[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Smt Natho Devi vs Padam Singh on 15 April, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 17th February, 2026
Pronounced on: 15th April, 2026
+ RC. REV. 200/2023
SMT NATHO DEVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manu Sishodia and Ms. Hina
Rajput, Advocates.
versus
PADAM SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Bardhan Mohanty, Mr.
Sagar, Ms. Nilakshi Chaudhary and
Ms. Rubi Kumari, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 19581, has been filed seeking the following prayers: -
"In view of the above said facts and submissions, it is, therefore, most
respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to :
For short, 'DRCA'
a) call for records of Eviction Petition No.E-123/14/10 titled as
'Smt.Natho Devi vs Padam Singh' from Ld.Trial Court;
b) set-aside the impugned Order dated 24.2.2021 passed by Shri Ajay
Nagar, Ld.ARC (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. E-
123/14/10 titled as 'Smt.Natho Devi vs Padam Singh' and allow the
petition of the petitioner, as prayed for, in the interest of justice
c) pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and
against the respondent.."
2. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord
assailing the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 passed by learned ARC,
Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Eviction Petition No.E-123/14/10 qua
the premises comprising one room and balcony on the First Floor at Property
No.10528, Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi,
(hereinafter referred to as the 'demised premises'). By way of the impugned
judgment, learned ARC has dismissed the eviction petition filed on behalf of
the petitioner-landlord.
3. The petitioner had filed subject eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e)
of the DRCA seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises.
It was stated that the premises were let out by the petitioner to the respondent
for residential purposes and the latter has been residing there along with his
family members. In the eviction petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the
owner/landlady of the demised premises and same was purchased by her vide
usual document, i.e., Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, etc., all
dated 27.12.1990, from the grandfather of her husband, namely, Bholu Ram.
It is further stated that, even otherwise, the grandfather of her husband was
the owner of the demised premises. It is further stated that after death of the
father-in-law of the petitioner, the subject property default on all the legal
heirs of her father-in-law which included five other brothers, besides her
husband. All six brothers are residing in the property bearing No.10525-27,
and all six brothers are having their own family members. Five brothers of
petitioner's husband were residing on the ground floor and first floor of the
property along with their respective family members. It is further stated that
legal heirs of three deceased brothers of her husband were residing in ground
floor of the aforesaid property, whereas two brothers and their family
members were residing on the first-floor portion of the said property. It is the
case of the petitioner that she is staying on the second-floor portion of the
property and is having one room and one tin shed only which is not habitable
and cannot be counted as a room. The family of the petitioner comprised of
her husband, her three daughters, and herself. The petitioner and her husband
are senior citizens and their one daughter is married and other two unmarried
and are staying with the petitioner in the said one room with great difficulty.
It was further stated that their married daughter visits the petitioner along with
her husband and due to lack of accommodation, the petitioner cannot
accommodate her married daughter owing to the insufficient space available
with her, and therefore, requires the demised premises bonafidely for herself
as well as for the benefit of her other family members who are dependent
upon the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that staying in
aforesaid one room at the second floor of the property along with her two
daughters and husband is very difficult. It is further stated in the eviction
petition that, in fact, the petitioner is having virtually one room in the entire
property and the said property also belongs to other legal heirs of her father-
in-law. Further, the petitioner wanted to stay on the first-floor portion of the
property where the respondent is staying and her need is genuine and bonafide
as she is a senior citizen and is having health problems due to which she is not
in a position to climb every time to the second floor of the property. It is the
case of the petitioner that the said property was purchased in 1990 and after
purchasing the same, the petitioner renovated the property and started doing
business from the ground floor of the property. In fact, husband of the
petitioner was stated to be doing labour job from the said shop and the
petitioner is also assisting her husband in doing the said job work.
4. It is further stated that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the
demised premises and the respondent is a tenant of the said premises. Further,
the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi or
elsewhere and as such her need qua the suit premises is genuine and bonafide
for the benefit of her own family members and herself. It is further stated that
one sister of the petitioner due to matrimonial dispute with her husband had
started staying with the petitioner and subsequently, petitioner along with her
sister had purchased one plot in Palam, New Delhi and one room has been
constructed on the said plot by petitioner's sister. It is further stated that
though the petitioner and her sister are owners of the said property in Palam;
however, her sister is staying in the said property and the same is very far
from the demised premises and the property in Palam is not reasonably
suitable for residential requirement of the petitioner. The property in Palam
was primarily purchased to accommodate petitioner's sister and in any event,
said property does not solely belong to the petitioner.
5. It is further stated that it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that
respondent has also acquired some accommodation in Ghaziabad. However,
he is not shifting there and not vacating the demised premises, and besides
that, the respondent has also acquired another premises situated at 10539,
Manak Pura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, and, he sometimes
stays there. Lastly, it was the case of the petitioner that she has no reasonable
alternative suitable residential accommodation in Delhi or elsewhere except
the demised premises to fulfil her requirement.
6. In the present case, application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf
of the respondent was allowed vide order dated 24.03.2015. In leave to
defend, it was stated that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide inasmuch
as the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in question. The respondent
stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties,
and in view of the same, the subject eviction petition was not maintainable.
Respondent at no point in time had admitted the petitioner as owner or
landlady of the premises in question. It was further stated that the petitioner
had intentionally and wilfully concealed the accommodation available with
her and wrongly alleged the same is insufficient for her requirement for
residence of her family members dependent upon her. It was submitted that
there were 12 rooms in the said property and the petitioner also own a
residential property bearing No.412, Gali No.4, Raj Nagar-II, Palam, New
Delhi, consisting of two rooms, washroom and kitchen, etc. Further, the
petitioner has four storey property bearing No.10528 and two rooms on the
ground floor of the side property are lying vacant. It was further stated that
the petitioner is claiming ownership of property No. 10528, Manak Pura,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi, allegedly purchased by her from Bholu Ram and
Kharati sons of Gopal Singh on 27.12.1990. It was the case of the respondent
that Kharati Ram and Bholu (sons of Gopal Singh-grandfather of her
husband), the alleged sellers and from whom the petitioner allegedly claims to
have purchased the subject property were not the owner of the said property
and the alleged sale documents were forged, fabricated and manipulated
documents and were not trustworthy. It was further the case of the respondent
that he had already filed two cases, one for permanent injunction wherein
Hon'ble Court had granted injunction against the husband of the petitioner
and second, all deposit of rent against the husband of the petitioner, and both
the said cases were pending disposal before the Court of learned ARC, Delhi.
It was further the case of the respondent that the subject property No. 10528
was owned by Shri Manak Chand who had died issueless and he had not sold
his property to anyone during his lifetime. It was pointed out that the
petitioner on the one hand that stated that she has purchased the property from
grandfather of her husband on 27.12.1990 and on the contrary in para (n), it
was stated that she has purchased the property from her father-in-law. It was
stated that alleged agreement to sell was executed by Bholu and Kharati on
27.12.1990; however, Bholu had died before 1988 and Kharati had died
before 1985, which clearly shows that the documents were forged and
fabricated. It was further stated that the thumb impression of the seller and
witnesses in the agreement to sell were forged and the petitioner has not filed
any documentary evidence with respect to property in question. It was also
stated that the site plan filed by the petitioner along with the eviction petition
was not correctly demonstrating the position of the property. In view of these
grounds, learned ARC was of the view that, prima facie, triable issues were
raised by the respondent/tenant and leave to defend was granted on
24.03.2015.
7. Respondent filed written statement dated 09.04.2015 in pursuance of
the grounds raised in the leave to defend application making similar
averments. During the course of trial, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1
to prove her case. Petitioner tendered evidence by way of affidavit and relied
upon several documents. Respondent also led evidence by examining himself
as RW-1 and relied upon several documents.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the entire
written statement, the respondent had only alleged that petitioner is not owner
of the tenanted premises and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant
between the parties; however, he has failed to bring on record any evidence to
prove his allegations. It is further submitted that learned ARC gave
contradictory findings by holding that there existed landlord and tenant
relationship between the parties; however, due to minor discrepancies in the
cross-examination of the petitioner, the subject eviction petition was
dismissed. It is further submitted that the respondent had not approached the
Court with clean hands and had concealed the previous litigation between
husband of petitioner and him, where he had admitted that the husband of the
petitioner is landlord. It is further submitted that learned ARC failed to
appreciate the cross-examination of the respondent wherein, he had
deliberately concealed the material fact regarding landlord and tenant
relationship and even deliberately did not identify his signature on the petition
under Sections 27 and 45 of the DRCA filed by him against the husband of
the petitioner.
9. It is the case of the petitioner that learned ARC that site plan placed on
record by the petitioner clearly show the extent of accommodation available
in both the properties. The respondent raised objection with respect to the site
plan filed by the petitioner; however, he did not file any site plan in support of
his contentions. It is further submitted that the petitioner and her husband are
senior citizens and it is very difficult for them to climb up to 2 nd floor and
therefore, due to this reason they wanted to shift to the first floor. It is further
submitted that husband of the petitioner is pursuing his job work on the
ground floor and there is no space to live on the ground floor.
10. It is further submitted that learned ARC has not considered the
bonafide requirement of petitioner and had dismissed her petition in
mechanical manner. The respondent has not brought on record anything to
show that the petitioner is having alternative accommodation as alleged by
him. It is the case of the petitioner that she has duly described the
accommodation available with her including alternative accommodation but
the same are not suitable for residence and requirement of the petitioner
considering her age and health issues of her husband. It is further submitted
that the respondent while cross-examining the petitioner had only confronted
her with respect to ownership of the subject premises and nothing else.
11. It is further submitted that after passing of the impugned judgment, the
old structure of the subject property was demolished and new construction
was raised by all co-owners/ co-sharers and the petitioner, as was earlier
residing in second floor of this property, is still residing on the second floor of
the said property and the bonafide requirement of the petitioner is still the
same. It is further submitted that the petitioner had stated in eviction petition
that husband of the petitioner was doing labour job work from ground floor of
the portion of property No.10528 and due to old age, petitioner and her
husband were not able to carry on said job any further and in order to meet
their daily basic needs, the petitioner let out one portion of the property to
Anganwadi and another small store to one tenant. It is further submitted that
due to her bonafide need and requirement, the petitioner sold tin shed portion
on the third floor in 2022 as she and her husband have no source of income
and are solely dependent upon their rental income. It is, therefore, prayed that
the impugned judgment be set aside and eviction petition filed on behalf of
the petitioner be allowed.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the
petitioner had never disclosed the true facts before learned ARC and had filed
the eviction petition solely with intent to dispossess the respondent from the
property on the basis of false and frivolous grounds. It is submitted that the
subject eviction petition was filed by the petitioner alleging bonafide
requirement comprising of one room each for petitioner, her husband, two
unmarried daughters, one married daughter, and one guestroom. It is
submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has alternate suitable
accommodation on the ground floor of the subject property and the same has
also been admitted by the petitioner in her cross examination dated
06.02.2017. It is further submitted that the petitioner had categorically stated
that two rooms on the ground floor lying in property No.10528 and only one
of the said rooms is sealed by MCD. It is, therefore, the case of the respondent
that petitioner had intentionally and deliberately concealed the material facts
in subject eviction petition and an attempt was made to mislead learned ARC.
It is further submitted that it is highly unlikely to believe that a person who
claimed himself to be owner of a property does not have knowledge whether
property owned by him is sealed or de-sealed. It is further pointed out that
there is a categorical admission on part of the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the
present petition that she had let out said two rooms situated on the ground
floor to property to Anganwadi and to some other tenant. Therefore, if the
petitioner bonafidely required space for residential purposes then, she should
have satisfied her requirement from the space available at the ground floor of
the subject property. It is further submitted that in contrast to her own case,
the petitioner had not utilised the accommodation available on the ground
floor and rented out the same to different tenants instead of satisfying her
requirement.
13. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in habit of making false
statements as in her cross-examination dated 06.02.2017, she had stated that
she has been residing on the third floor of the subject property; however, the
petitioner never resided on the third floor of the property at any point in time.
It is further pointed out that in the memo of parties of the eviction petition as
well as in the present Revision Petition, petitioner had mentioned her address
as H.No.10525-10527, Second Floor, Hari Chand Chowk, Delhi. It is further
submitted that the petitioner has alternative suitable accommodation in the
form of property No.412, Gali No.4, Raj Nagar-II, Palam, New Delhi, and
one daughter of the petitioner has been residing there and the same has been
admitted by the petitioner in her cross examination. It is further pointed out
that no separate space is required by the petitioner as all her daughters have
now been married and the same has also been stated by her in her cross
examination. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment has been
passed by learned ARC after duly appreciating all the facts as well as the
grounds raised by the respondent in the written statement. Lastly, it is prayed
that the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 does not require any
interference and the present petition may be dismissed.
14. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
15. Learned ARC has dismissed the eviction petition filed on behalf of the
petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 only on the ground that
the petitioner had an alternate accommodation available and her requirement
was not even Bonafide. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: -
"19. I have gone through the entire testimonies of all the witnesses
on record, documents and the entire material on record. Perusal of
testimony of PW1 shows that she has deposed that "it is correct that
there are two rooms on the ground floor are lying vacant in
property no. 10528. Vol. The same are already sealed with the seal
of MCD. Again said only one room is sealed. Vol. The another one
is a small room, which is being used as a store. It is wrong to
suggest that MCD sealed all the portions on the ground floor in
property no.10525 to 10527. Vol. Only one room was sealed by
MCD one of the said property no.10525 to 10527. I am not aware if
the aforesaid seal was got de-sealed on an affidavit given to MCD
in the year 2016 from property no.10525 to 10528.......
..... it is correct that there are two rooms on the second floor and
one hall on the third floor lying vacant. Vol. The same are in
dialapidated condition".
20. Perusal of testimony of PW1 clearly shows that petitioner is
having alternative reasonably suitable residential accommodation to
satisfy the bonafide requiremnt as raised in the present petition.
Moreover, several material facts as disclosed during the cross-
examination were concealed by the petitioner and she has merely
stated in the petition that they are accommdating themselves only in
one room. Moreover, during the cross-examination, PW1 has
admitted that she is not having any other tenant except the
respondent.
21. It is well settled that the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court
should place himself in the place of landlord to determine whether
in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the
landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. And the
concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical
approach instructed by the realities of life. It is well settled that the
need/requirement of a landlord/petitioner should be bonafide,
genuine, honest and conceived in good faith.
22. Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be
whimsical or merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has
to be allowed in favour of the landlord also and the courts should
not impose their own wisdom forcibly upon the landlord/petitioner
to arrange his/ her own affairs according to their perception carried
away by the interest or hardship of the tenants and the
inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of
eviction.
23. I have placed myself in the place of landlord to determine
whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the
premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and
honest. And I have also applied a practical approach instructed by
the realities of life on the concept of bonafide need or genuine
requirement. In view of discussions as earlier and well settled
proposition of law, I am of the considered view that the
need/requirement of a landlord/petitioner in the present case is not
bonafide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith.
24. In my considered view, in view of the discussions earlier, the
petitioner is having the alternative reasonably suitable residential
accommodation with her to satisfy the bonafide need as mentioned
in present petition. In other words, the respondent has been able to
prove on record that the petitioner is having malafide and
alternative reasonably suitable residential accommodation with her
to satisfy the requirement as raised through present petition.
25. Perusal of record shows that the respondent as well as
petitioner have relied upon a number of judgments of Hon'ble High
Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court.
However, the case law relied upon by the petitioner do
not assist the petitioner in view of the exhaustive discussion as
earlier, peculiar facts of the case, settled law and material on
record."
16. At this stage, it will be apposite to reproduce the site plan (Ex. PW-1/7)
with respect to the aforesaid property filed along with the eviction petition by
the petitioner, which depicts the structure and area of the subject
property/premises as under: -
Signing Date:16.04.2026
15:25:56
17. The tenanted premises as encircled in red rectangle as shown in the
aforesaid picture was one room on the first floor of the property bearing No.
10528, Manak Pura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The
petitioner in her eviction petition had clearly disclosed that the ground floor
rooms were being used by her husband, who was running his business of
labour from the same, and she was assisting him in the same. Thus, the said
rooms were not available to the petitioner with respect to her bonafide
requirement. The relevant averments made by the petitioner in the eviction
petition read thus: -
"(b) That the said property measuring 35 sq. yds. was purchased in
the year 1990 and after purchasing the said property, the petitioner
has also renovated the said property and immediately thereafter has
started doing his business from the ground floor portion of the said
property. In fact, the husband of the petitioner is doing labour job
from the said shop and the petitioner is also assisting her husband
in doing the said job work.
(c) That the respondent/tenant is occupying one room in the
property bearing No. 10528, Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol
Bagh, New Delhi-110005, as shown in red colour in the site plan
attached herewith, whereas the petitioner is keeping some goods in
a small situated at the first floor and also keeping some equipment
on the barsati floor of the aforesaid property."
18. In evidence filed on behalf of the petitioner by way of affidavit dated
06.06.2016, she re-affirmed the aforesaid stand/averment on the similar lines.
The relevant statement on oath stated by the petitioner has been reproduced as
under: -
"3. The deponent affirms that the said property measuring 35 sq.
yds. was purchased in the year 1990 and after purchasing the said
property, the deponent has renovated also the said property and
immediately thereafter has started doing her business from the
ground floor portion of the said property. In the husband of the
deponent is doing labour job from the said shop and the deponent is
also assisting her husband in doing in the said job work.
4. The deponent affirms that the respondent/tenant is Occupying
one room in the property bearing No.10528, Manakpura, Chowk
Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, as shown in red
colour in the site plan, whereas the deponent is keeping some
goods in a small room situated at the first floor and also keeping
some equipments on the barsati floor of the aforesaid property. The
said room and the Balcony which is under the possession/occupied
by the respondent in respect of the said property No. 10528 is
hereinafter referred to as the "suit property" and has been
delineated in Red Colour in the site plan. The said site plan is
exhibited as Ex. PW-1/7 which has been prepared at the instance of
the deponent and the same is in accordance with the site and is
correct."
19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, during the
course of the arguments, had pointed out that in the present revision petition
in paragraph 9, there has been a categorical admission on the part of the
petitioner that, she had let out two portions on the ground floor of the subject
property (10528, Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi).
The paragraph 9 of the present petition has been reproduced as under: -
"9. That in the eviction petition, the petitioner has stated that
husband of the petitioner was doing labour job from floor portion of
property No. 10528, Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. Now due to old of the petitioner and her husband, they
are not able to carry on any work, therefore, in order to meet their
basic needs, the petitioner let out one portion at ground floor to at a
monthly per floor to another tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-
per month. Due to her bonafide need and requirement, the
petitioner also sold tinshed portion at third floor in the year 2022.
The petitioner and her husband have no source of income and they
are solely dependent upon the rental income."
20. It is a well-settled law that the tenant cannot dictate the use of premises
available to the landlord. Admittedly, in the eviction petition, it had been
stated that two rooms on the ground floor are being used by the petitioner and
her husband for running their livelihood. Moreover, the learned ARC without
examining the averments or any other material on record has come to the
conclusion that the concept of bonafide requirement of genuine requirement
needs a practical approach, and in the present case, bonafide requirement as
averred is not genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. As noted
hereinbefore, the aforesaid observations of the learned ARC, on examination
of the material on record, are bereft of merits. Learned ARC has ignored the
fact that it was the case of the petitioner that the ground floor was being used
by her and her husband to earn their livelihood, and therefore, availability
thereof or letting out the same, cannot be a ground for disentitling the
petitioner from seeking eviction of the respondent from the subject premises
that was necessarily and bonafidely required by her for her residence. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Sahay v. Sachidanand Prasad 2 , has
observed and held as under: -
"9. The next question which, however, arises is whether the
conclusion of the High Court that the findings of the trial court
were perverse can be said to be correct. Under normal
circumstances if a landlord during the trial gets vacant possession
of some other premises which are equally suitable and chooses to
let them out on higher rent then it may be arguable that the need of
the landlord, made out in the eviction petition, was not reasonable
or in good faith. However, as seen above, the said Act provides
specifically, in Explanation II, that even though a landlord may
have two or more premises which have been let out, it is for the
landlord to choose which one would be preferable to him or her and
(2002) 8 SCC 765
the tenant could not question such preference. In this case, the
appellant had indicated a preference for the flat occupied by the
respondent. She had given a reason why she preferred this flat. She
was an old lady. She therefore could not climb to the first floor and
thus the two flats on the first floor were not suitable to her. The
other flat on the southern side of this building faced a road which
was a very busy road and would therefore be noisy. This particular
flat faced the bungalow in which she has been residing for so many
years and also faced an open piece of land belonging to her
husband. The trial court accepts these reasons. The High Court has
merely set aside the decree on the ground that the appellant had
chosen not to occupy the three other flats which became available
in the same building. In our view, Explanation II to Section
11(1)(c) permitted the landlord to ignore other premises and to
prefer a particular premise. The appellant having made a preference
cannot be forced to occupy other premises which may become
available. Further, the appellant was not required to keep those
premises vacant because her eviction suit was pending, nor was
there any duty cast on the appellant, under any provision of law, to
offer those other premises to the respondent. If the respondent had
so desired, he could have offered to vacate the flat preferred by the
landlady and move into one of those other premises. If the appellant
had refused to accept such an offer, it possibly could have been said
that the landlady was merely seeking to get vacant possession in
order to get higher rents. In that case it could have been inferred
that the need of the appellant was not genuine and/or in good faith.
No such case has been made out. In view of the specific provision
in the said Act the reasoning of the High Court cannot be sustained.
21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the
present petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
22. The impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 is set aside. The petitioner
has been able to make out her case under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section
25B of the DRCA, and therefore, an eviction order is passed in her favour and
against the respondent with respect to the demised premises comprising of
one room and balcony on the First Floor at Property No.10528,
Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The
respondent/tenant is directed to vacate, and hand over quite, vacant, peaceful,
and physical possession of the demised premises to the petitioner/landlady,
albeit, after availing the benefit of six months period from today in terms of
Section 14(7) of the DRCA. No order as to costs.
23. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
24. Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned ARC, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, for necessary information and compliance.
25. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
APRIL 15, 2026/kr/ns
