lessee in 2022, and the same has since been lying vacant and the respondent had not put the same to any alleged use.

It was further stated that the petitioners further got to know that the daughter of the respondent-Ranjana Aggarwal, for whom bonafide requirement was projected in the subject eviction petitions, owns and is in possession of the two commercial shops situated in Ashok Vihar, Delhi, and details of the said shops were, (i) Shop No. LG-3, 27 Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052 admeasuring 205 sq. ft. [Kindly see Agreement to Sell dated 29.1.2010 enclosed as Annexure C]; (ii) Shop No. BF-4, Central Market, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052 admeasuring 147 sq. ft. [Kindly see Agreement to Sell dated 3.10.2011 enclosed as Annexure D]. It was further stated that the aforesaid shops were lying vacant and were more than suitable to meet the alleged requirement of the respondent as portrayed in paragraphs 18(a)(iii), (iv) and (v) of the Eviction Petition. These facts were not disclosed by the respondent at the time of filing of the eviction petition and even at subsequent stages of the proceedings of the present case.

It was further stated that grand-son of the respondent-Rahul Aggarwal based in Delhi, who intended to join the business of the respondent, has permanently settled in Ontario, Canada, since 2018. Further that, the respondent owns and manages his Facebook page under the name “Ezee Flight”, and said page shows that he is no more residing in New Delhi, India, but is rather living in Toronto, Canada, thus, the bonafide requirement as stated in the eviction petition by the respondent for himself and his family members has ceased to exist.

Subsequently, other applications, CM APPL. 68805/2024 in RC. REV. 563/2015 and CM APPL. 68804/2024 in RC. REV. 99/2016, were also filed on behalf of the petitioners-tenants seeking to place on record documents in relation of subsequent event pertaining to the respondent/landlord, wherein he had applied for removal of his license of shop No. 44, Gole Market, New Delhi. It was stated in these applications, that this shop is available to the respondent as an additional alternate accommodation and the application for renewal of license filed on behalf of the respondent shows that the said shop is in use and occupation of the respondent/landlord. It was further stated that perusal of the eviction petition filed by the respondent shows that the bonafide need projected by the respondent was not for his married daughters but was for expanding his travel agency business which he was already doing alongwith his wife. It was further stated that on 21.11.2024, the petitioners came to know about a letter dated 17.09.2024 which is a communication addressed by NDMC, New Delhi Municipal Corporation to the respondent/landlord regarding renewal of the NDMC shop no. 44 of Gole Market Area, New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioners that by way of this letter, the respondent admittedly owns yet another shop at Gole Market and details of the said shop were deliberately withheld and not disclosed in the subject eviction petition filed against the petitioners. It is further stated that in case the stand of the respondent that they had surrendered their rights with respect to the said shop No.44 in year 2000 in favour of a third party is taken to be on its face value then also the letter dated 17.09.2024 clearly demonstrates that the said shop was all along under the occupation and in possession of the respondent and same was not disclosed by him in the eviction petition. Despite being the said shop available to the respondent, he had set up a false version in the eviction petition to get the petitioners/tenant evicted. It is further stated in the application that the aforesaid facts had come to the knowledge of the petitioner only on 21.11.2024 and owing to the said reason the same could not be pleaded earlier.

In response to the aforesaid stand of the petitioners in the aforesaid applications, with respect to availability of shop no. 44, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/landlord had reiterated his contentions that the rights of the said shop were transferred in the year 2000, and it is likely that the substitution of the name of the new owner of the premises/shop has not been done. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that said shop no. 44 has now been auctioned by NDMC and relevant document dated 29.05.2019 has been placed on record by the respondent along with the reply filed by the respondent in respect of the said application. Further contentions raised on behalf of the respondents regarding the subsequent events have been noted in the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that learned ARC has failed to appreciate that the respondent had concealed material facts and has not approached the Court with clean hands. It is further submitted that the children of the respondent are not dependent upon him inasmuch as the son of the respondent is well settled in Canada and is running his independent business there. The daughters of the respondent are married and are not dependent upon him. The alleged bonafide requirement for grandchildren is false and concocted. It is pointed out that, in the pleadings, there is no averments with respect to the dependency of the family members, who allegedly would join the business of the respondent. The said family members have their independent spaces available with them, and, even if, they wish to run independent businesses or join the alleged business of the respondent, they do not require the demised premises. From leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, it is pointed out that respondent is running his business with his elder daughter and his grandson (elder son of said elder daughter) from Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, and proper space is available with them for running such business. It is further submitted that the averments/contentions of the respondent regarding bonafide requirement are contradictory inasmuch as the respondent had on one hand shown requirement for himself and on the other hand, he is alleging bonafide requirement for his son, daughter and grandsons, who are not at all dependent upon him. Therefore, the subject eviction proceeding with respect to alleged bonafide requirement is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the respondent wants to reconstruct and modify the demised premises for making the same habitable for himself and his family members, and therefore, the petition under Section 14(1)(e) would not be maintainable and the respondent ought to have initiated proceedings under Section 14(1)(g) of the DRCA, and in such case, summary procedure in terms of Section 25B of DRCA would not be applicable.

It is further submitted that the respondent had not disclosed material facts with respect to availability of alternate suitable accommodation and such concealment and suppression of material facts would disentitle the respondent from seeking eviction of petitioner from the demised premises. It is further submitted that respondent’s son had let out shop Nos.9 and 10, Bhagat Singh Lane in April, 2013 (just one year prior to the filing of subject eviction petition) and the said shops are now lying vacant and can be utilized by the respondent for satisfying his bonafide requirement. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent had not disclosed that his son is a Canadian citizen who himself being owner and landlord of the shop Nos. 9 and 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Lane had leased out his own properties in 2013.

It is further submitted that bonafide requirement so projected by the respondent is nothing but a mere fanciful desire and the same even as per the averments made in the eviction petition is for additional accommodation. It is further submitted that the respondent has not disclosed anything regarding availability or non-availability of commercial space with his sons-in-law and their incapability, both financial and otherwise, to maintain their respective wives and families. It is further submitted that the married daughters and their children cannot be considered as dependent(s) upon the respondent for requirement of any commercial accommodation especially when there is no averment that their respective husbands have no alternate suitable accommodation of their own. It is further submitted that the subsequent events that have transpired during the pendency of the present petition have been allowed to be placed on record by learned Predecessor Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2023. It is pointed out that the respondent had during the pendency had acquired additional vacant shops, i.e., shops bearing no. 5A, 3/1, 1/5A, 1/5, 1/3, on ground floor in the same locality which raises doubt about the necessity of evicting the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the respondent has recently got possession of Shop No. 1/6 Bhagat Singh Lane, and, yet no use of the said shop for the purported business expansion, cast further doubt on grounds on which eviction of the petitioner has been sought by the respondent. It is further submitted that respondent’s daughter own shop(s) which are suitable for satisfying their bonafide need, and the same was disclosed in the eviction petition by the respondent. It is further submitted that the grandsons of the respondent have permanently settled abroad and the respondent has himself moved to Canada. Therefore, the alleged requirement of the demised premises by the respondent is not bonafide.

Learned counsel of the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgement in Smt. Vijay Sharma Through LRs v. Shri Raj Kumar Ahuja, RC.REV. No. 298/2017, to contend that suppression practiced by landlord of reasonably suitable accommodation capable of satisfying the requirement pleading which the tenant is sought to be evicted is antithesis to statutory stipulation of bonafide, and once doubts are caused on the bonafide of landlord in filing the petition for eviction, no error can be found in the order of grant to leave to defend.

7.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further placed reliance on Deepak Gupta v. Sushma Aggarwal, to contend that in view of the said settled legal position, the reasonability of the suitable accommodation already available to the landlord is one of the potent grounds which enables this Court seisin of eviction proceedings to decide as to whether the provisions of proviso (e) to Section 14(1) is attracted or not. It cannot be said that the availability of the accommodation already with the landlord as inconsequential unless the Controller arrives at the finding that the said accommodation is not reasonable or suitable one.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further placed reliance on following judgments: -

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that learned ARC while dismissing the application seeking leave to defend filed by the latter had failed to appreciate the triable issues raised by them. It is submitted that the respondent is the owner of shop bearing No. 1/4 in the same vicinity and the same was deliberately concealed by him. It is further submitted that in response to the same, it was averred in the reply filed to application seeking leave to defend that, said shop is under tenancy of M/s Mid Air Express and the same constitutes a triable issue as to whether the said shop is available with the respondent and suitable to meet his alleged bonafide requirement. It is further submitted that the respondent had also concealed that he has a shop bearing No. 44, Gole Market, New Delhi, available with him. It is pointed out that in response to the same, it was asserted that the said shop was allotted to respondent and his wife in 1990 by NDMC and in the year 2000, they had surrendered their rights in the said shop in favour of one Ravinder and his wife, who thereafter, became licensee under NDMC and were running their business under the name and style of M/s Centre Point Cottage and Handicraft. This, as contended by learned counsel, constitutes triable issue. It is further submitted that the respondent/landlord had deliberately concealed material facts with respect to availability of alternate suitable accommodation available at the disposal of respondent thereby, casting aspersions over the alleged bonafide requirement as projected by him. It is the case of the petitioner that the alternate accommodation available with the respondent is to be tested on the touchstone as to whether the respondent/landlord had approached the Court with clean hands.

It is further submitted that, during the pendency of the present petition certain subsequent events had transpired which had bearing on the outcome of the present petition, and same were earlier not in knowledge of the petitioners. It has been argued that said events were concealed by the respondent and have been therefore, placed on record by way of applications, CM APPLs. 45244/2023 & 68805/2024, filed by the petitioners, as noted hereinbefore. It is further the case of the petitioner that, in the eviction petition, respondent had averred that neither he nor his family members owned any other immovable property in Delhi. However, subsequently it was revealed that daughter of respondent-Ranjana owned two shops in Ashok Vihar, Delhi which were apparently suitable to meet the projected bonafide requirement of the respondent. It is further pointed out that during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent himself had shifted and settled in Canada and is no more residing in Delhi. Therefore, the bonafide requirement of the respondent to start the alleged business does not sustain. It is further submitted that the respondent has in his possession shop No.1/4 situated in the same vicinity and which is a part of the subject property. It is pointed out that, as per respondent, said shop is in occupation of M/s Midair Express Pvt. Ltd., and his daughter-Poonam Madnani is a director in the said entity. Further, said shop was in litigation as M/s Shambhu Dayal Banwari Lal, who were tenants under the respondent’s vendor-Bawa Vikram Singh (from whom the respondent had purchased the subject property), claimed that they had never surrendered their tenanted premises portion (said shop) to Bawa Vikram Singh and they have also succeeded in the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, filed by them, and an execution petition is pending for recovery of the possession of the said shop. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent had obtained the possession of the said shop from M/s Shambhu Dayal Banwari Lal long back and said fact was not disclosed by him in the eviction petition. It is further submitted that with respect to other portion, stated to be in possession of M/s Karachi Halwa House, during the pendency of the present petition, the respondent has instituted a suit, CS (COMM) 226/2021, under Section 6 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, for recovery of Rs. 20,53,553/- as well as for possession of shop situated at 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, from the said tenant-M/s. Karachi Halwa House. It is further submitted that the utility bills placed on record by the respondent with respect to the said shop situated in Gole Market are for the month December 2014. It is further the case of the petitioners that the respondent had not placed on record any Income Tax Return with respect to alleged business run by him.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent had filed the subject eviction proceedings in respect of demised premises which are residential-cum-commercial in nature, and he has similar accommodation to that of the demised premises available on the first floor and second floor of the property. The contention with respect to having a large a number of family members was existent since the date of the purchase of the subject property by the respondent. The respondent had portrayed a false case that he has to run business from residential portion of the property by changing the same to commercial property and owing to the said reason subject proceedings were initiated. It is pointed out that respondent has stated that he has shifted his business from residential portion of the property to the ground floor.

It is pointed out that in paragraphs 18 (a) (iii and iv) of the subject eviction petition, the respondent had set out a case that the demised premises are required for setting up business on the ground floor of the property and the same are also bonafidely required for his son, who is already settled in Canada and has business of ‘tour and travels’ of his own. It is further pointed out that in the eviction petition, the respondent had stated that his son is also having business related to travel and tours in Canada and the respondent has no other reasonable suitable accommodation available with him in Delhi, and the premises available with respondent are not at all sufficient for running the alleged business. It is the case of the petitioners that, in application seeking leave to defend filed by them, it has been stated, in paragraph nos. 10 and 11, that Shop No. 5. Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, where alleged Karachi Halwa House is being run, is a two-side open, and such a property is available with the respondent for satisfying the alleged bonafide requirement portrayed in the subject petition as said shop is lying vacant. It is further the case of the petitioners that the respondent is already having two shops in his possession in Bhagat Singh Market and Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, respectively from where he is already running his business. The petitioners have relied upon several documents to demonstrate that the respondent possesses alternate suitable accommodation for satisfying his bonafide requirement. Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the following averments made in paragraphs 10 and 11, 17, 19 of the application seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioner: -

It is further submitted that the respondent has not placed on record any rent receipt issued to Karachi Halwa House in respect of shop No. 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market to show that the said shop is not in his possession. It is further submitted that no lease agreement between the respondent and Karachi Halwa House has been placed on record to show that the subject shop was not in respondent’s possession at the time of filing of the subject eviction petition. It is the case of the petitioners that the concealment of such facts by the respondent at the time of filing of eviction petition shows that the requirement projected by the respondent was not bonafide. It is further pointed out that, in reply/response to leave to defend application filed by the petitioners following stand was taken by the respondent: -

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further drawn the attention of this Court towards the fact that GPA dated 16.10.2012 executed by Easy (Ezee) Travel Solutions through its partners Narayan Shangnani (respondent/landlord) and Chanda Shangnani, in favour of Ms. Madhu Suneja (daughter of respondent) for management of business as the executants/landlord (respondent) regularly travel out of India, and hence, there is need for his daughter to handle his business and deal with bank accounts pertaining the aforesaid partnership firm. Attention of this Court has further been towards a notice dated 05.07.2014 issued by HDFC Bank Brach, Gole Market confirming that Madhu Suneja (respondent’s daughter) is mandate holder of an account in the name of M/s. Madhur Air Travels, 5 Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi. It is further noted that, in the said notice it has been mentioned, the respondent- Narayana Shamnani is sole proprietor of the said firm and the said account was opened on 16.11.2012, i.e., prior to the institution of the subject eviction proceedings. It is thus contended that the stand of the respondent/landlord that he has no concern with the business run by his daughter is false. It is pointed out that the aforesaid documents were filed before learned ARC; however, the same were not taken into consideration. By placing reliance on the GPA executed by the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the respondent is already running his business from 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi. It is further submitted that the respondent has now settled in Toronto, Canada, and the petitioners have placed on record images from the facebook page of the aforesaid entity, Easy (Ezee) Travel Solutions, to demonstrate that the respondent has in fact shifted to Canada. It is further the case of the petitioners that the aforesaid notice as well as GPA documents have not been dealt/considered by the learned RC in impugned order dated 02.07.2015 in paragraphs nos. 21, 21.1, 21.3 and 22 while dealing with the plea raised by the petitioners regarding alternate accommodation with the respondent for satisfying the alleged bonafide requirement.

Attention of this Court has also been drawn to rent receipt issued by the respondent to the tenant- Mid Air Express Pvt. Ltd. in respect of demises premises, i.e., 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi, relied upon by the petitioners in their leave to defend applications and it is submitted that the said property has been shown by the respondent in the site plan annexed along with the brief synopsis filed before this Court (green colour) to be available with the respondent. It is further pointed out that the fact that the premises-5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, is under tenancy of Karachi Halwa House has not been pleaded by the respondent in the subject eviction petitions filed at the first instance.

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has made the following submissions: -

The petitioners have failed to show any jurisdictional error or an error law in the impugned order which has been passed after taking into consideration the facts of the present case and the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It is the case of the respondent that demised premises are required bonafidely for extension of his business and the portions of the property under the tenancy of the respondent have been shown in red colour of the site plan of the subject property annexed with the brief synopsis (It is noted that said site plan is not original one filed along with eviction petitions).

It is further the case of the respondent that the bonafide requirement projected is for development and expansion of business for the entire family. The family members of the respondent were keen to join the alleged business related to travel, foreign exchange, international and domestic ticket section.

Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the site plan of the subject property placed on record by the petitioner along with the reply to the application, CM APPL. 8455/2019 in RC REV. 507/2015, and it is contended that said site plan is incorrect, and in the subject eviction petitions, the portion shown in green colour were available with the respondent for running his business and for the portions shown in yellow colour eviction petitions were filed by him.

It is submitted that the respondent, in response to application seeking leave to defend, had denied that he is engaged tour and travel business even prior to the purchase of the subject property. It is the case of the respondent that Shop no. 5 Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, is a part of entire property owned by the respondent and in the said shop one tenant-M/s Karachi Halwa is in occupation and the said entity was inducted as a tenant by erstwhile owner of the property. It is the further the case of the respondent that Shop No. 5, Bhagat Singh Market, Gole Market, is not owned by him and is owned by someone else, i.e., Karachi Hair Dresser. It is further submitted that the respondent owns the entire property being 1, 3 and 5 Bhagat Singh Marg and Shop No.5 is the part of the subject property and in under the tenancy of Karachi Halwa situated on the ground floor. It is further pointed out that the respondent had denied that he has the possession of another big shop being Shop No.1/4 Bhagat Singh Market which he had got vacated from tenant-M/s Shambhu Dayal Banwarilal; however, said shop is in possession of M/s MidAir Express (P) Ltd., and said shop is under litigation with earlier tenant- M/s Shambhu Dayal Banwarilal, who were under tenancy of the erstwhile owner of the subject property, and the respondent has no concern with the said entity. It was also denied that the respondent has three shops to run his business in the same building and addresses of said shops are shown in the bank accounts in name of different organisations as has been alleged by the petitioners. It is the case of the respondent that Shop no. 1/4 Bhagat Singh Marg and not Bhagat Singh Market (as alleged by the petitioners) is under the possession of M/s Midair Express (P) Ltd. from where the said company is running its business. It is further pointed out that the respondent, in response/reply, had further denied that he is in possession of other properties and had concealed them from the Court. The status of the said shops, as mentioned in para 17 of the application seeking leave to defend filed by the Petitioner-M/s. Gainda Lal Ram Narayan in RC.REV.507/2015, had been appropriately explained by the respondent in response to the said application and complete details regarding the alleged properties were also disclosed by the respondent.

It is further the case of the respondent that he does not own any shop no. 9 and 10, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Lane, New Delhi. It is submitted that premises no. 9 and 10 Bhagat Singh Lane are in fact two garages being purchased and owned by his son-Deepak Shamnani and the said shops/garages had been let out by his son to Rajni Sethi Beautician. The said garages used as shops were let out in the month of April 2013, and the respondent has no concern with the said shops. It is further submitted that the respondent had provided the complete details with respect to the alleged properties claimed to have been in his possession and available with him as per the petitioners, and based on the factual position as contended and noted hereinbefore, the petitioners were not able to raise any triable issue(s) for grant of leave to defend in the subject eviction proceedings and learned ARC/RC had rightly rejected their applications seeking leave to defend and the impugned orders do not require any interference.

With respect to the subsequent events, it is submitted that shop no. 44, Gole Market, is not in possession of the respondent as it was transferred in the year 2000, and there is likelihood that substitution of the name of the new owner of the premises/shop has not been done. Learned Senior Counsel, as per reply filed in terms of paragraph 16 of the order dated 17.02.2025, has relied upon a public notice issued by the NDMC to contend that Shop no. 44 has now been auctioned by NDMC. Along with the reply, learned Senior Counsel has placed on record an e-communication dated 29.05.2019 regarding e-auction of licensing rights of 52 small shops/stalls/office space in NDMC area wherein at ‘Serial No.43’, shop no. 44 Gole Market has been shown as ‘licensable’. Therefore, it is contended that the said shop is not in possession of respondent and he no longer has any licensing rights over the said shop. Regarding the letter/application for renewal of the license of the said shop in Gole Market by the respondent relied upon by the petitioner, it is submitted that the respondent had in his capacity of being President of Gole Market Merchants Association (Regd.) had been sending said representations to the Chairman of NDMC raising grievance regarding the pendency of the requests of the shop owners of the Gole Market for renewal of license of shops in Gole Market Area. The letters relied upon by the petitioners in application seeking to place on record subsequent events were in response to the representation made by the respondent to the NDMC as President of Gole Market Merchants Association (Regd.).

With respect to shop No.5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, it is submitted that the same is not in possession of the respondent/landlord for last several years as said shop is in occupation of one tenant namely, M/s Karachi Halwa House, who was inducted as a tenant by the erstwhile owner, and a suit for recovery of possession of the said shop has been instituted by the respondent against the said tenant, which is pending before learned Trial Court/District Judge Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. It is further pointed out that plaint as well as relevant ordersheets of the said suit has been placed on record alongwith the reply filed by the respondent to the applications filed by the petitioners for placing on record subsequent events transpired during the pendency of the present petitions.

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the bonafide need in respect of demised premises is not of married daughters of the respondent but of him and his family members, including his wife, son and his daughters to expand the business which is already set-up by the respondent/landlord. Learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent/landlord also seeks to rely upon the judgment passed by this Court in Swaranjit Singh and Anr. v. Saroj Kapoor; 2023^{1212.SCC OnLine Del 7396}, and by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Charanjeet Singh v. Vivek Jain^{1313.2024 SCC OnLine Del 613}, to submit that the Courts have held that the married daughter(s) is a member of the “family” within the meaning of DRCA, and there is no universal rule that a married daughter cannot be dependent upon her parents, and therefore, a petition seeking eviction on the ground of bonafide requirement of the demised premises for such daughter will be maintainable.

Reliance has been placed by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent on a judgment of Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta^{1414.(1999) 6 SCC 222}, (particularly para 11) to contend that scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court under Section 25-B (8) cannot be as wide as that of the appellate court. It is further contended that High Court cannot appreciate or reappreciate evidence merely because it takes a different view. It is further contended that High Court to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of whether it is according to law.

Reliance has also been by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Others^{1515.(1999) 1 SCC 141}, to contend that non-disclosure by landlord about his having another accommodation would not fatal to the eviction petition if both the parties understood the case and placed material before the Court and the case of neither party was prejudiced.

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgments in support of the latter’s case: -

In rejoinder, learned counsels for the petitioners have placed reliance upon the site plan of the entire subject property filed by them alongwith applications seeking leave to defend and in the said site plan yellow portion of the property is shown under the tenancy of separate tenants and for eviction of said tenants separate eviction proceedings were initiated by the respondent and it is pointed out that, in the said site plan, shop No. 5 alleged to be in the possession of Karachi Halwa House has not been shown and was never even pleaded to be in the possession of the said entity by the respondent in the eviction petitions filed at the first instance.

At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that vide order dated 07.12.2023, learned Predecessor Bench had allowed the applications, CM APPL. 45244/2023 in RC. REV. 563/2015, and CM APPL. 45245/2023 in RC. REV. 99/2016, filed by the petitioners-M/s Beli Ram Chemist & Ors. & Yogesh Jain. The same was, however, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respondent/landlord.

Perusal of both the aforesaid applications demonstrate that similar averments have been made in both these applications. For the purposes of dealing with the said alleged subsequent events, the averments made in application, CM APPL. 45244/2023 in RC. REV. 563/2015, read as under: -

(emphasis supplied)

In response to the aforesaid subsequent events, respondent has placed on record written submissions wherein, it has been contended that the alleged application filed by the petitioners is false and baseless. It is stated that the present status of the suit property, shop No.5A (also known as shop No.5/1) vacated by Labh Singh in the year 2015 is being used by Ezee Flight and Ezee Travel Solution, and shop No.3/1 vacated by Mrs. Mohini Raswant is used by Madhur Air Travel, and shop No.1/5A vacated by Jagdish Batra in the year 2016 is being used as a washroom, and shop No.1/5 vacated by Channi in the year 2022 is being used as server room, and shop No.1/3 vacated by Nirmal Kumar in the year 2023 is being used for keeping of records. It is further stated that rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined on the date of the petition and subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding relief, provided such events are of such a nature and dimension so as to completely eclipse the need and make it loose significance altogether which is not a case in hand, and the Court has to look into the cause of action based on which the eviction petition was instituted.

Perusal of the aforesaid averments made in application, CM APPL.45244/2023, shows that the respondent has six shops available with him, all on ground floor of the same locality, and same were lying vacant which are more than enough to meet his alleged bonafide requirement. In response to the said averments, the respondent has explained the status of the aforesaid five shops situated in Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi. However, regarding the shop No.1/6, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, no explanation has been extended on behalf of the respondent. The vacation of the aforesaid shops and the respondent getting possession of the same as contended on behalf of the petitioners during the pendency of the instant petitions is a subsequent event which has materially changed the ground of relief.

It was the case of the respondent/landlord that his grandson-Rahul Aggarwal, who is director in M/s Yorks Travels and Forex, intended to join his business. However, petitioners have placed on record screenshot of his Facebook Profile to demonstrate that said grandson is permanently settled in Ontario, Canada, since 2018. Further, the petitioners have also contended that the respondent/landlord during the pendency of the instant petitions has also shifted to Toronto, Canada, and is no more residing in India, and therefore, the bonafide requirement set up by him has ceased to exist on this date. Reliance has been placed on a screenshot of the Facebook page/profile of the respondent in support of this contention which shows that the respondent currently lives in Toronto, Ontario (Canada). It is further their case that such facts had come to their knowledge in 2023, and owing to this reason, same could not be pleaded earlier. On the other hand, the respondent has contended that he is running his business as well as residing in the demised premises with his family in New Delhi. It is further contended on behalf of the respondent that the description given on the ‘Facebook’ page/profile of the latter was only to garner clientele/business from Canada. However, the aforesaid screenshot taken from the ‘Facebook’ page/profile has not been denied by the respondent/landlord. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that in paragraph 18 (a)(iii) of the all-eviction petitions following averments were made on behalf of the respondent/landlord: -

(emphasis supplied)

The averments made in the eviction petition shows that the need of the respondent was for expanding for his travel agency business which he was already doing along with his wife, and his daughters and son were also assisting him in the said business. However, aforementioned subsequent events placed on record by the petitioners has materially changed the ground of relief.

Further, by way of applications, CM APPL. 68805/2024 in RC. REV. 563/2015 and CM APPL. 68804/2024 in RC. REV. 99/2016, the petitioners-tenants sought to place on record documents in relation of subsequent event pertaining to the respondent/landlord, wherein he had applied for removal of his license of shop No. 44, Gole Market, New Delhi. It was stated in these applications, that this shop is available to the respondent as an additional alternate accommodation and the application for renewal of license filed on behalf of the respondent shows that the said shop is in use and occupation of the respondent/landlord. It was further stated that on 21.11.2024, the petitioners came to know about a letter dated 17.09.2024 which is a communication addressed by NDMC, New Delhi Municipal Corporation to the respondent/landlord regarding renewal of license of the NDMC Shop No.44 of Gole Market Area, New Delhi. It is the case of the petitioners that by way of this letter, the respondent admittedly owns yet another shop at Gole Market and details of the said shop were deliberately withheld and not disclosed in the subject eviction petition filed against the petitioners. It is further stated that in case the stand of the respondent that they had surrendered their rights with respect to the said shop No.44 in year 2000 in favour of a third party is taken to be on its face value then also the letter dated 17.09.2024 clearly demonstrates that the said shop was all along under the occupation and in possession of the respondent and same was not disclosed by him in the eviction petition. Despite being the said shop available to the respondent, he had set up a false version in the eviction petition to get the petitioners/tenant evicted.

The stand taken by the respondent in respect of the aforesaid shop No.44, Gole Market, New Delhi, is that the license rights of the said shop were transferred in the year 2000, and it is likely that the substitution of the name of new owner/licensee of the said shop has not been done. It is further his case that the persons who were carrying on business at the said shop have surrendered the same to NDMC and NDMC vide public notice dated 29.05.2019 had put for auction the licensing rights of various shops including said shop No.44. These facts were not placed by the respondent/landlord in the eviction petitions. The aforesaid stand of the respondent that said shop No.44 being transferred in the year 2000 becomes a triable issue.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maria Martins v. Noel Zuzarte & Ors. ^{3535.2026 SCC OnLine SC 600} , with respect to subsequent events which materially changes the ground of relief, has observed and held as under: -

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kedar Nath Agrawal (dead) & Anr. v. Dhanraji Devi (dead) by lrs. And Anr. ^{3838.(2004) 8 SCC 76}, had observed and held as under: -

The fact whether aforesaid properties, of which respondent has got possession, would be sufficient to satisfy the bonafide requirement of the respondent, or the same would constitute alternate suitable accommodation, or whether the bonafide requirement portrayed by the respondent has ceased to exist as on this day, in view of him being shifted and settled in Toronto, Canada, are triable issues, which needs to be contested at the stage of trial by leading adequate evidence.

Even otherwise, some of the issues raised by the petitioners in their leave to defend applications, have not been properly dealt with by the learned ARC. For instance, the issue of the respondent having possession of shop No. 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market raised by the petitioner-M/s Gainda Lal Ram Narayan & Anr. in RC REV. 507/2015 has been dealt by the learned ARC in the following manner: -

The aforesaid finding by learned ARC is clearly incorrect on the face of record as in paragraph 10 of the leave to defend application filed by the aforesaid petitioner, the following stand was taken: -

In response to the aforesaid stand, in the reply to the application seeking leave to defend following averment was made by the respondent/landlord: -

(emphasis supplied)

In rejoinder to the aforesaid reply of the respondent, following averments were made by the petitioner-M/s Gainda Lal Ram Narayan: -

(emphasis supplied)

It is pertinent to note that, even in the site plan filed by the respondent/landlord, the said shop No.5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, was not shown in possession of the alleged tenant-M/s Karachi Halwa House nor was the same mentioned in the eviction petitions filed at the first instance.

The site plan filed along with the eviction petitions did not reflect that shop No.5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi, is in occupation of the tenant- M/s Karachi Halwa House, who is alleged to have been inducted by the erstwhile owner of the property. It is a matter of fact that the respondent had not initially disclosed that this shop No.5 is in occupation of the tenant- M/s Karachi Halwa House, and the same was only done in reply to the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that the respondent/landlord has not placed on record any rent receipt in respect of shop No.5 to show that said shop is in occupation of M/s Karachi Halwa House. Further, it is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner as also is reflected from the record of the instant petitions that the respondent in the memo of parties has mentioned his address as “5, Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi” in the eviction petitions. As these facts were not disclosed in the eviction petition as also in the site plan filed along with it, the same, therefore, itself become triable issues which require consideration.

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent had submitted that a civil suit, CS (COMM) 226/2021, for possession has been instituted by the respondent against the said tenant, M/s Karachi Halwa House, and the same is pending adjudication before learned District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. It is sufficient to note that said suit has been filed after passing of the impugned orders/judgment.

Further, the factum of possession of the shops, as described in paragraph 8 (i) & (ii) of the application CM APPL. 45244/2023 in RC. REV. 563/2015, with the daughter of the respondent-Ranjana Aggarwal also overshadows the bonafide requirement portrayed by the respondent as said fact was not disclosed by the respondent at the time of the filing of the eviction petitions. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that, in paragraph 7 of the application seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioner-M/s Gainda Lal Ram Narayan, it was stated as under: -

(emphasis supplied)

The respondent/landlord in reply to the aforesaid had taken the following stand: -

(emphasis supplied)

Further, in rejoinder following averments were made by the said petitioner: -

The aforesaid fact that the business of Raj Kumar Aggarwal (father of Rahul Aggarwal) was not fruitful and his son-Rahul Aggarwal was unable to adjust himself in the said business is a triable issue which require reconsideration.

Similarly, the common stand taken by the petitioners is that the son of the respondent is already settled in Canada, and bonafide requirement of the respondent for expansion of the business of his son in India would also be a triable issue inasmuch as the eviction could not have been sought in case of a mere desire vis-a-vis a genuine bonafide need. The petitioners along with their leave to defend applications had placed on record the passport of the son of the respondent/landlord and his family members (wife and son) which reflects that they are holding permanent residency of Canada.

In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta^{3939.(1999) 6 SCC 222}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down the law in relation to scope of interference by the High Court in a petition under Section 25B (8) of the DRCA, and had observed and held as under: -

In these circumstances, the present petitions are allowed and disposed of accordingly. The impugned orders dated orders dated 02.07.2015 assailed in RC.REV. 507/2015 and RC.REV. 563/2015 passed by learned SCJ-cum-RC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, and impugned order dated 14.10.2025 assailed in RC.REV. 99/2016 passed by learned ARC, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, are set aside.

The applications seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioners are allowed. The parties are given liberty to amend their pleadings to enable them to explain their stands in respect to subsequent events in accordance with law. Learned ARC/RC would thereafter consider the entire material on record and decide the proceedings on their own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court in the instant petitions in accordance with law.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

Needless to state that it shall remain open to the parties to lead evidence in trial to rebut the averments with respect to the subsequent events as well as other issues and the same would be considered by the learned ARC in accordance with law.

Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned RC/ARC, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, for necessary information and compliance.

Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.