[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Gopal Krishan Puri vs Uco Bank on 12 March, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 15th January, 2026
Pronounced on: 12th March, 2026
+ RC.REV.165/2018
GOPAL KRISHAN PURI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. C. Singhal, Advocate.
versus
UCO BANK .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Rattan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
1. The present revision petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the "DRC Act"), seeks the
following prayers: -
"It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be allowed and
the impugned judgement Dated 15.01.2018 passed in Eviction Petition
No. 81/2012 by the court of Shri Navjeet Budhiraja,
ACJ/CCJ/ARC(West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi be set aside by
accepting the present petition and eviction order be passed in terms of
the prayer clause of the eviction petition.
Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may
also be passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent."
2. The present revision petition assails the impugned judgment dated
15.01.2018, passed by the learned ARC, West District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "learned ARC"), in Eviction Petition No.
81/2012 (hereinafter referred to as the "eviction petition"), whereby the
eviction petition preferred by the petitioner against the respondent was
dismissed.
3. It was the case of the petitioner that he is the owner/landlord of
premises bearing No. B-7, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, Delhi-110015
(hereinafter referred to as the "subject premises"), which he had inherited
from his father, late Shri Badri Nath. A tenancy was created in the year 1964
for a period of ten years, by the father of the petitioner in respect of two
rooms and a veranda on the ground floor of the subject premises (hereinafter
referred to as the "tenanted premises") vide a registered Lease Deed in
favour of the respondent. The said tenancy was further renewed for another
period of ten years, up to 31.12.1985. Thereafter, no further lease deed was
executed and the tenancy became a month-to-month tenancy at a rent of INR
190/- per month.
4. It was further stated that the tenanted premises were bona fidely
required by the petitioner and his family members, as the existing
accommodation forming part of the subject premises, consisting of one room
on the ground floor, three rooms on the first floor and one barsati room on the
second floor, was highly insufficient for the purposes of residing. It was
further stated that the petitioner has a large family comprising himself, his
wife, two married sons, their wives and two granddaughters, and on account
of age-related ailments and knee problems, the petitioner and his wife faced
difficulty in climbing stairs and required accommodation on the ground floor
of the subject premises. It was further pleaded that no other alternate
accommodation was available to meet the said requirement of the petitioner.
5. It was further stated that the petitioner was residing in the subject
premises, where the tenanted premises are situated. The portion of the
premises where the petitioner resides consists of one room on the ground
floor, three rooms and one drawing room on the first floor, and one barsati
room on the second floor.
6. An application seeking leave to defend dated 29.09.2011 was filed on
behalf of the respondent. Thereafter, a reply to the leave to defend application
dated 27.02.2012 was filed by the petitioner in the eviction proceedings.
Leave to defend was allowed vide order dated 20.11.2013, pursuant to which
the respondent filed its written statement dated 07.01.2014, and the petitioner
filed its replication dated 19.02.2014.
7. Evidence was led by both parties, and the petitioner stood cross-
examined on 24.01.2015, while RW-1 stood cross-examined on 09.09.2015.
The eviction proceedings were finally heard on 11.01.2018, and the impugned
order was passed on 15.01.2018 by the learned ARC.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
8. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this
Court to the impugned order passed by the learned ARC, and particularly on
the following paragraph(s): -
"15. Although, petitioner has been able to prove that he has a bona
fide requirement of accommodating his family members
comfortably. However, it has also to be seen that whether petitioner
requires the tenanted premises for this purpose and there is no
alternative accommodation available with the petitioner which
could suitably cater to his requirement.
16. Petitioner/PW-1 has testified in his affidavit Ex. PW-l/A that
the present accommodation available with him is one room on the
ground floor, three rooms and one drawing room on the first floor
and one Barsati room on the second floor as shown in Green Color
in Site plan (site plan has not been formally exhibited). The said
barsati room is not fit for residence and is being used as store room.
But in his cross-examination, petitioner/PW-1 has admitted that
there is a kitchen, toilet, washroom, store a part from the barsati
room on the second floor. He has also admitted that these
constructions are a Pucca structure. It is also pertinent to note that
when petitioner/PW-1 was confronted with copy of one reply filed
by the petitioner in some other case which is Ex. PW-l/D-24, he
fessed up that he had mentioned that the second floor of the
property is also being used for residential purposes by him as well
as his family members. Then in the later part of his cross-
examination, he also conceded that as on the date of his
examination, the property consists of five bed rooms, one drawing
room, two kitchens, three toilets and other rooms."
It was submitted that the learned ARC had categorically recorded and
held that the petitioner was able to prove his bona fide requirement, and once
such finding had been returned by the learned ARC, the eviction petition
ought not to have been dismissed.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew attention of this Court
to the impugned order, and particularly on the following paragraph(s): -
"17. It is pellucid from the above that petitioner has given
discrepant statements with regard to the accommodation available
in his current residence. The admissions made by him in his cross-
examination with regard to the availability of a kitchen, toilet, store
room on the second floor and over all availability of five bed rooms
are not in consonance with his plea in the petition as well as in his
evidence. It is quite clear that the petitioner has concealed the
details of entire accommodation available with him. Although,
the petitioner has endeavoured to justify that because of the see
page in second floor of the property, the same is not being used
by him, but it was the duty of the petitioner to have approached
the court with clean hands by divulging the details of the entire
accommodation available with him and thereafter would have
taken the plea of non-suitability of the same. Another
justification given by petitioner/PW-1 that the second floor of the
premises would require repair which was very costly. It is also not
tenable as it is the case of the petitioner that after the acquisition of
the tenanted premises, he would carry out the renovation so as to
make it habitable, as per his requirement. This statement of the
petitioner is also beyond comprehension as on one hand he is taking
the plea of avoiding the expenses of repair of second floor and on
the other hand, he intends to get the tenanted premises renovated so
as to make the same suitable as per his needs."
It was argued that the learned ARC had erred while holding that the
petitioner had concealed material facts from the Court. It was further argued
that the respondent had never taken the ground of concealment and, in any
event, the petitioner had placed on record the complete site plan of the subject
premises, depicting the entire accommodation available, including the rooms
on the ground floor, first floor and the second/barsati floor, and thus, the
finding of concealment, as rendered in the impugned order, is wholly
unsustainable.
10. Learned counsel further contended that the learned ARC had
incorrectly held that the plea of repair work on the second/barsati floor of the
subject premises was untenable, on the ground that renovation would also be
required in the tenanted premises to make it habitable. It was further
submitted that the landlord is the best judge of his requirements, and that the
tenant is not competent to dictate the terms as to which portion of the
premises should be utilized and which portion should not be utilized.
11. It was further submitted that the learned ARC had incorrectly held that,
since the petitioner had admitted the availability of a kitchen, toilet,
washroom, apart from a barsati room on the second floor, the said
constructions were pucca structures. It was submitted that the petitioner had
explained before the learned ARC that the said portions on the second/barsati
floor are not fit for habitation, as there is seepage in the said rooms and the
same require extensive repair work.
12. Attention of this Court was further drawn to the impugned order, and
particularly on the following paragraph(s): -
"18. Although, it is not repudiated by the respondent that the
petitioner has been living in a joint family with the given number of
members, however in view of the admission by the petitioner that
currently he is in possession of five bed rooms, one drawing room,
two kitchens, three rooms, it is beyond comprehension that these
number of bed rooms will not be sufficient for the family members
of the petitioner. In para no. 10 of his affidavit, petitioner/PW-1
has also stated that his mother in law being 85 years of age is
not in a position to climb the stairs and requires one room at
the ground floor. This requirement of the petitioner is
believable, however, the requirement of two rooms for
petitioner and his wife at the ground floor has remained
inexplicable on behalf of the petitioner. Petitioner has also not
placed on record the medical documents in support of the
alleged knee problems of himself and his wife."
It was submitted that the learned ARC had incorrectly held that the
requirement of two rooms for the petitioner and his family on the ground floor
remained unexplained on account of the petitioner's alleged failure to place
medical documents on record. It was further submitted that the petitioner had
never stated that two rooms were available with him on the ground floor,
rather, only one room is available with the petitioner, while the remaining two
rooms are in occupation of the respondent. It was further submitted that since
an eviction petition cannot be filed seeking partial eviction, the respondent is
liable to be evicted from both the rooms. Whether the petitioner explained a
bona fide requirement of one room or two rooms, has no material bearing on
the case, and therefore, the findings of the learned ARC in this regard are
erroneous and unsustainable, as no such explanation was required. With
respect to the production of medical documents, it was submitted that the
petitioner is aged and is a retired NCERT employee, and therefore, no
medical evidence was required to be produced.
13. It was further stated that the learned ARC failed to appreciate that the
earlier civil suit filed against the respondent, being Suit No. 234/2009, was
dismissed for want of jurisdiction, as the tenanted premises are governed by
the provisions of the DRC Act.
14. It was submitted that, as on date, the petitioner requires one bedroom
with a living room facility on the ground floor for himself and his wife, two
bedrooms for his two sons and their wives, and two separate bedrooms for the
grown-up grandchildren, as stated hereinabove, along with one study room,
besides a living room, kitchen, and other facilities. However, the
accommodation available with the petitioner consists of only one room on the
ground floor, three rooms along with a pooja room and store on the first floor,
and one barsati room, which is not habitable.
15. Learned counsel for the petitioner had further relied upon the decision
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Mahesh Chand
Gupta1, and particularly on the following paragraph: -
"14. The availability of an alternative accommodation with the
landlord i.e. an accommodation other than the one in occupation of
the tenant wherefrom he is sought to be evicted has a dual
relevancy. Firstly, the availability of another accommodation,
suitable and convenient in all respects as the suit accommodation,
may have an adverse bearing on the finding as to the bona fides of
the landlord if he unreasonably refuses to occupy the available
premises to satisfy his alleged need. Availability of such
circumstance would enable the court drawing an inference that the
need of the landlord was not a felt need or the state of mind of the
landlord was not honest, sincere, and natural. Secondly, another
principal ingredient of clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 14,
which speaks of non-availability of any other reasonably suitable
(1999) 6 SCC 222
residential accommodation to the landlord, would not be satisfied.
Wherever another residential accommodation is shown to exist as
available then the court has to ask the landlord why he is not
occupying such other available accommodation to satisfy his need.
The landlord may convince the court that the alternative residential
accommodation though available is still of no consequence as the
same is not reasonably suitable to satisfy the felt need which the
landlord has succeeded in demonstrating objectively to exist.
Needless to say that an alternative accommodation, to entail denial
of the claim of the landlord, must be reasonably suitable, obviously
in comparison with the suit accommodation wherefrom the landlord
is seeking eviction. Convenience and safety of the landlord and his
family members would be relevant factors. While considering the
totality of the circumstances, the court may keep in view the
profession or vocation of the landlord and his family members,
their style of living, their habits and the background wherefrom
they come."
16. It was further argued that the alleged statement regarding use of the
second floor for residential purposes, as stated by the petitioner in the eviction
petition, was on account of inadvertent discrepancy and typographical error,
and the same does not reflect the true factual position. It was submitted that it
has been consistent case of the petitioner throughout the proceedings, that the
second/barsati floor is not fit for habitation on account of seepage and
requires extensive repair work. It was further submitted that minor
inconsistencies or clerical errors in pleadings cannot be construed as
concealment or lack of bona fides, particularly when the overall material on
record clearly establishes the petitioner's bona fide residential requirement.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
17. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
latter is a Public Sector Undertaking and a nationalised bank carrying on its
business from property bearing No. B-6, Ground Floor, Tagore Market, Kirti
Nagar, New Delhi-110015, admeasuring 1247 sq. ft. The said property was
leased out to the respondent vide lease deed dated 08.06.2005 for a period of
fifteen years, w.e.f. 01.01.2004. In addition thereto, the respondent is also in
occupation of the adjoining tenanted premises in question, i.e., a small portion
of property bearing No. B-7, Ground Floor, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New
Delhi-110015, on the rear side facing the back lane, comprising two small
rooms admeasuring approximately 350 sq. ft. It was further submitted that
one of the said rooms is being used as a strong room where bank lockers are
installed, while the other L-shaped room is being used as a storage room for
maintaining records, books, and ledgers of the respondent bank since the year
1964, till date. As such, respondent is providing banking services to locker
holders for the operation of lockers installed in the tenanted premises.
18. It was further submitted that the tenanted premises were taken on rent
by the respondent from late Shri Badri Nath Puri, i.e., the father of the
petitioner, in the year 1964, and lease deeds were executed by him from time
to time in favour of the respondent. As such, a relationship of landlord and
tenant existed between late Shri Badri Nath Puri and the respondent, and the
respondent was depositing rent of INR 190/- in his account monthly. It was
further submitted that late Shri Badri Nath Puri expired on 18.03.1987 and
was survived by nine legal heirs, comprising two sons and seven daughters.
19. Attention of this Court was drawn to the cross-examination dated
04.06.2014 of the petitioner, i.e., PW-1 therein, to submit that the petitioner
had concealed a material fact in the eviction proceedings by not disclosing
that, prior to filing the eviction petition, the petitioner had already instituted a
civil suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the respondent
qua the tenanted premises and it was never disclosed by the petitioner in the
said suit, whether he needs tenanted premises for himself or his family
members. It was submitted that in the said suit, the petitioner had claimed
damages at the rate of INR 40/- per sq. ft. for an area admeasuring 350 sq. ft.,
amounting to INR 14,000/- per month. The said suit was registered as Suit
No. 234/2009 and the same was dismissed by the learned SCJ/RC, West
District, Tis Hazari Courts, vide judgment dated 22.03.2012. The relevant
portion of the cross-examination dated 04.06.2014 is reproduced as under: -
"It is correct that I did not make any efforts by filing any case to get
the said Will probated. It is correct that before filing the present
petition. I had filed a civil suit bearing No. 234/2009 titled Gopal
Krishan Puri Vs. UCO Bank for recovery of possession and mesne
profits. It is correct that I had demanded the market rate of rent qua
the tenanted premises from the respondent bank. It is correct that I
had demanded mesne profits/damages @ Rs.40/- per sq. ft. which
was prevailing market rate at that time. vol. besides that I had
demanded vacant possession of property from the respondent bank.
It is correct that in my suit Ex.PW1/D/17, I had stated that the rent
was around Rs.8000/- per month. It is correct that I have not stated
in my said suit Ex.PW1/D17 about the bonafide personal
requirement of the tenanted property for myself and my family
members. It is correct that the aforesaid suit was dismissed by the
Hon'ble court of Sh. Amit Kumar, SCJ/RC(West), Delhi vide
judgment dated 22.03.2012 which is Ex.PW1/D18. It is correct that
I have not stated in my suit Ex.PW1/D17 that my mother in law
was residing with me in the said property."
20. Attention of this Court was further drawn to the cross-examination
dated 23.08.2014 of the petitioner, to contend that the petitioner had falsely
stated that his mother-in-law was residing with him in the subject premises. It
was submitted that the petitioner procured a Voter ID card of his mother-in-
law dated 31.05.2012, which is subsequent to the dismissal of Suit No.
234/2009, and therefore, it is evident that the petitioner had set up the alleged
claim of his mother-in-law residing with him. The relevant portion of the
cross-examination dated 23.08.2014 is reproduced as under: -
"...It is correct that Ex.PW1/D-21 (admitted) is the election
commission card of my mother in law Smt. Krishna Devi, issued on
31.05.2012 showing the address as B-7, Block-B, Tagore Market,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi. It is correct that I have not filed earlier election
I-card of Smt. Krishna Devi on record. It is correct that the election
I-card Ex.PW1/D-21 was got prepared after the dismissal of my suit
vide judgment dated 22.03.2012 which is Ex.PW1/D-18. vol. she
was living with me since 2006 and I have placed proof of this on
record.
xxx xxx xxx
...It is correct that present petition was filed two months after
preparation of election I-card of my mother in law. It is wrong to
suggest that the requirement in respect of my mother in law is false.
It is correct that I have not mentioned in my eviction petition as to
where my mother in law was residing previously. It is wrong to
suggest that I have deliberately concealed the previous address of
my mother in law."
21. It was further submitted that within five months of the dismissal of the
said suit, the petitioner filed the eviction petition on 27.08.2012 before the
learned ARC on false grounds. It was alleged that the real intention of the
petitioner was to evict the respondent with a view to let out the tenanted
premises to another tenant at a higher rent, and that the petitioner's motive
was purely to derive commercial benefits, rather than to satisfy any bona fide
personal requirement.
22. It was further contended by learned counsel that the petitioner had
concealed another vital fact from the learned ARC by not disclosing in the
eviction petition that he had already filed an eviction petition under Section
14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, against one Mr. Mahavir Prasad Agarwal, i.e., a
tenant of one shop admeasuring 11'-6" × 26'-24" situated in the subject
premises. The said eviction petition was registered as Eviction Petition No.
247/2011, wherein the petitioner had taken the stand that he required the said
premises for starting a new restaurant, which is purely commercial in nature.
It was further submitted that the said premises are also situated on the ground
floor of the subject premises and, therefore, the purpose of eviction sought by
the petitioner in Eviction Petition No. 247/2011 was to start a new restaurant
and not for any personal bona fide requirement for residential purposes. In
support of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the respondent had relied upon
the cross-examinations of the petitioner dated 23.08.2014 and 24.01.2015, and
the relevant portions of the said cross-examinations are reproduced as under: -
"Cross-examination dated 23.08.2014
...It is correct that before filing the present petition, I had earlier
filed an eviction petition No. 247/2011 against another tenant Mr.
Mahavir Prasad Aggarwal in respect of a shop measuring 300 sq. ft.
It is correct that the shop in possession of Mr. Mahavir Prasad
Aggarwal has common wall with the tenanted premises. The gate of
this shop in occupation of another tenant Mahavir Prasad Aggarwal
opens at the front side facing Najafgarh Road. It is correct that
eviction petition filed by me against Mahavir Prasad bears my
signatures at point A. Same is Ex.PW1/D-22. It is correct that I
have mentioned about the opening of a restaurant in Annexure-A to
my said eviction petition. It is correct that I have mentioned about
my commercial requirement of the said shop for the purpose of
earning money by opening a restaurant in Ex.PW1/D-22. It is
correct that I have not mentioned about the requirement of bona
fide personal residence purpose in my said earlier eviction petition
Ex.PW1/D-22. It is correct that before filing the present eviction
petition, I had also filed another eviction petition No. 246/2011
against Mr. Harish Kumar Anand which bears my signatures at
point A and the same is Ex.PW1/D-23. The area of this shop in
occupation of Sh. Harish Kumar is around 300 sq. ft. It is correct
that I have also mentioned in Ex.PW1/D-23 about the requirement
of opening of restaurant in the shop in question also. It is correct
that I have also not mentioned or stated in Ex.PW1/D-23 about my
bona fide personal residential requirement. It is correct that my
requirement was purely commercial for using the said shop as I
wanted to make money out of the said shop. vol. to earn my
livelihood. It is correct that the shop in possession of Harish Kumar
is adjacent to the tenanted premises having common wall.
xxx xxx xxx
Cross-examination dated 24.01.2015
...I did not mention about the eviction petition against Mahavir
Prasad Aggarwal in the present petition because all these cases are
pending in the same court and I was advised by my counsel that I
need not disclose specifically about the same. The case relating to
Mahavir Prasad Aggarwal is pending in the High Court of Delhi
and the property is still in possession of Mahavir Prasad Aggarwal.
It is correct that I did not mention about eviction petition against
another tenant Harish Kumar bearing No. 246/2011 in the present
petition for the same reason. It is correct that a kitchen, toilet and
extra room are also there alongwith the barsati room on the second
floor, vol. extra room is a small store. It is correct that only barasati
room on the second floor has been mentioned in my petition and
the other room as per detail given above has not been mentioned. I
am not using the kitchen on the second floor. It is wrong to suggest
that I am falsely stating that this kitchen is not being used. vol. it is
not being used as there is lot of seepage of water in that kitchen. It
is wrong to suggest that second floor is being used by me and my
family members for residential purpose."
23. It was further submitted that the petitioner had concealed another
crucial fact from the learned ARC by not disclosing that at the time of filing
the eviction petition, he had already filed a separate eviction petition, being
Eviction Petition No. 246/2011, against another tenant, i.e., Mr. Harish
Kumar Anand, in respect of another shop admeasuring 11'-6" × 26'-24"
situated in the subject premises. In the said eviction petition, the petitioner
had stated that he required the said shop for starting a new restaurant, which is
again for commercial purposes and not for his bona fide requirement for
residential use. It was further submitted that the said shop is also situated on
the ground floor of the subject premises, adjacent to the shop under the
tenancy of Mr. Mahabir Prasad Agarwal.
24. It was further contended that the tenanted premises in the occupation of
the respondent, are not fit for residential use, as there is no ventilation,
window, fresh air flow, or access to sunlight in the said rooms from any side.
It was submitted that the tenanted premises are completely enclosed by brick
walls on all sides, and therefore, are unfit for human habitation. It was further
submitted that the tenanted premises are being used as the bank's strong
room, wherein lockers have been installed for its customers, and that locker
rooms do not have windows or openings through which natural air or sunlight
can enter. It was further argued that such lockers are always installed in
protected and secure rooms with iron walls. In support of the said contention,
learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the cross-examination dated
24.01.2015 of the petitioner, and particularly on the following portion: -
"...It is wrong to suggest that I have filed case or that I do not have
any bona fide requirement. It is correct that the tenanted premises
in its present state is not habitable. vol. the same will become
habitable when it is merged with a room behind it after I get
possession of the tenanted premises. It is correct that at present, the
tenanted premises does not have any window. vol. however, it gets
ventilation through the passage. It is correct that the tenanted
premises has been in its present state since the very beginning. It is
wrong to suggest that if the tenanted premises is got vacated then I
shall use the same for restaurant business as mentioned with regard
to other shops. It is wrong to suggest that the areas mentioned in
my petition and areas mentioned in my site plan do not match, It is
wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
25. It was submitted that it is an admitted case that one of the sons of the
petitioner had moved out of the subject premises during the pendency of the
eviction proceedings, on account of domestic issues, and therefore, the
requirement of space for him to reside no longer subsists. In support of the
said contention, learned counsel for the respondent had placed reliance on the
cross-examination dated 24.01.2015 of the petitioner, and particularly on the
following portion: -
"...It is correct that my daughter in law i.e. wife of my son Rajeev
Puri had filed a police complaint against me. vol. those family
problems have been settled and Rajeev and his wife are living
together. It is correct that said dispute is also a reason for Rajeev
and his wife taking up a separate residence, vol. due to the dispute,
there was difficulty in using common kitchen. It is correct that
these disputes arose due to common kitchen on the first floor. It is
correct that I have not mentioned about all these disputes in my
affidavit of evidence. It is wrong to suggest that I have not
mentioned about these disputes which are true facts in order to
conceal material information from the court."
26. It was submitted that the petitioner had taken contradictory stand with
respect to the use and habitability of the second/barsati floor of the subject
premises. The petitioner in his cross-examination dated 24.01.2015, had
admitted that in paragraph-D of his reply and in paragraph-D of the affidavit
accompanying the reply, both forming part of the eviction proceedings, he
had stated that the second floor was being used for residential purposes by
him and his family. It was submitted that, on one hand, the petitioner had
admitted that the second floor was being used for residential purposes, while
on the other hand, he had taken a stand that the said portion is inhabitable. It
was further argued that such inconsistent and contradictory pleas clearly
affect the credibility of the petitioner's case and belie his claim of bona fide
requirement. The relevant portion of the cross-examination dated 24.01.2025,
is reproduced as under: -
"...It is correct that that in para-D of the said reply at internal page
no. 6, I have mentioned that the second floor of property in
question is being used for residential purposes. vol. the second floor
was being used for residence at the time of filing of reply, however,
subsequently we stopped using the same due to seepage of water
and no portion of the second floor is now being used, I have not got
the second floor portion repaired to prevent seepage. vol. it is very
costly. It is correct that despite the second floor being my property,
I have not got it repaired. It is correct that that in para-D of the
affidavit accompanying the reply at internal page no. 20, I have
mentioned that the second floor of property in question is being
used for residential purposes by me and my family."
27. Learned counsel for the respondent had relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Chand v. Jagdish Pershad & Ors.2, to
contend that wherein an eviction petition on ground of bona fide requirement
has been filed suppressing material facts, particularly relating to the
availability of an alternative residential accommodation with the landlord's
son, such petition is liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND FINDING
28. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
29. In the eviction petition, following details were provided by the
petitioner:
18(a) The ground on which ...(iv) That the father of the petitioner Late Sh.
the eviction of the tenant Badri Nath Puri granted a Lease in respect of a
2001 SCC OnLine SC 1244
is sought. portion comprising of two rooms with a veranda
on the ground floor of the premises bearing
Municipal No. B-7, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 125/- per
month in the year 1964 vide Lease Deed duly
registered before the Sub Registrar, Kashmere
Gate, Delhi for a period of ten years in favour of
the respondent. After the expiry of the lease
deed again aforesaid premises were leased out to
the respondents for a further period of ten years
at a monthly rent of Rs. 190/- per month w.e.f.
1.1.1976 to 31.12.1985 vide Lease Deed duly
registered on 16.07.1976 in the Office of Sub
Registrar, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 in
favour of the respondent. The original lease
deeds are in possession of the bank. The
premises were let out for commercial purposes.
The respondent is using the one room as a locker
room and another room as Store room where old
records of the bank are kept. After the expiry of
the lease period on 31.12.1985 the respondent
failed to renew the further lease and therefore
the respondent became the tenant under the
petitioner on month to month tenancy. The
respondent is paying rent to the petitioner 0
Rs.190/- per month in the account of the
petitioner in this very branch of the UCO Bank
after the death of the father of the petitioner. The
respondent has attorned the petitioner as his
owner/landlord. After the expiry of the lease
period on 31.12.1985 the respondent failed to
renew the further lease and therefore the
respondent became the tenant under the
petitioner on month to month tenancy. The
respondent is paying rent to the petitioner 0
Rs.190/- per month in the account of the
petitioner in this very branch of the UCO Bank
after the death of the father of the petitioner. The
respondent has attorned the petitioner as his
owner/landlord.
(v) That the tenanted premises are Bonafide
required by the petitioner for himself and for
the members of his family dependent on him
for residential purposes. The present
accommodation available is highly
insufficient and no other reasonable suitable
accommodation is available to the petitioner
elsewhere.
(emphasis supplied)
30. The learned ARC while dismissing the eviction petition filed on behalf
of the petitioner, observed as under: -
"15. Although, petitioner has been able to prove that he has a bona
fide requirement of accommodating his family members
comfortably. However, it has also to be seen that whether petitioner
requires the tenanted premises for this purpose and there is no
alternative accommodation available with the petitioner which
could suitably cater to his requirement.
16. Petitioner/PW-1 has testified in his affidavit Ex. PW-l/A that
the present accommodation available with him is one room on the
ground floor, three rooms and one drawing room on the first floor
and one Barsati room on the second floor as shown in Green Color
in Site plan(site plan has not been formally exhibited). The said
barsati room is not fit for residence and is being used as store room.
But in his cross-examination, petitioner/PW-1 has admitted that
there is a kitchen, toilet, washroom, store a part from the barsati
room on the second floor. He has also admitted that these
constructions are a Pucca structure. It is also pertinent to note that
when petitioner/PW-1 was confronted with copy of one reply filed
by the petitioner in some other case which is Ex. PW-l/D-24, he
fessed up that he had mentioned that the second floor of the
property is also being used for residential purposes by him as well
as his family members. Then in the later part of his cross-
examination, he also conceded that as on the date of his
examination, the property consists of five bed rooms, one drawing
room, two kitchens, three toilets and other rooms.
17. It is pellucid from the above that petitioner has given
discrepant statements with regard to the accommodation available
in his current residence. The admissions made by him in his cross-
examination with regard to the availability of a kitchen, toilet, store
room on the second floor and over all availability of five bed rooms
are not in consonance with his plea in the petition as well as in his
evidence. It is quite clear that the petitioner has concealed the
details of entire accommodation available with him. Although, the
petitioner has endeavoured to justify that because of the see page in
second floor of the property, the same is not being used by him, but
it was the duty of the petitioner to have approached the court with
clean hands by divulging the details of the entire accommodation
available with him and thereafter would have taken the plea of
nonsuitability of the same. Another justification given by
petitioner/PW-1 that the second floor of the premises would require
repair which was very costly. It is also not tenable as it is the case
of the petitioner that after the acquisition of the tenanted premises,
he would carry out the renovation so as to make it habitable, as per
his requirement. This statement of the petitioner is also beyond
comprehension as on one hand he is taking the plea of avoiding the
expenses of repair of second floor and on the other hand, he intends
to get the tenanted premises renovated so as to make the same
suitable as per his needs.
18. Although, it is not repudiated by the respondent that the
petitioner has been living in a joint family with the given number of
members, however in view of the admission by the petitioner that
currently he is in possession of five bed rooms, one drawing room,
two kitchens, three rooms, it is beyond comprehension that these
number of bed rooms will not be sufficient for the family members
of the petitioner. In para no. 10 of his affidavit, petitioner/PW-1 has
also stated that his mother in law being 85 years of age is not in a
position to climb the stairs and requires one room at the ground
floor. This requirement of the petitioner is believable, however, the
requirement of two rooms for petitioner and his wife at the ground
floor has remained inexplicable on behalf of the petitioner.
Petitioner has also not placed on record the medical documents in
support of the alleged knee problems of himself and his wife."
31. A perusal of the aforesaid observations demonstrate that the learned
ARC had dismissed the eviction petition on the ground that the third essential
requirement for satisfaction of ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC
Act, i.e., the non-availability of alternate suitable accommodation, could not
be met by the petitioner. Admittedly, the present petitioner in his cross-
examination, when confronted with the material facts, had admitted the
availability of alternate accommodation consisting of five bed rooms, one
drawing room, two kitchens, three toilets and other rooms. However, a
perusal of the eviction petition would reflect that the same was not disclosed
by the petitioner, at the time of filing of the same. The contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner, to the effect that the site plan demonstrated
the said accommodation, would not be tenable, especially in view of the fact
that the petitioner could still not satisfy the requirement of non-availability of
alternate accommodation.
32. Further, as noted hereinbefore, in the other two eviction petitions filed
by petitioner, i.e., Eviction Petition No. 246/2011 and Eviction Petition No.
247/2011, against other tenants, the requirement pleaded by the petitioner was
for opening a restaurant on the very same ground floor for which residential
requirement has been sought in the present eviction petition. It has further
come on record that both the shops for which eviction petitions had been
filed, are adjacent to the subject tenanted premises and share a common wall.
It has also come on record, by way of cross-examination dated 24.01.2015 of
the petitioner, that the subject tenanted premise does have any window and it
is enclosed by iron walls, on all sides, and the same is being used primarily as
bank strong room, where lockers had been installed for the customers. In
these circumstances, coupled with the fact that the petitioner had already
initiated eviction proceedings in respect of adjacent shops for commercial
purpose, the location and the physical condition of the subject tenanted
premises render it unsuitable for residential use.
33. It has also come on record that the petitioner had got prepared an
Election Commission card of his mother-in-law just before filing of the
eviction petition. The relevant portion of the cross-examination dated
23.08.2014 is reproduced as under: -
"...It is correct that Ex.PW1/D-21 (admitted) is the election
commission card of my mother in law Smt. Krishna Devi, issued on
31.05.2012 showing the address as B-7, Block-B, Tagore Market,
Kirti Nagar, Delhi. It is correct that I have not filed earlier election
I-card of Smt. Krishna Devi on record. It is correct that the election
I-card Ex.PW1/D-21 was got prepared after the dismissal of my suit
vide judgment dated 22.03.2012 which is Ex.PW1/D-18. vol. she
was living with me since 2006 and I have placed proof of this on
record.
xxx xxx xxx
...It is correct that present petition was filed two months after
preparation of election I-card of my mother in law. It is wrong to
suggest that the requirement in respect of my mother in law is false.
It is correct that I have not mentioned in my eviction petition as to
where my mother in law was residing previously. It is wrong to
suggest that I have deliberately concealed the previous address of
my mother in law."
(emphasis supplied)
The petitioner has further admitted that prior to filing of the present
eviction petition, he had filed a civil suit bearing no. 234/2009 titled as
"Gopal Krishan Puri vs. UCO Bank" for recovery of possession and mesne
profits, which was dismissed, and at that stage there was no averment for
bona fide use or requirement for the petitioner's mother-in-law.
34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
Co. Ltd.3, and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua4, held that the scope of
interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under
Section 25B (8) of the DRC Act, is limited. Such jurisdiction is confined to
examining whether the impugned order suffers from any error apparent on the
face of the record. The Revisional Court cannot reappreciate evidence or
substitute its own view, unless the impugned order is shown to be arbitrary,
perverse, or vitiated by material impropriety. In the absence of such
infirmities, there remains narrow scope for interference with the impugned
order.
35. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the learned ARC, and accordingly, the present
revision petition is dismissed and disposed of.
36. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(1998) 8 SCC 119
(2022) 6 SCC 30
37. Copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned learned ARC, West
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, for necessary information.
38. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
MARCH 12, 2026/nk/bsr/db
