1

IntheCourtofMs.NamritaAggarwal
CCJCumAdditionalRentController1(Central)
TisHazariCourts,Delhi.
CaseNo.E164/12
UniqueI.D.No.02401C0380882012
Inthematterof:
NageshKapoor
S/oLateSh.B.L.Kapoor
R/o1456/23,NaiWala,
KarolBagh,NewDelhi110005...........Petitioner

Versus
Smt.NirmalaDevi
W/oMamChand,
R/o1422/23,NaiWala
KarolBagh,NewDelhi110005.

...........Respondent

APPLICATIONFOREVICTIONOFTENANTUNDERSECTION
14(1)(e)READWITHSECTION25(B)OFDRCACT

DateofInstitution:

22.08.2012

Finalargumentsheard/casereservedforJudgment:

17.11.2015

DateofJudgment:

21.12.2015

Decision:

Petitionallowed

Page1of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

JUDGMENT:

1.

AnevictionpetitionhasbeenfiledbythepetitionerSh.Nagesh

Kapooragainstthetenant/respondentSmt.NirmalaDeviforvacationof
thetenantedpremises,i.e. oneshopbearingNo.1422/23 admeasuring
10'x8',Naiwala,KarolBagh,NewDelhi110005,asshowninredcolourin
siteplanannexedalongwithpresentpetitiononthegroundofbonafide
requirementofthepetitionerforusingitashisofficeasanadvocate,
underSection14(1)(e)ofDRCAct(hereinafterreferredtoastheAct).

2.

Thecaseofthepetitionersisthatthetenantedpremiseswaslet

outtooneSh.DalipSinghwhousedtorunahaircuttingsaloonfromthe
samebythemotherofthepetitionerin1952.Thatafterthedeathofthe
motherofthe petitionerin 1979, the fatherof the petitioner Sh.B. L.
Kapoorbecamethelandlordofthetenantedpremisesandrentwaspaid
tohim.Thatafterthedeathofthefatherofthepetitionerin1981,Sh.
DalipSinghpaidrenttothepetitioner.ThatSh.DalipSinghexpiredand
hiswidowSmt.LaxmiDevibecamethetenantunderthepetitionerby
operationoflaw.ThatinordertosidetrackhermotherLaxmiDevi,the
respondentinconnivancewithherhusbandwantedtoestablishherhold
overtheshopsNo.1422/23and1424/23andstartedfilingfrivolousDR
Page2of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

petitionstitledasMamChand&NirmalaDeviVs.NageshKapoorThat
the house of the petitioner comprises of 4 rooms, kitchen, bathroom,
toilet,storeandacourtyardongroundfloorandfourrooms,poojaroom,
bathroomand toileton the firstfloor.On the ground floorthereare 9
shopsincludingshopsNo.1422/23and1424/23(suitproperty)whichare
inexclusivepossessionoftherespondent.Behindthesaidshopsisthe
residential portions of the petitioner. That one entry from the Baithak
openstowardsAbdulRehmanRoadandanotherentryopenstowards
thestreet,i.e.,GaliNo.23Naiwala.Itisaverredbythepetitionerthatall
rooms on the ground floor are occupied. The room opening towards
AbdulRehmanRoadisaBaithakformorethan60yearswhichisused
bytheoldnaturalparentsofthepetitionerformeetingtheirrelativesand
friends.Thesecondroomisoccupiedbythepetitionerandhiswifeand
isusedastheirguestroomandthemiddleroomisahallwhichisa
drawingcumdinningroomandthefourthroomisbeingusedasabed
room by the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner's sister is married
living in Noida having two grown up children and husband. The said
marriedsisterofthepetitionerfrequentlyvisitthehouseofthepetitioner
and have been staying on the weekend hence the said guest room
mostlyremainsoccupiedbyhersisterandherchildren.Onthefirstfloor
thereare4roomsinadditiontoapoojaroom,toiletandbathroom.That
Page3of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

the petitioner's natural mother is aged about 70 years who is

handicapped being hearing and speech impairment since birth and
needsprivacyandrequiresoneroomtoherownuseexclusively.The
secondroomisoccupiedbythenaturalfatherofthepetitionerwhois76
years of age and cannotadjust with others ashe is suffering from a
multitudeofproblemslikearthritis,bloodpressure,hypertension,failing
vision,hearinglossetc.Thethirdroomisacquiredbythepetitioner's
daughterwhois17yearsofageandastudentof11th classandtaking
coachingfromareputedinstituteofDelhi.Thefourthroomisacquiredby
grownupsonofthepetitionerwhoisstudentof8thclassandwhohasno
otherplaceforhisstudiesashecannotsharetheroomofhiseldersister
as the same results in gossips and altercation between them. It is
averred by the petitioner that he is in practice of advocacy suffers
immenselyasthepetitioner'sbooks,stationeries,briefsandimportant
filesoftheclientsarelyinginaclutteranddumpasthereisnoplaceto
properly keep these important documents. Even the petitioner cannot
attendhisclientsproperlyandexclusively.Attimeswhentheclientsvisit
him, they have to be called inside the house, i.e., either towards the
Baithakortowardsthebedroomofthepetitioner.TheBaithakisoccupied
bythe natural fatherofthe petitionerwhoisaretiredpersonand his
acquaintancesandfriendscometomeethimandseekhisadvice.That
Page4of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

there is no place for the petitioner to accommodate his clients and

visitorsandhehastotakethemintohisprivatequartersthatistheinner
roomslikedinningroomcumhallandbedroometc.whichcausesgreat
embarrassment to the petitioner. As such the petitioner requires
additional accommodationforexpansion andgrowthin hisprofession.
Thatthepremisesinquestionisacornershophavingtwoopenings,one
towardstheAbdulRehmanRoadandotheronthebankstreet.Thereis
alsoampleparkingspaceonboththesidesandisideallysuitedforbeing
usedasanofficebythepetitioner.Thattherespondentisinoccupation
oftwoshopsoutofwhichoneislyingvacantwhichcanbeusedbythe
respondent.
On the above stated facts, prayer is made for eviction of the
respondent/tenantsfromthetenantedpremises.

3.

Videorderdated02.04.2014,theleavetodefendapplicationfiled

bytherespondentwasallowed.Thereafterwrittenstatementwasfiledby
therespondentdenyingallthecontentionsmadebythepetitionerinhis
evictionpetition.Itisaverredbytherespondentthatthepetitionerisnot
theowner/landlordofthepremisesinquestion.ThatSmt.KashiBai
wasthelandladyofthepropertyinquestion.ThatafterthedeathofSmt.
KashiBai,thepetitionerhasfalselyclaimedtherentallegingthathehas
Page5of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

inherited the property in question from Smt. Kashi Bai. That the
respondentwasnotsureabouttheinheritanceofthepropertyorifthe
petitionerhasanyrightornot.ThattherespondentandSh.MamChand
filedapetitionunderSection27ofDRCActstatingthatSh.B.L.Kapoor
wasthelandlordofthe premisesinquestion.Itisfurthersubmittedby
therespondentthatthepetitionerneverclaimedanyrentnorestablished
thathehasinheritedthepropertyafterthedemiseofKashiBaiandSh.
B.L.Kapoor.Thatthesiteplanfiledbythepetitionerisnotcorrect.The
respondenthasalsodisputedthepetitionfornonjoinderofnecessary
parties.ThatSh.MamChandandthelegalheirsofSmt.LaxmiDevi,the
mother of the respondent No. 1 are also the tenants in the tenanted
premises.Itisaverredbytherespondentthatthepetitionerhasnotgiven
thecorrectdetailsoftheroomsinpropertyinquestion.Thatinfactthe
entirehousebearingNo.1456,GaliNo.23,NaiWalaisabighouseina
plot measuring 500 sq. yards which is in physical possession of the
petitioner.Thatthereare10shopsabuttingthepublicstreet,outofwhich
oneshopisinpossessionofthepetitionerandheisusingthesameas
hisoffice.Theothershopsarewithvarioustenantsandsomeofthem
arelyinglockedsinceyearsbutthepetitionerhasnottakenanyaction.
That there are five rooms behind the shops and a big court yards.
Similarly,onthefirstfloortherearefivebigroomsandnotfourrooms,
Page6of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

courtyards,latrine,bathroometc.Theentireaccommodationiswiththe
petitioner.Itisfurthersubmittedbytherespondentthatthepetitionerhas
alsoshopNo.1423,NaiWala,AbdulRehmanRoadinhispossession.
Not only this, after initiating proceedings against the respondent, the
petitioner hasgot vacated six shops which are in hispossessionand
whatever need there was has already been fulfilled. The shops so
vacatedareshopNo.1419,1420,1421,1423,1425and1426.Itisalso
averredbytherespondentthatthepetitionerisnotthesonofSh.B.L.
Kappor.ThenameofthefatherofthepetitionerisSh.GovindRamand
thenameofhismotherisShobhaandfurtherthatthepetitionerisnot
havinganyrelationwithhismarriedsister.

4.

Rejoinderhasbeenfiledbythepetitionerwhereinhehasdenied

all the averments made by the respondent in her written statement

statingthattherespondenthadherselffiledtheDRpetitionNo.44/91and
716/2000 and 717/2000 titled as Mam Chand & Nirmala Devi Vs.
NageshKapoorstatingthatthepetitionerhereinisthelandlordofthe
respondent.ThefilingofthoseDRpetitionsbytherespondentclearly
showsthattherespondenthasfullknowledgethatthepetitioneristhe
landlord/ownerofthepremisesinquestion.Thatbesidesthis,asper
counterfoilsoftherentreceiptswhichhavebeenissuedbypetitionerand
Page7of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

hisadoptivefatherSh.B.L.Kapoortothepredecessorininterestofthe
respondent,i.e.,Sh.DalipSinghfromwhomtherespondentisclaiming
thesuccessionintenancy,therespondentisestoppedfromquestioning
theownershipofthepetitioner.InviewoftheDRpetitionsfiledbythe
respondent against the petitioner, it does not lie in the mouth of the
respondenttostatethatthepetitionerisnottheowner/landlordofthe
premisesinquestion.Itisfurthersubmittedbythepetitionerthathewas
broughtupbyhismaternalgrandparentsnamelySh.B.L.Kapoorand
Smt.K.Kapoor(KashiBaiPendse)astheirownsonandhehasbeen
carryingoutthepiousobligationsforhisadoptiveparentswithwhomthe
petitioner was attached. That after the death of adoptive parents, the
petitioner became the owner of the property. The secondary school
certificateofthepetitionerbearsthenameofhisadoptiveparentsonly
and that he was legally adopted by his adoptive father by way of
registeredadoptiondeeddated05.10.1979.Itisfurthersubmittedbythe
petitioner that the shop No. 1419 is not even in the building of the
petitionerandisapropertyacrossthebankstreetjustoppositetothe
premisesinquestionbelongingtooneMr.KamalKumarTiwari.Thatthe
othershopsbearingNo.1457,1458,1419,1420,1421,1422,1423,1424,
1425and1426aretenantedshopsofthepetitionerandhistenantsare
Sh.JagjitSinghSahni,Sh.Neeraja,Sh.VijayVerma,Sh.SureshKumar,
Page8of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

Smt. Nirmala Devi, Sh. Raminder, Smt. Nirmala Devi, Smt. Gurmeet
Kaur, Sh. Sham Kumar respectively. Further, that the petitioner is not
usingtheBaithakashisofficeasallegedbytherespondent,asthesame
isusedbytheoldagednaturalparentsofthepetitionertomeettheir
acquaintancesastheycannotclimbstairstogothefirstfloor.ThatSh.
MamChandisthesoninlawofthedeceasedtenantSh.DalipSinghand
thetenancybyoperationoflawdoesnotdevolveuponhim.Insofaras
Smt.ShakuntalaDevi,BimlaDevi,Kamleshareconcerned,theynever
turnedupnorclaimedtenancynortenderedanyrenttothepetitioner.

5.

Duringevidence, petitionerhimselfsteppedintothewitnessbox

asPW1anddeposedonthelineofpetition. Further,hereliedupon
followingdocuments:

a)
b)

Siteplan
MCDpropertytaxBillNo.9360

:Ex.PW1/1
:Ex.PW1/2

c)
d)

MCDpropertytaxreceiptNo.896076
Attestedcopyofadoptiondeed

:Ex.PW1/3
:Ex.PW1/4

e)
f)

AttestedcopyofsecondarySchoolcertificate
RentreceiptsissuedtoSh.DalipSinghdated06.07.1980,

:Ex.PW1/5

g)

11.08.1983and28.01.1984
Postalreceiptsofspeedposts

:Ex.PW1/6toEx.PW1/8
:Ex.PW1/9&Ex.PW1/10

h)
i)

AttestedcopyofdeathcertificateofSh.B.L.Kapoor
PermissionforwaterconnectionfromDelhiJalBoard

:Ex.PW1/11
:Ex.PW1/12

j)
k)

DRPetitionNo.215/87
DRPetitionNo.44/91

:Ex.PW1/13
:Ex.PW1/14

l)

CertifiedcopyofDRPetitionNo.717/2000&716/2000

:Ex.PW1/15&Ex.PW1/16

Page9of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

10

5.1

PW2Sh.SanjayKumarfromthepropertytaxdepartmenttestified

thatpropertynumber14181419/22,NaiWala,KaorlBagh,NewDelhiis
assessed in the property tax department in the name of Smt.
Prakashwati Tiwari alongwith Sh. Kamal Kumar Tiwari and Sh. Vinay
Dutt.

5.2

PW3 Sh. Ravi Shankar Kumar, JJA, Record Room Civil, Tis

HazariCourts,DelhihasbroughtthecopyofDRpetitionsfiledbythe
respondentagainstthepetitionerfordepositofrent.

5.3

PW4 Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Head Clerk, House Tax department,

MCD, Karol Bagh Zone brought the mutation order dated 07.10.1996
pertainingtomutationofpropertyNo.14201426,Naiwala,KarolBagh,
NewDelhiandpropertyNo.145658,Naiwala,KaorlBagh,NewDelhi,
bothinthenameofNageshKapoorsonoflateSh.B.L.Kapoor.

6.

In her turn, the respondent did not lead any evidence despite

repeatedopportunities,thereforetheREwasclosed.

7.

Ihaveheardtheargumentsandperusedthematerialavailableon

record.
Page10of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

11

EssentialingredientsofSection14(1)(e)ofDRCAct,1958.
i.
ii.
iii.

Petitioneristheownerinrespectofthetenantedpremises;
He require the premises bonafide for himself or for family members
dependentuponhim;
Hehasnootherreasonablysuitableaccommodation.

Ownershipaswellaslandlordtenantrelationship.

8.

Inordertoprovehisownershipoverthetenantedpremises,the

petitionerhasexaminedPW4Sh.SanjayKumarwhobroughtwithhim
thecopyofmutationdocumentswithrespecttopropertyincludingthe
tenanted premises which clearly shows that the property has been
mutatedinthenameofthepetitionerintheMCDrecord.Itisaverredby
therespondentthatthepetitioneristhesonofSh.GovindRamandSmt.
ShobhaandthereforehehasnothingtodowithSh.B.L.Kapoorand
Smt.K.Kapoorwhoweretheearlierlandlords/ownersofthepremises
inquestionandtowhomSh.DalipSingh,i.e.,predecessorininterestof
the respondent used to pay rent. Per contra, it is submitted by the
petitionerthathewasadoptedbyhismaternalgrandparents,i.e.,Sh.B.
L.KapoorandSmt.KashiKapoorbywayofregisteredadoptiondeed
dated05.10.1979.Thateventhematriculationcertificateofthepetitioner
showsthatSh.B.L.Kapooristhefatherofthepetitioner.Thepetitioner
hasfiledthecopyofmatriculationcertificatealongwithdeathcertificateof
Page11of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

12

hisadoptiveparents.Alltheabovestateddocumentsclearlyshowsthat
thepetitioneristheadoptedsonofSh.B.L.Kapoorandthushaveallthe
legalrightsoverthepropertyofSh.B.L.Kapoor andSmt.K.Kapoor.
EventhefatheroftherespondentSh.DalipSinghusedtopayrenttothe
petitioner as is evident from the copy of rent receipts filed by the
petitioneronrecord.Moreover,therespondentherselfhadfiledvarious
DR petitions against the petitioner wherein she has categorically
admittedandstatedthatthepetitioneristhelandlordofthepremisesin
question,thus,havingprovedthatthepetitioneristheadoptedsonofSh.
B.L.Kapoorandisthelandlord /ownerofthe tenantedpremisesto
whomthepredecessorininterestoftherespondentusedtopayrentand
thattherespondentherselfusedtopayrentinthenameofpetitionerby
wayofDRpetitions(Copyofwhichhavebeenplacedonrecord).The
respondentareestoppedunderSection116ofIndianEvidenceActto
denythelandlordshipofthepetitioneroverthetenantedpremises.The
respondentbeingthetenantcannotdisputetheadoptionofthelandlord
or the title of the landlord overthe tenanted premises. Further, ithas
beenheldinMs.MeenakshiVs.RameshKhanna,1995,Raj.L.R.,322
thatmeredenialofownershipisnodenialandsameismalafide
denial.Inthepresentcase,therespondenthasfailedtostatethatifthe
petitionerisnottheowner/landlordofthepremisesinquestionthenwho
Page12of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

13

elseistheownerofthesaidpremises.

Bonafiderequirement:

9.

It is averred by the petitioner that the tenanted premises is

bonafidelyrequiredbyhimforopeninghisofficeofconsultationasan
advocatewherehecanmeethisclientsexclusivelyandproperlywithout
anyinterruptionandcankeephisbriefs,lawjournals,files,stationeries
etc. securely and in proper condition. It is further submitted by the
petitionerthatthesuitpropertyisacornershophavingtwoentries,one
fromthesideofAbdulRehmanRoadandanotherfromthesideofBank
streetandthus,ismoresuitableforthepetitionerforstartinghisoffice.
Moreoverthesaidshopisadjacenttotheresidenceofthepetitionerand
thus would be more convenient to the petitioner at all times. The
respondentontheotherhand,hasstatedthatthepetitionerhasalready
ashoponthegroundfloorwhichisacornershopandwhichcanbe
used by the petitioner for opening his office. However, as per the
petitioner,thesaidshopisbeingusedasBaithakbythenaturalparents
ofthepetitionerwhoareresidingwiththepetitionerandusingthesame
formeetingtheiracquaintancesandfriendswhoregularlyvisitthem.The
petitionerhasalsofiledthesiteplaninordertoshowtheoccupationof
Page13of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

14

theshopswhicharenotunderhispossessionandthecornershopwhich
isbeingusedasBaithakbyhisparents.Thepetitionerhasalsofiledthe
attested true copy of Bar Council Certificate to prove that he is an
advocatebyprofessionandthereforerequiresthespaceforstartinghis
office.Itisnotthecaseoftherespondentthatthepetitioneralreadyhas
anofficefromwhereheisdoinghisadvocacy.Itisfurthernotstatedby
therespondentthatanyroomisbeingusedbythepetitionerforkeeping
hisbriefs,lawjournals,filesandtomeethisclients.Thecontentionthat
theBaithakcanbeusedbythepetitioneralsodoesnotholdanyground
asthenaturalparentsofthepetitionerofmorethan60yearsoldageare
usingthesaidBaithakformeetingtheirrelativesandfriends.Moreover,
therespondenthasfailedtoprovethesaidcontentionbywayofleading
evidence or placing any photographs on record that the said alleged
Baithakisbeingusedasanofficebythepetitioner.Thus,thebonafide
requirementofthepetitionertostarthisownofficefromtheshopwhich
isinoccupationoftherespondentonthegroundfloorwhichhastwo
sides openings and thus, is conveniently located near his residence
standsdulyproved.Fromthesaidoffice,petitionerwouldbeabletostart
hisworkbyplacingcomputer,officefurnitureandbykeepingbooks,law
journals, files etc. exclusively and properly in order to enhance his
professionandtoearnhislivelihood.
Page14of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

15

Availabilityofalternativesuitableaccommodation:

10.

It is averred by the respondent that the petitioner has various

shopsinhisoccupationonthegroundfloorofthesuitpremiseswhich
can be used by him for his office purpose. The respondent has also
statedthattherearefiveroomsonthegroundflooraswellasonthefirst
floorofthepremisesinquestionwhichcanbeusedbythepetitionerfor
commercialpurposes.Ithasnotbeendisputedbytherespondentthat
thepetitionerisusingthebackportionofthegroundflooraswellasthe
firstfloorfortheresidentialpurposesforhimselfandhisfamilymembers.
The number of family members of the petitioner have also not been
disputedbytherespondent.Thatbeingthecase,petitionerrequiresfour
roomsasabovestatedbyhimintheevictionpetitionforhisparentsand
for his children separately. The case of the respondent is that the
petitionerhasgotvacatedshopsNo.1419,1420,1421,1423,1425and
1426fromthevarioustenantsalsodoesnotholdanygroundsincethe
petitioner has specifically given the names of the tenants who are
occupyingthesaidshops.Further,therespondenthasfailedtoleadany
evidenceinordertocontradicttheavermentsmadebythepetitionerorin
order to prove that the said shops are lying vacant in exclusive
possessionofthepetitionerandnotevenasingledocumenthasbeen
Page15of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

16

filed by the respondent to substantiate his contention likewise for any

shopinGaliNo.23,AbdulRehmanRoad,Butrespondenthasfailedto
toleadevidenceinordertoprovethesaidshopisinoccupationofthe
petitioner and can be used bythe petitioner for meeting his bonafide
requirement.Ontheotherhand,thepetitionerhasspecificallystatedin
hiscrossexaminationthatallthenineshopsonthegroundfloorarewith
varioustenantsandhasalsofurnishedthenamesofallthetenants.That
beingthecase,therespondenthasfailedtoprovethatanyoftheshop
asaverredbyherinherwrittenstatementislyingvacantbymeansof
evidenceorfilinganydocument.Thus,thecontentionoftherespondent
seemstobeamerebaldavermentwhichcannotbereliedupon,andit
standsdulyprovedthatthepetitionerhasnoalternativesuitableshopin
hispossessionwhichcanbeusedbyhimforstartinghisofficeandwhich
is lying vacant. Itisalsoaverred bytherespondent thatthe present
petitionisbadfornonjoinderofnecessarypartiesandotherLRsofSmt.
LaxmiDevi,i.e.,Sh.MamChandandotherdaughtersarenotimpleaded
asapartyinthepresentevictionpetition.Percontra,itissubmittedby
the petitioner that Sh. Mam Chand is the son in law of deceased
respondentandthushavenorighttoinheritthetenancyrights.Theother
names mentioned by respondent never claimed any tenancy rights in
premisesinquestionandnevertenderedanyrenttothepetitionerorhis
Page16of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

17

fatheratanypointoftime.Thepetitionerhasfiledthecounterfoilsofthe
rentreceiptswhichshowsthattheotherLRsofdeceasedDalipSingh
hadneverpaidortenderedanyrenttothepetitionerorhisfatherand
theyhavesurrenderedtheirtenancyrightsinpremisesinquestion.Even
otherwise,in KanjiManjiVs.TrusteesofPortofBombay,AIR1963
SC498that:Onthedeathofatenant,thelegalheirsinheritsthe
tenancyrightsasjointtenantsandnotastenantsincommon. In
joint tenancy two or more tenants take identical interests
simultaneously with each other. The joint tenancy differ from
tenancyincommon.Injointtenancy,incidentsoftenancyarethe
sameasthoseenjoyedbyoriginaltenantandifoneofthelegalheir
is not made a party, the other legal heirs who are joint tenants
representsthetenancy.Thus,thepresentevictionpetitionisperfectly
maintainable.Thecontentionoftherespondentthatthepetitionerisalso
inoccupationofpropertybearingNo.141819/22,Naiwala,KarolBagh,
New Delhi remains unproved as the said property is assessed in the
propertytaxdepartment,MCDinthenameofSmt.PrakashwatiTiwari
alongwithSh.KamalKumarTiwariandSh.VinayDuttandevenasper
selfassessmentpropertytaxform,theselfassessmenthasbeenfiledby
Ms.Prakashwatiandotherintheirnamestatingthatthepropertybearing
No.141819/22,Naiwala,KarolBagh,NewDelhiisintheirnameandnot
Page17of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12

18

undertheownershipofthepetitioner.

11.

Thus,fromthediscussionmadeabove,thepetitionfiledbythe

petitioner u/s 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act against the respondent for
vacationofthetenantedpremisesisallowed.Petitionerisheldentitled
for recovery of the tenanted premises, i.e., one shop bearing No.
1422/23,Naiwala,KarolBagh,NewDelhiadmeasuring10'x8'asshown
in red colour in site plan annexed with the petition. However, the
petitioner would not be entitled to initiate execution proceedings for
recoveryofpossessionofthetenantedpremisesbeforeexpirationofsix
monthsfromtodayinviewofprovisionsgiveninSection14(7)oftheAct.

AnnouncedinopenCourt
st

on21 DayofDecember,2015.

(NamritaAggarwal)

CCJcumARC1(Central)

[Thisjudgmentcontains18pages.]TisHazariCourts,Delhi

Page18of18NageshKapoorVs.NirmalaDevi

E164/12