Delhi High Court
Subhash Chand & Anr vs Ravi Chand Garg on 21 May, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 26th February, 2026
Pronounced on: 21st May, 2026
+ RC.REV. 69/2019 & CM APPL. 5613-14/2019
SUBHASH CHAND & ANR .....Petitioners
Through Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr.
Anunaya Mehta and Ms.
Anandita Tayal, Advocates.
versus
RAVI CHAND GARG .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw and Ms.
Shruti Kapur and Ms. Anju
Agarwal,, 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, 1958, (for short, ‘DRCA’) seeks the following prayers: –
“(i) Set aside and quash the order dated 09.08.2018 passed by Smt.
Susheel Bala Dagar, CCJ cum ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi in Eviction Case No. 851/17;
(ii) Allow the application for leave to defend filed by the Petitioner;
(iii) Pass any other order in the interests of justice, equity and good
conscience;”
2. At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that, during the pendency of
the proceedings in the present petition, petitioner No.1-Subhash Chand had
passed away on 10.05.2020. An application, CM APPL. 38454/2022, was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 1 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
filed on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner No.1 under Order
XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, and they were impleaded in
the present petition vide order dated 02.09.2022 passed by Worthy Joint
Registrar (Judicial). The son of petitioner No.1 was already impleaded in the
present petitioner as petitioner No.2, and by way of the aforesaid application,
other legal heirs, i.e., Three daughters and wife of deceased petitioner No.1
were impleaded.
Brief Background
3. The present petition arises out of the eviction petition filed on behalf of
the respondent against the present petitioners on the ground of bonafide
requirement for using the tenanted premises as a storage space for his vast
library as well as for the additional/old files of his clients. The respondent is
an advocate by profession and has been practicing in the District Courts in
Delhi as well as this Court for last 24 years. He is stated to be operating his
office from his Chamber situated at 194, Civil Wing, Tis Hazari Courts,
Delhi. The respondent required the demised premises urgently as his chamber
was no longer sufficient for his professional purposes. He was facing severe
space constraint in his chamber due to large number of Journals, files and
miscellaneous papers. The entire space inside the chamber was stated to be
occupied for the purpose of sitting space for client’s workstation for juniors
and shelves to store books and files. The subject property was to be utilized
by the respondent for lining the walls with open metallic shelves for keeping
his extra client files with closed cupboards for keeping the books which are in
his possession. It was stated in the eviction petition that the respondent was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 2 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
using a small portion comprising of one room measuring 10″x12″ on the
ground floor of the premises situated at 7/13 Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New
Delhi, and the said premises belonging to his brother and same was occupied
in his capacity of a permissive user. It is further stated that, even otherwise,
said premises are part of a residential unit, and are not appropriate to be used
as an office. Brother of respondent had requested him to vacate the tenanted
premises till the end of November 2017, i.e., 30.11.2017, as same was
required by him for his own personal use. Brother of respondent had retired
from conducting his business, and wanted to utilise the residential space
available to him for his own use. It was further stated that the respondent was
required to move/shift all his personal belongings including office furniture
(tables and chairs) as well as the books and files which were earlier in his
office at Ansari Road back to his chamber. It was further stated by the
respondent that he required the tenanted premises bonafidely for his personal
use as a storage for all the surplus furniture, as well as for maintaining his
library and storing his extra files. It was further stated by the respondent in his
eviction petition that he does not possess any other reasonable suitable
alternate accommodation.
4. Initially, in 1974, petitioner No.1-Subhash Chand (since deceased), and
his brother-Dinesh Chand, had executed a rent note dated 15.05.1974, in
favour of Mahali Ram Lakshman Das (HUF) as joint tenants in respect of
demised premises. Thereafter, said premises were purchased by the present
respondent from the aforesaid HUF acting through its Karta by way of a
registered sale deed dated 04.10.1997. After the purchase, the respondent
enhanced the rent of demised premises by 10% in accordance with Section 6A
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 3 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
of the DRCA. Thereafter, the tenants (petitioner and his brother) defaulted in
payment of rent for which a suit No. 340/2002 was instituted by the
respondent against them in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Court,
for recovery of Rs.5,120/- as arrears of rent. In written statement filed in the
said suit stand taken on behalf of petitioner No.1-Subhash, and his brother-
Dinesh was that the latter had relinquished his tenancy in favour of petitioner
No.1 by a relinquishment deed dated 02.05.1991. However, respondent herein
denied that he was informed of any such relinquishment deed. The said suit
was decreed in favour of the respondent vide judgment and decree dated
20.03.2008, and respondent was found entitled to a sum of Rs. 5,120/-
alongwith interest of 12% per annum alongwith cost of the proceedings.
Appeal, RCA 45/2008, preferred against the said judgment by petitioner No.1
and his brother was allowed and the aforesaid judgment passed by learned
Civil Judge was set aside vide judgment dated 28.07.2010 by learned ADJ,
Central, Delhi, on the ground that respondent had not approached the Court
with clean hands.
5. In the eviction petition, respondent had also stated that he does not own
or possess any other alternative suitable accommodation other than the
following properties: –
“1. One Thala Shop No. 673, Pvt No. 43, Ground Floor, which has
already sold to Mr. Bharat Bhushan Gulati, vide a registered Sale Deed
dated 31.01.2002.
2. One Shop on the first floor of the premises at Municipal No.
674, Pvt. No. 24 situated at Katra Hira Lal, New Delhi- 110006, which
was earlier under the tenancy of Sh. Anil Arora and others and which hasSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 4 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
been vacated vide the Eviction order dated 07.09.2013 and possession
thereof was given to the Petitioner on 22.11.2013. The said shop has
been presently let out to Sh. Prasant Gandhi, s/o Sb. Raj K. Gandhi at a
rent of Rs. 15,000/- per month. A copy of the rent receipt dated 8.8.2016
issued by the Petitioner to the said tenant is enclosed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE H.
3. One Shop on the first floor of property No. 674, Pvt No. 24
situated at Katra Hira La1, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, which has been let
out to one Sardar Jaswinder Singh Saini at a monthly rental of Rs.
12,000/-. A copy of the rent receipts dated 1.3.2017 issued by the
Petitioner to the said tenant are enclosed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE I.
4. One Shop admeasuring 7 x 14.6 on the wound floor of premises
no. 679 bearing private no.5 situated at Katra Hira Lal, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi which is in the tenancy of Sh. Gyan Prakash Gupta a monthly rent
of Rs. 605/- A copy of the rent receipts dated 25.8.2009 issued by the
Petitioner to the said tenant are enclosed herewith and market as
ANNEXURE J.”
Leave to Defend Application Filed by Petitioners
6. In leave to defend application filed on behalf of the petitioners, it was
stated that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, and
the respondent was not recognized as a landlord by the petitioners at any
stage. It was further stated that the alleged documents on which reliance was
placed by the respondent to show that he was owner of the demised premises
were forged and fabricated, and the same did not reflect the respondent as the
owner of the property and also created ambiguity with respect to the
ownership of the premises. It was the case of the petitioners that the
respondent has claimed the ownership of the property on the basis of false and
frivolous documents. It was further stated that the site plan placed on record
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 5 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
by the respondent was incorrect, and the same did not disclose the proper and
exact portion of the property which was lying vacant which could have been
utilized by the respondent for his alleged bonafide requirement. The
respondent had also not given any explanation as to how the vacant portion of
the property could not be utilized by him. It was pointed out by the petitioners
that the legal demand notice dated 11.05.2017 served on behalf of the
respondent was addressed in the name of a firm M/s Subhash Chand, wherein
one person, namely, Vineet Kumar was shown as a tenant of the subject
premises. It was further stated that the said tenant was not impleaded in the
present eviction proceedings as a party. Therefore, the present subject petition
was bad for misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.
7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has
raised various issues viz., two of the shops bearing No.673, 674 of Katra Hira
Lai, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi, were let out by the respondent on
08.08.2016 and 01.03.2017 respectively, and another shop bearing municipal
No.681 (private No.43 ½) in same area is lying vacant, and is locked and is in
the possession of the respondent herein. Further, certain additional premises
were mentioned in the affidavit accompanying the application for leave to
defend are also occupied, and in possession of the respondent and there has
been no effective denial in this respect on behalf of the respondent. Another
issue raised is qua premises No.3384, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, which is stated
to be lying vacant and in occupation of the respondent. The respondent having
shifted to premises No.7/13, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. Though it
is denied by the respondent but the learned counsel for the petitioner has filed
an electricity bill for the month of November 2016 with respect to the said
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 6 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
property to demonstrate that for a single month only three units of electricity
were consumed, and it rather supports his contention that the respondent has
shifted his residence to Ansari Road. This fact was denied by the learned
counsel for the respondent saying that he is very much in occupation of the
said premises and is residing therein.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioners
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent
had not filed the exact site plan of his chamber situated in Tis Hazari Court
premises, from where he was operating. Neither photographs of the chamber
nor site plan of the other premises at Ansari Road, which was used by the
respondent, were placed on record to lend support to the claim that the
respondent has to move from the said premises and additional space is
required for keeping books, files and furniture. It is further submitted that
merely a bald and vague statement was made by the respondent that office at
Ansari Road was used by his brother/Subhash Chand and same were required
by his brother for his own individual use. However, no document or proof in
support of this submission was placed on record by the respondent. It is
further submitted that the demised premises are situated on the ground floor
of an extremely busy market/commercial area and the claim of the respondent
that the same would be used as a vast library and for keeping files and books
as also furniture does not inspire confidence as in the adjacent shops there is
cloth trading market and all the persons in neighbouring area are involved in
business of cloth trading. It is further submitted that it is practically
impossible to use the subject premises which are measuring 9″x7″ for the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 7 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
alleged purpose based on which eviction has been sought by the respondent. It
is further submitted that learned ARC had failed to take into consideration the
fact that the respondent had sufficient alternate suitable accommodation
available with him other than the subject premises which could have been
used by him. It is pointed out that the respondent had available with him a
property bearing no. 3384, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, which was lying vacant
and was not used in any manner. With respect to said shop, respondent had
claimed that the same has been used as residence, however, it is contended on
behalf of the petitioners that electricity bill of the said property shows that the
consumption of electricity in the said property is nearly 3 units per month.
Reliance has been placed on the electricity bills of the said property placed on
record by learned counsel for the petitioners before learned ARC as well as
this Court.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that learned ARC had
failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent had sufficient additional
accommodation available with him, besides the subject premises, which could
have been used by him.
10. It is further submitted that in pursuance of directions given by learned
Predecessor Bench vide order dated 06.02.2019, respondent herein had filed
affidavit showing electricity consumption for the period July 2016 to April
2017 with respect to his property situated at Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, wherein,
it has been clearly disclosed that during the subject period, the electricity units
consumed were regularly negligible. It is further submitted that the same
could only be possible only if the said property was lying vacant and was not
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 8 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
being used, and any explanation given by respondent in this regard is entirely
unbelievable and will be beyond imagination.
11. It is further submitted that learned ARC failed to consider that the
respondent had concealed other suitable accommodations/shops available
with him. It is pointed out that the petitioners in their leave to defend
application had categorically submitted that the respondent had not disclosed
the following list of properties available at his disposal: –
a) Premises no. 31 & 32, situated at second floor in property bearing
no. 676 to 682, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi;
b) Premises no. 29 & 30, in property bearing no. 683, Nai Sarak,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi;
c) Property no. 4303, Gali Bhairon Wali. Chandi Chowk, Delhi;
d) Property no. 7/13, Gali Malkhan Lal, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi;
e) Property 4764-70, Laxmi Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi;
12. It is further pointed out that the respondent did not address nor denied
the aforesaid averments made by the petitioners, and learned ARC had erred
in dismissing the leave to defend application by the petitioners.
13. It is further submitted that learned ARC had also failed to appreciate
that shop No.681, private No.43 ½ as given in the sale deed filed by the
respondent was not even mentioned in the eviction petition, and when said
property was pointed out by the petitioners, the stand taken by the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 9 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
was that the said property was under the tenancy and in possession of Shyama
Devi Rastogi, Puran Prasad, and Prabhu Dayal. However, no document in
support of said stand to show the alleged tenancy was placed on record by
respondent. It is further submitted that the alleged tenants of the said shop had
expired, and the same is not occupied. Further, utility bills regarding the said
shop were also not disclosed. There is no shutter or hoarding on the said shop
which itself shows that it was lying vacant for a considerable period of time.
It is the case of the petitioners that the said shop is a corner shop and the
respondent intended to get the subject premises vacated, and after
reconstructing both the shops, he wants to let out the same on higher rent.
14. It is further submitted that learned ARC has further failed to appreciate
that the respondent had only given vague excuses for not using the properties
No.678, 673, 674, 679, and 681, which were under possession of other tenants
or sold by him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has by way of a chart
showing availability of sufficient alternative accommodation with the
respondent has pointed out the stand taken by respondent to the aforesaid
properties, which has been reproduced thus: –
S/no. Property Details Context
1. 3384, Bazaar Sita Ram Respondent has claimed that he is staying in this
property. However, alongwith his reply to the
Application seeking leave to defend, the
Respondent filed an electricity bill which shows
consumption of only 3 units in the entire month
of November 2016 (Pg. 344 Vol. II).
Given the said fact, by order dated 06.02.2019,
the Respondent was directed to file electricity
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 10 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
bills for the period July 2016 to April 2017. The
bills so filed show consumption of 2, 0, 57, 16,
26, 3, 4 and 3 units of electricity during the
months July 2016 to Feb 17 (Pg. 539 Vol. II).
The negligible consumption of electricity every
months, clearly indicates that the property is
lying vacant, thereby raising triable issue
regarding the respondent’s plea that he is staying
in this property.
2. Several properties The petitioner tenant has listed out specific
mentioned at paragraph properties which, according to him, belong to the
48 of the affidavit filed in respondent, at paragraph 48 of the Affidavit in
support of the Application support of the Application seeking Leave to
seeking Leave to Defend Defend (Pg. 229 Vol. I). There is no specific
denial by the Respondent-Landlord to this
averment in the corresponding paragraph of the
reply, which has been filed by him (Pg. 390 Vol.
II).
The absence of specific denial, ought to be
construed as an admission of the availability of
properties mentioned therein.
It would be important to note that in the course of
oral arguments, the respondent referred to
paragraph 51 of the Reply to the Leave to
Defend;
however, the properties mentioned at paragraph
51 are completely different from the properties
mentioned at paragraph 48, which have not been
denied.
3. Three properties at Common Submissions:
paragraph B (2-4) of the
eviction petition, claimed 1. The alleged rent receipts, filed by the
to be currently let-out and Respondent (Pgs. 152-154 Vol. I) to support his
under occupation of other claim that the shops mentioned at paras B(2) to
tenants (4) are leased out, are self-serving and fabricated
documents and cannot be relied upon on the face
of it:
• There is no signature of the tenant on any
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 11 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
of the receipts. The space for signature of
tenants at the bottom of the page is blank.
The receipts are signed only by the
Landlord.
• There is no supporting lease deed filed by
the Respondent filed in relation to any of
the properties. It is only the oral
submission of the Respondent that the
shops are on lease.
• The receipt numbers are mismatched and
the time period of the tenancy is
mentioned in the receipts also does not
appear congruous.
– For example, the receipt dated 8th
August 2016 is bearing serial number 23
whereas the receipt for 25th August 2009
is bearing serial number 21.
– Further, receipt No. 23 dated 8th August
2016 is for the period 8th August to 8th
September 2016, whereas rent receipt no.
24, is for the period 1st March 2017 till
31st March 2017. In other words, for the
period from 8th September 2016 till 28th
February 2017, for neither of the two
properties at private number 673 of 674, is
there a single rent receipt.
– Whereas the receipts at serial nos. 23
(Aug- Sep 2016) and 24 (Feb-Mar, 2017)
are for a period of 1 month each, the
receipt at serial no. 21, which even though
bears an earlier serial no. compared to
receipt nos. 23 and 24, is of a date
subsequent i.e. Aug 2009, and is together
for a period of 36 months for the period
Aug 2006 to Aug 2009.
• These glaring inconstancies clearly raise
triable issues.
2. The Petitioner had filed various photographs
of the shops No. 673, 674, 679 and 681
alongwith the Application seeking leave to
defend (Pgs. 297 – 308 Vol. I) showing that theSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 12 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
shops in quesô€†Ÿon were perpetually closed –
which disprove the Respondent’s claim that
shops No. B(1-3) are on lease.
In fact, in addition to photographs filed with the
Leave to Defend Application, the Petitioner filed
more photographs with the present petition
alongwith an application for additional
documents (Pgs. 512 Vol. II) which show
continued status of shops as closed on various
dates and at various times (business hours).
3. Properties at paragraph B (2) – (3) of the
eviction petition are all determinable tenancies
with rents upwards of Rs. 3,500 per month for
which no rent agreement has been placed on
record. Therefore, it can be assumed, at least at
this stage, that these are month-to-month
tenancies and can be determined by 15 days’
notice under Section 108 of the Transfer of
Property Act. It is not open to the landlord to
have created determinable tenancies, and then to
not determine them, while at the same time seek
eviction of a protected tenant.
4. As far as the property at Serial no. 4 of Para B
of the Eviction petition is concerned, there is a
mismatch between the tenant mentioned at Para
B (Gyan Gupta) and the tenant mentioned in the
Sale Deed of 1998 under which the petitioner
purchased this property (Trilok Chand). It is
completely unbelievable that after purchasing a
property in 1998 with a tenant Trilok Chand, the
petitioner after getting the property vacated from
him, would induct a Gyan Gupta as a new
statutory tenant with rent below Rs. 3500. When
read with the suspicious nature of the rent
receipt, detailed above, it is clear that the
Respondents claim raises a triable issue.
Further, the submission of the respondent that the
judgment of Satyawati of the Supreme Court
came in 2008, and that prior there too,
commercial tenancies could have been created
below Rs. 3,500 without entailing statutory
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 13 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
protection, itself raises a tribal issue, in as much
as the landlord in the eviction petition has not
given the date on which he has created this new
tenancy with Gyan Gupta, nor has any agreement
been placed on record.
4. Properties mentioned at The landlord, under the 1998 sale deed,
paragraph 2 and 4 purchased several properties. There is no
(unnumbered) of the 1998 disclosure in the eviction petition as to what
Sale Deed, Schedule A transpired with respect to properties at
paragraphs 2 and 4 in Schedule A of the Sale
Deed (Pg. 106 Vol. I) i.e. Shop No. 43½ and
Shop No. 49 in as much as they were also within
the ownership of the landlord, even though other
properties mentioned in the Schedule have been
disclosed. It would be important to note that
since the landlord is seeking the subject property
for the purpose of storage only, the suitability of
the accommodation becomes irrelevant in as
much as any property which has space would be
suitable for storage. In this background this also
raises a triable issue.
15. It is further the case of the petitioners that learned ARC did not take
into consideration the fact that the various rent receipts placed on record by
the respondent in the eviction petition were forged and fabricated, and there
was a serious doubt about the authenticity of the said receipts/documents. It is
also the case of the petitioners that if the rent receipts were genuine, then they
would not bear serial numbers in continuation over a period of 8 years. This,
as per petitioners, shows that the said receipts are fabricated and have been
placed on record as an afterthought solely to lend support to his case by the
respondent. The said receipts, in fact, have not been signed by the purported
tenants to whom the same were stated to have been issued, and therefore, the
same could not have been considered as proof of the respondent’s bonafide
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 14 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
without the petitioners being provided a reasonable opportunity to negate the
same.
16. It is further the case of the petitioners that the respondent had
intentionally not filed complete site plan of the building in which the demised
premises are situated as the correct site plan would have shown the additional
vacant accommodation available with the respondent in relation to which no
explanation for non-utilization was given by the respondent. It is also pointed
out that the petitioners had placed on record correct site plan of the demised
premises showing the actual size of the property as well as the other
accommodations in possession and ownership of the respondent.
17. It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition may be allowed and the
petitioners may be granted leave to defend the eviction petition filed by the
respondent.
18. During the pendency of the present petition an application, CM APPL.
5614/2019, was filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking leave to place on
record additional documents. It was the case of the petitioners that there are
other properties owned by the respondent which were claimed to be in
possession of other tenants and their actual status was not entirely disclosed
by the respondent, and thus, the said properties could be utilised by the
respondent to satisfy his bonafide requirement. In this regard, it was stated
that shop No. 681, Private No. 43 ½ measuring 11×7 feet is no longer under
the tenancy inasmuch as tenants of the said shop have expired and the shop is
not occupied and the firm being run from the said shop is no longer in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 15 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
existence. The electricity connection of the said also stand disconnected and
the said property has been lying vacant since 15 years and there was no sign
board on the said property/shop. Similarly, with respect to property No. 679,
the case of the petitioners is that the same is not under tenancy as has been
claimed by the respondent and the same has remained closed for a period of
more than 10 years. With respect to aforesaid properties and in support of the
averments made in the application, petitioners sought to place on record fresh
photographs to demonstrate that the aforesaid shops in question were shut and
in fact the condition of the shutter and locks clearly reveal that the said
properties have been lying vacant and have not been in use for a considerable
period of time. The relevant photographs in support of the case of the
petitioners were annexed alongwith the subject application. Reliance has been
placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment passed by
learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in Kuldeep Singh v. Sanjay
Aggarwal1, to contend that the subsequent events can be considered by this
Court in revisional jurisdiction. It is further contended that in similar
circumstances in the aforesaid case, learned Coordinate Bench accepted the
plea of the petitioner therein with respect to the subsequent events after the
passing of the impugned order therein.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent/Landlord
19. Learned counsel for the respondent, while refuting the submissions
made on behalf of the petitioners, has submitted that the impugned order has
been passed by learned ARC after considering the leave to defend application
1
2018: DHC: 2429
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 16 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
filed on behalf of the petitioners and the averments made therein. It is
submitted that the scope of jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRCA is
merely supervisory. This Court cannot substitute or supplant its views in
place of findings given by learned ARC. The leave to defend application filed
on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed by learned ARC as they had failed
to raise any triable issues. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua2, in
support of this contention.
20. Regarding the landlord-tenant relationship, it is submitted that the
petitioners were admittedly tenants under the previous owners of the property
and any further attornment by the petitioners-tenants to the subsequent
landlord is not required. It is further submitted that the respondent being a
landlord merely has to establish that he has a better title than the tenants-
petitioners over the demised premises for succeeding in the subject eviction
petition, and he has duly shown the same. It is submitted that in view of
earlier litigation in Suit No.340/2002, and the application under Section 27 of
the DRCA preferred by the petitioners for deposit of rent, the relationship of
landlord and tenant stood established between the parties.
21. With respect to the bonafide requirement of the respondent, it is
submitted that the demised premises are required by the respondent for his
personal use as he is a practising advocate and was facing space constraints
due to large number of files, journals, etc., as also for storage space for his
library and additional files of his clients. It is further submitted that the
2
(2022) 6 SCC 30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 17 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
additional space situated at Ansari Road was used by the respondent as a
permissive user/licensee by/from his brother-Subhash Chand, who had asked
him to vacate the said space by 30.11.2017, as the said premises were
required by the brother of the respondent for his own purposes/requirement.
Further, said premises at Ansari Road formed part of respondent’s brother’s
residential unit and was therefore, not suitable for office storage utilisation of
the respondent. It is further submitted that learned ARC after considering the
aforesaid circumstances had passed the impugned eviction order. The
bonafide requirement of the respondent was found to be genuine. It is further
submitted that burden to refute the presumption lies on the petitioners-tenants
and mere assertions are not sufficient to rebut the strong presumption existing
in favour of the respondent.
22. With respect to the stand/chart provided by learned counsel for the
petitioner regarding availability of sufficient alternative accommodation with
the respondent following averments have been made on behalf of the
respondent by way of a chart which is reproduced as under: –
”
Sno. Premises Respondent-Landlord Revisionist-Tenant
1. 3384, Gali Tabela, – The Respondent-landlord is – Property is lying vacant and the
Bala Prashad residing in the said premises Petitioner is not using it in any
Bazaar Sita Ram, – Landlord is a tenant in the manner whatsoever, said property
Delhi-11006 said premises-reliance placed is alternative and suitable
on Electricity Bill in the name accommodation to the Petitioner as
of the Respondent’s father the Petitioner was previously
– It is submitted that the residing in the said property and
Respondent is unmarried and about more than one decade had
is accordingly residing as a shifted in the property situated at
bachelor, without any Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New
dependents. Since the Delhi and from the said property
Respondent is a practicing the petitioner is also running his
advocate, he spends long days professional activities. Needless to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 18 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
working from his chamber in say that the property situated at
District Court, Tis Hazari and Darya Ganj, New Delhi, is situated
only returns late in the in a most posh locality as compared
evening to spend the night. to the property situated at Bazar
– Living a simple life, the Sita Ram, Delhi-110006, as well as
Respondent’s accommodation the properties situated at Chandni
is bereft of any large Chowk, Delhi-6.
appliances such as an air ...Petitioner is an unmarried person
conditioner, washing machine having no family members and is
and kitchen appliances. The residing alone in one room in the
Respondent's only electricity said house
consumption is from the light
and fan installed in the
premises.
- Hence his electricity
consumption from the said
premises varies from month
to month.
2. One Thala Shop - Sold to Mr. Bharat Bhushan - Undated photograph filed
No. 673, Pvt. No. Gulati vide registered Sale showing premises is shut
43, Ground Floor Deed dated 31.01.2002
3. Shop on the First - Previously under the Rent receipt filed as Annexure H is
Floor, Property No. tenancy of Sh. Anil Arora & false, baseless, concocted,
673, Pvt No. 23, Ors.- vacated vide Eviction fabricated and manipulated rent
Katra Hira Lal, Order dt 07.09.2013 and receipt
Chandni Chowk, possession given to Petitioner - Undated Photograph filed
Delhi on 22.11.2013 showing premises is shut
- Has been let out to Sh.
Prasant Gandhi at rent of Rs.
15,000/- per month
- Response to photograph-
shop is tenanted and under
occupation
4. Shop on the First The property has been let out Rent receipt filed as Annexure I is
Floor, Property No. to Sardar Jaswinder Singh at false, baseless, concocted,
674, Pvt. No. 24, a monthly rent of Rs. 12, fabricated and manipulated rent
Katra Hira Lal, 000/- receipt
Chandni Chowk, Rent receipt dt. 01.03.2017- -Undated photograph filed showing
Delhi Annexure I premises is shut.
- Response to photograph-
shop is tenanted and under
occupation
5. Shop admeasuring - Property has been let out to Rent receipt filed as Annexure J is
7x14.6 on the GF Gyan Prakash Gupta at a false, baseless, concocted,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 19 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
of Premises No. monthly rent of Rs. 605/- fabricated and manipulated rent
679, bearing Pvt. -Response to photograph- receipt
No. 5, Katra Hira shop is tenanted under the - Undated photograph filed
Lal, Chandni occupation of Mr. Gyan showing premises is shut
Chowk, Delhi Prakash Gupta
6. Premises no. 31 - Landlord denied claims and - Property concealed by landlord
and 32, Second allegation of concealment.
floor in Property Eviction petition was filed
bearing No. 676 to with complete sets of
682, Nai Sarak, documents disclosing all
Chandni Chowk, material facts
Delhi-110006
7. Premises no. 29 - Landlord denied claims and - Property concealed by landlord
and 30, in property allegation of concealment.
bearing No. 683, Eviction petition was filed
Nai Sarak, Chandni with complete sets of
Chowk, Delhi documents disclosing all
material facts
8. Property No. 4304, - Landlord denied claims and - Property concealed by landlord
Gali Bahiron Wali, allegation of concealment.
Chandni Chowk, Eviction petition was filed
Delhi with complete sets of
documents disclosing all
material facts
9. Property No. 7/13, - Property is owned by the Landlord is residing in the said
Gali Makhan Lal, brother of the Respondent premises and runs his office from
Ansari Road, and is unavailable to the the same premises on the ground
Darya Ganj, New Respondent floor
Delhi
10. Property No. 4764- - Landlord denied claims and - Property concealed by landlord
70, Laxmi Bazar, allegation of concealment.
Chandni Chowk, Eviction petition was filed
Delhi with complete sets of
documents disclosing all
material facts
11. Property bearing -Response to photograph- -Undated photograph filed showing
No. 681, Pvt. No. shop is tenanted under the premises is shut"
43 ½ situated at occupation of Ms. Shyama
Katra Hira Lal, Devi Rastogi, Mr. Puran
New Delhi-110006 Rastogi and Mr. Prabhu
Rastogi.
- Premises finds mention in
Schedule A of the Sale Deed
dated 04.10.1997 executed in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 20 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
favour of the landlord
providing details of tenancy
23. It is further submitted that learned ARC had carefully considered the
averments made by the respondent qua alternative suitable accommodation
raised and the petitioner and had dismissed the same by observing that
petitioners had failed to disclose any additional accommodation other than the
demised premises and suitable to satisfy the bonafide requirement of the
respondent. It is further submitted that the petitioners have failed to make out
a case in his favour by disclosing any facts which would disentitle the
respondent from getting an eviction order in his favour.
24. With respect to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners
with respect to consideration of subsequent events in the present jurisdiction,
it is submitted on behalf of the respondent that the same cannot be done as in
the present jurisdiction the contours of the power under Section 25B (8) of the
DRCA is limited to the evaluation as to whether the impugned order was in
accordance with law or not and, the same cannot be on the basis of material
which was not before the Rent Controller when the impugned order was
passed. It is further submitted that this Court would confine itself only to the
material which was before the Rent Controller at the time of passing of the
impugned order. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the
respondent on a judgment passed by learned Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Gopal Krishan v. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal & Anr. Alongwith other
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 21 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
connected petitions3, in support of this contention. Learned counsel for the
respondent has handed up in Court during the course of hearing rent receipts
issued by the latter in respect of the aforesaid properties of the year 2016 and
2017 to show that the aforesaid properties were occupied by the respected
tenants at the time when the subject eviction petition was filed before learned
ARC. It is pointed out that the subject eviction petition was filed by the
respondent on 07.11.2017.
25. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the impugned order does not
suffer from any illegality or infirmity, and the same need no interference, and
the present petition be dismissed.
26. Reliance has also been placed on the following judgments along with
the propositions by learned counsel for the respondent in support of latter’s
case: –
Proposition: The need as averred by the landlord ought to be presumed
as genuine and bona fide. The burden to refute the presumption lies
squarely on the tenant and the mere assertions by the tenant are
insufficient to rebut the strong presumption in the landlord’s favour
3
2024: DHC: 1977
4
(2005) 12 SCC 778
5
(2022) 6 SCC 30Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 22 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
Proposition: In a petition filed under section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA, the
Hon’ble Court is only concerned with the requirement of a bona fide
purpose, and the contention regarding the availability of alternative
accommodation can at best be described only as an ‘incidental one’.
c. Kanhaiya Lal Arya v. Mohd. Ehshan6,
Proposition: The landlord is the best judge to decide which of his
property should be vacated for satisfying his particular need. The tenant
has no role in dictating as to which premises the landlord should get
vacated for his need alleged in the suit for eviction
d. Prativa Devi (Smt) v. TV Krishnan7,
Proposition: The landlord is the best judge of his requirements for a
premises.
e. Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Company8,
Proposition: While deciding the question of bona fide requirement of
the landlord, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the
landlord could have adjusted himself
f. Jai Kishan v Gauri Shankar9,
g. Shri Jugesh Kumar v Smt. Omwati Through LRs.10,
6
2025 SCC OnLine SC 432
7
(1996) 5 SCC 353
8
AIR 1999 SC 100
9
2025:DHC:8200
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 23 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
Proposition: Mere availability of an alternative accommodation is not a
criteria for denying relief for a suitable accommodation; Revision
petition under proviso to Section 25B(8) of DRCA has a limited scope
and can only consider the case based on materials available before the
Ld. ARC at the time of passing the order
Analysis and Findings
27. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
28. Learned ARC vide the impugned order dated 09.08.2018, with
respect to bonafide requirement and availability of alternative suitable
accommodation, while dismissing the application seeking leave to defend
filed on behalf of the petitioners had observed as under: –
“Bonafide requirement and availability of alternative suitable
accommodation :-
22. It is submitted by the petitioner that the tenanted premises is bonafide
required by him for his own use. As per the case of the petitioner, the
petitioner is an Advocate by profession, having a practice before the
District Courts and High Court of Delhi for the last 24 years. The
petitioner is presently operating his office from his chamber at 194, Civil
Wing, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The petitioner is in urgent need of the
tenanted premises as his chamber aforementioned is no longer sufficient
for his professional purposes. There is a severe space constraint in his
chamber due to the large number of law treatises and journals, files and
miscellaneous papers. Presently, the petitioner’s chamber comprises his
own worktable. seating for clients, another work station for
juniors/colleagues of the petitioner, another small table for clerk of the
petitioner. Apart from this, the petitioner’s chamber also has open shelves10
2025:DHC:8128Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 24 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
to store the books and files and which has now reached its peak. The
petitioner intends to use the tenanted premises as a storage space for his
vast library as well as for the additional/old files of his clients. This will
clear up some space in the petitioner’s existing chamber. The petitioner
was using a small portion comprising one room admeasuring 10″ x 12″
on the ground floor of the premises situated at 7/13, Ansari Road, Darya
Ganj, New Delhi-1 10002 as his office and to store his files/books.
However, the said premises belongs to the brother of the petitioner, i.e.
Sh. Subhash Chand. Now, Sh. Subhash Chand, i.e. the brother of the
petitioner has requested the petitioner to vacate the one room mentioned
above as he requires it for his own personal use. Therefore, the petitioner
will be required to move/shift all his personal belongings including
office furniture (tables and chairs) as well as the books and files which
were earlier in his office at Ansari Road back to his chamber. Further, it
is submitted by the petitioner that one Thala Shop No. 673, Pvt. No. 43,
Ground Floor, which was owned by the petitioner has already sold to Mr.
Bharat Bhushan Gulati, vide a registered Sale Deed dated 31.01.2002. It
is further submitted that the petitioner is also owner of other shops which
are under tenancy of different tenants, i.e. shop on the first floor of the
premises at Municipal No. 674, Pvt. No. 24 situated at Katra Hira Lal,
New Delhi-110006. which is under the tenancy of Sh. Prasant Gandhi
S/o Sh. Raj K. Gandhi, shop on the first floor of property No. 674, Pvt.
No. 24, situated at Katra Hira LaI, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, has been let
out to one Sardar Jaswinder Singh Saini and shop admeasuring 7 x 14.6
on the ground floor of premises no. 679 bearing Pvt. No. 5 situated at
Katra Hira LaI. Chandni Chowk, Delhi, is in the tenancy of Sh. Gyan
Prakash Gupta.
23. Per contra, it is averred by the respondents that the petitioner has not
disclosed as to what are the change circumstances for filing the present
petition and as to why it has been filed at this stage inspite of the fact that
the petitioner has become the alleged owner of the property long back
according to him. Further, it is submitted by the respondents that the
petitioner has concealed various properties which are under the
occupation and possession of the petitioner, those are premises No.
31 & 32. situated at second floor in property bearing No. 676 to 682,
Nai Sarak. Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006; Premises No. 29 & 30, in
property bearing No. 683, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-
110006; Property No. 304. Gali Bahiron Wali, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi; Property No. 7/13, Gali Makhan Lal, Ansari Road, Darya
Ganj, New Delhi; Property No. 4764- 70. Laxmi Bazar, Chandni
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 25 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
Chowk. Delhi. Further, it is submitted by the respondents that the
petitioner has wrongly stated that he is residing in property bearing
No. 3384, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. It is submitted that the petitioner is
residing in property bearing No. 7/13, Gali Makhan LaI, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj, New Delhi, and is also having a huge office in the suit
property situated at ground floor. The petitioner is an unmarried person
having no family members and is residing alone in one room in the said
house. The property bearing No. 3384, situated at Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.
is lying vacant and the petitioner is not using the same in any manner
whatsoever. The respondents have also challenged the site plan filed by
the petitioner stating that the site plan filed by the petitioner is totally
incorrect and the accommodation which is available to the petitioner has
been concealed by the petitioner. The petitioner has only filed the site
plan of the suit premises and has concealed the material facts of those
portions of the property which are already available to the petitioner. The
other portion which is also lying vacant has not been disclosed by the
petitioner in the entire pleadings and there is also no explanation how
and why the petitioner cannot use the other portions which are lying
vacant. It is submitted that the requirement of premises in question is
nothing else but a lust of the petitioner to keep and acquire more and
more properties. The respondents have also filed their own site plan.”
24. Perusal of the record shows that by virtue of the Sale Deed
placed on record by the petitioner, the petitioner has purchased Portion
of Katra Hira LaI, Nai Sarak (Ward V) bearing Municipal No. 679, 681,
678, 676, 673, 674 and Pvt. No. 5, 431/2, 50, 49, 23 & 24, detailed in
Annexure ‘A. The petitioner has clearly stated in his eviction petition that
one thala shop no. 673, Pvt. No. 43, Ground Floor, has already been sold
to Mr. Bharat Bhushan Gulati vide registered Sale deed Dated
31.01.2002, shop on the first floor of the premises at Municipal No. 674,
Pvt. No. 24 situated at Katra Hira LaI, New Delhi- 110006, which is
under the tenancy of Sh. Prasant Gandhi S/o Sh. Raj K. Gandhi, shop on
the first floor of property No. 674, Pvt. No. 24, situated at Katra Hira
Lal, Chandni C’howk, Delhi, has been let out to one Sardar Jaswinder
Singh Saini and shop admeasuring 7 x 14.6 on the ground floor of
premises no. 679 bearing Pvt. No. 5 situated at Katra Hira LaI, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi, is in the tenancy of Sh. Gyan Prakash Gupta. As far as
premises bearing Municipal no. 676 is concerned, the same is a common
staircase, as has been clearly mentioned in Annexure’A’ of the Sale Deed
placed on record by the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondents
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 26 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
have challenged the authenticity of the rent receipts placed on record by
the petitioner, however, the respondents have failed to file even a single
document to show that the said shops are in possession of the petitioner
which can be used by him for his bonafide requirement. Even in the site
plan filed by the respondents, the respondents have nowhere demarcated
as to which shop is in their tenancy and which shops are allegedly in
possession and occupation of the petitioner, which can be used by the
petitioner for his bonafide requirement.
25. As far as property no. 7/13, Gali Makhan Lal, Ansari Road,
Darya Ganj. New Delhi is concerned, it is himself stated by the petitioner
in his eviction petition that the said premises belongs to the brother of the
petitioner, namely, Sh. Subhash Chand, of which the petitioner was using
a small portion comprising one room admeasuring 10″ x 12″ on the
ground floor, however, the said brother of the petitioner has requested
the petitioner to vacate the same as now he requires it for his own
personal use. On the other hand, the respondents have failed to place on
record any documentary proof to show that the petitioner is residing in
property bearing No. 7/13, Gali Makhan Lal, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj,
New Delhi, and is also having a huge office in the suit property situated
at ground floor. Thus, in absence of any documentary proof, the said
contention of the respondent cannot be relied upon.
26. Further, as per the respondents the petitioner has wrongly stated that
he is residing in property bearing No. 3384, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. It is
submitted that the petitioner is residing in property bearing No. 7/13,
Gali Mukhan Lal, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, and property
bearing No. 3384, situated at Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, is lying vacant and
the petitioner is not using the same in any manner whatsoever. On the
other hand, the petitioner has denied the same stating that he is residing
in property bearing no. 3384, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, comprising one
room, kitchen, bathroom and balcony situated on the first floor. Further,
it is submitted by the petitioner that property no. 7/13, Gali Makhan Lal,
Ansuri Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, is under the ownership of his
brother, namely, Subhash Chand.
27. Perusal of the record shows that in the memo of parties, affidavit
alongwith the petition, Sale Deed with respect to the suit property in
favour of the petitioner, etc., the petitioner has shown his address to be
that of property bearing no. 3384, situated at Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi.
Even in the DR petition filed by the respondents against the petitioner for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 27 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
deposit of rent qua the tenanted premises, the respondents have
mentioned the address of the petitioner herein to be that of property no.
3384, situated at Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi in their memo of parties. That
being the case, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to say that
the petitioner is residing in property no. 7/13, Gali Makhan Lal, Ansari
Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi or that property no. 3384 is lying vacant,
which can be used by the petitioner for his bonafide requirement. Even
otherwise, it is a settled law that the owner/landlord is the best judge of
his own requirement and the tenant cannot dictate terms upon the
owner/landlord as to which premises he should use for his bonafide use.
Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case-law titled as Ragavendra
Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinary, AIR 2000 SC 534, wherein the
Supreme Court held that it is settled position of law that the landlord is
best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he
has got complete freedom in the matter. Further, it cannot be disputed
that since the tenanted premises in question is situated at the ground
floor, therefore, it would be more suitable for the petitioner, who is
Advocate by profession and is aged 52 years, to be used as a storage area
for all the surplus furniture as well as for maintaining his library and
storing his extra files. It is common knowledge that carrying heavy
additional files/books/journals/furniture to upper floors would be very
uncomfortable when the same can be stored on the ground floor in the
tenanted premsies. In Rajesh Jain v. Quazi Sammin Ahmad 2015 (2)
RLR 438 it has been laid down that since eviction was sought for
commercial purposes, it was rightly held that ground floor of the
property would be more suitable. Moreover, in Sarla Ahuja v. United
India Insurance Company Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 it has been held that
Rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the
requirement of the landlord is not bona fide and that when the landlord
shows Prima facie case, a presumption that the requirement is bona fide
is to be drawn. Thus, the bonafide requirement of petitioner qua the
tenanted premises as well as non-availability of any alternative suitable
accommodation with the petitioner to meet out his bonafide needs stands
duly proved.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 28 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
29. In the eviction petition filed by the respondent, it was averred that he
does not own or possess any other alternate suitable accommodation other
than the following properties: –
“1. One Thala Shop No. 673, Pvt No. 43, Ground Floor, which has
already sold to Mr. Bharat Bhushan Gulati, vide a registered Sale Deed
dated 31.01.2002.
2. One Shop on the first floor of the premises at Municipal No.
674, Pvt. No. 24 situated at Katra Hira Lal, New Delhi- 110006, which
was earlier under the tenancy of Sh. Anil Arora and others and which has
been vacated vide the Eviction order dated 07.09.2013 and possession
thereof was given to the Petitioner on 22.11.2013. The said shop has
been presently let out to Sh. Prasant Gandhi, s/o Sb. Raj K. Gandhi at a
rent of Rs. 15,000/- per month. A copy of the rent receipt dated 8.8.2016
issued by the Petitioner to the said tenant is enclosed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE H.
3. One Shop on the first floor of property No. 674, Pvt No. 24
situated at Katra Hira La1, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, which has been let
out to one Sardar Jaswinder Singh Saini at a monthly rental of Rs.
12,000/-. A copy of the rent receipts dated 1.3.2017 issued by the
Petitioner to the said tenant are enclosed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE I.
4. One Shop admeasuring 7 x 14.6 on the wound floor of premises
no. 679 bearing private no.5 situated at Katra Hira Lal, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi which is in the tenancy of Sh. Gyan Prakash Gupta a monthly rent
of Rs. 605/- A copy of the rent receipts dated 25.8.2009 issued by the
Petitioner to the said tenant are enclosed herewith and market as
ANNEXURE J.”
30. In application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the
petitioners, it was alleged that the respondent had concealed various
properties which are under his occupation and possession and following
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 29 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
averments were made to raise triable issue in respect of the availability of
other alternate suitable accommodation available with the respondent: –
“48. That the petitioner is always in the habit of concealing the facts
for one or the other reasons and is always in the habit of playing hide and
seek game either with the respondent or with the Hon’ble Court.
Needless to say that the petitioner has initially filed a suit for recovery of
arrears of rent pertaining to the suit premises in the Court of Shri Vishal
Singh, the then Civil Judge, Delhi, which was decided vide orders dated
20.03.2008. Even in the said suit, the petitioner has concealed various
facts from the Hon’ble Court, therefore, the respondent has filed a
R.C.A. of the impugned judgment which was assigned to the Court of
Shri S.S, Rathi, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi, and the
Hon’ble Court after perusing the Trial Court record and hearing the
arguments as well as after perusal of the documents filed by the parties
of the said suit, found that the petitioner herein had been concealing
various material facts from the Trial Court with a hidden purpose and the
same was evident with hidden purpose was to seek a decree on false
facts. Similarly the petitioner has conceal various properties such as
That as That the petitioner has concealed various properties which
are under the occupation and possession of the petitioner, those are
Premises No.31 & 32, situated at second floor in property bearing
No.676 to 682, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006; Premises
NO.29 & 30, in property bearing No.683, Nai Sarak, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi-110006; Property No.4304, Gali Bahiron Wali,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi; Property NO.7/13, Gali Makhan Lal, Ansari
Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Property No.4764-70, Laxmi Bazar,
Chandni Chowk, Delhi.) …….”
(emphasis supplied)
31. In reply filed on behalf of the respondent to the application seeking
leave to defend filed on behalf of the petitioners, following stand was taken
on behalf of the respondent: –
“48. The averments made in Paragraph 48 of the Grounds are
incorrect and denied.. It is wrong to suggest that the Petitioner is in aSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 30 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
habit of concealing facts as alleged. The Petitioner has himself disclosed
about the findings returned by the Courts in the earlier litigation between
the parties. Without going into the merits of the matter, it is submitted
that the Petitioner has along with present eviction petition filed complete
sets of documents and disclosed all material facts as would be required to
adjudicate the present petition. No concealment has been made in the
present matter.”
32. Perusal of the aforesaid averments would show that petitioners in
their leave to defend application had disclosed certain properties which were
under the occupation and possession of the respondent, and it was alleged that
same were concealed by him. The respondent in response to the same, stated
that he, along with the eviction petition, had filed complete sets of documents
and disclosed all material facts as would be required for adjudication of the
eviction petition, and no concealment has been made in the matter. However,
no specific denial was made by the respondent with respect to the properties
mentioned in the paragraph 48 of the affidavit filed by the petitioners along
with the application seeking leave to defend, to rebut or deny the fact,
whether the same were not in occupation and possession of the respondent.
The respondent had also not made any averment with respect to the status of
the said properties. Perusal of the findings returned by learned ARC with
respect to alternate suitable accommodation shows that the aforesaid
properties mentioned by the petitioners in their application seeking leave to
defend were just referred to but not dealt with in the impugned order, and nor
any specific findings have been given regarding the said properties by learned
ARC. The averments made on behalf of the petitioners in their leave to defend
application, with respect to availability of the properties enlisted, as noted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 31 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
hereinbefore, in view of the vague response made on behalf of the respondent,
will be a triable issue.
33. Learned ARC has overlooked the properties mentioned in paragraph
48 of the application seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioners. Once
such an assertion was made by the petitioners, then it was incumbent upon
learned ARC to deal with the same.
34. Thus, the fact whether said properties would be sufficient to satisfy
the bonafide requirement of the respondent, or would constitute alternate
suitable accommodation is a triable issue, which needs to be contested at the
stage of trial by leading adequate evidence.
35. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
aforesaid properties, as stated by the petitioners in paragraph 48 of the
application seeking leave to defend constitute a triable issue and requires
consideration.
36. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta11, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court laid down the law in relation to scope of interference by the
High Court in a petition under Section 25B (8) of the DRCA, had observed
and held as under: –
“11. ……. The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court
under Section 25-B(8) is not so limited as is under Section 115 CPC nor11
(1999) 6 SCC 222Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 32 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
so wide as that of an appellate court. The High Court cannot enter into
appreciation or reappreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined
to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts.
However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the Rent
Controller on the touchstone of “whether it is according to law”. For
that limited purpose it may enter into reappraisal of evidence, that
is, for the purpose of ascertaining whether the conclusion arrived at
by the Rent Controller is wholly unreasonable or is one that no
reasonable person acting with objectivity could have reached on the
material available. Ignoring the weight of evidence, proceeding on a
wrong premise of law or deriving such conclusion from the
established facts as betray a lack of reason and/or objectivity would
render the finding of the Controller “not according to law” calling
for an interference under the proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 25-
B of the Act. A judgment leading to a miscarriage of justice is not a
judgment according to law. (See: Sarla Ahuja v. United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1998) 8 SCC 119] and Ram Narain Arora v. Asha
Rani [(1999) 1 SCC 141] .)”
(emphasis supplied)
37. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case,
in the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners have been able to raise
triable issue with respect to availability of alternative suitable accommodation
which requires consideration. In view thereof, the impugned order dated
09.08.2018 passed in E-851/17 (CIS No.987/17) is set aside.
38. The present petition is allowed and disposed of.
39. Insofar as the application, CM APPL. 5614/2019, filed on behalf of
the petitioners, during the pendency of the present petition, seeking leave to
place on record additional documents is concerned, this Court need not
examine the contents of said application, in view of the aforesaid discussion.
The petitioners will be at liberty to move an appropriate application before
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 33 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
learned ARC regarding the same which would be considered by learned ARC
in accordance with law.
40. The matter is remanded back to learned ARC for further proceedings
in accordance with law.
41. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
42. Needless to state that it shall remain open to the respondent to lead
evidence in trial to rebut the averments of the petitioners and the same would
be considered by the learned ARC in accordance with law and uninfluenced
by any observations made herein.
43. Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned ARC, Central
District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, for necessary information and compliance.
44. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
MAY 21, 2026/sn/ns
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:BHASKAR
SINGH RAWAT RC.REV. 69/2019 Page 34 of 34
Signing Date:22.05.2026
16:05:52
