* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgement delivered on: 25.06.2025 + RC.REV. 171/2025, CM APPL. 32831/2025 & CM APPL.

32832/2025 KISHAN KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners versus MOHD. YUNUS .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case For the Petitioners : Mr. Om Prakash, Mr. Prateek Gupta, Ms. Urvashi Gupta, Mr. Durgesh Gupta & Ms. Neha Garg, Advs.

For the Respondent : Mr. Anil Panwar & Mr. Tanishq Panwal, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

1. This is a revision petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’) against Judgment dated 27.01.2025 (‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by the Court of ARC-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, allowing the eviction of the Petitioners in RC/ARC No.12/2024 (Eviction Petition’).

2. The Respondent filed the Eviction Petition on 28.12.2023 against the Petitioners under Section 4(1)(e) read with Section 25B of DRC Act for eviction of the property bearing no. 2107 (old), 1468 (new), Ward no. XIV, Gali Chulhe Wali, Sadar Bazar, Delhi 110 006 (premises’).

Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEELAM

3. The premises was initially owned by Sh. Banarasi Dass, who transferred the same in favour of Smt. Munni Devi through a registered gift deed dated 20.03.1927. Smt. Munni Devi transferred the premises to her daughter Smt. Nyadri through registered Will dated 17.04.1936. Smt. Nyadri bequeathed it the premises to Sh. Kishori Lal vide registered Will dated 22.01.1945. Sh. Mangat Ram, the father of the Petitioners took one room forming part of the premises from Sh. Kishori Lal in 1970. (‘tenanted premises’)

4. On 10.06.2010, the Respondent along with one Sh. Najakat Ali purchased the premises vide General Power of Attorney, agreement to sell etc.

5. On 26.11.2010, Sh. Najakat Ali transferred his undivided fifty per cent share in the premises in favour of the Respondent through General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will etc. Accordingly, the Respondent became the sole owner of the premises.

6. On 28.12.2023, the Respondent filed Eviction Petition against the Petitioners in capacity as sons of Sh. Mangat Ram. Upon receipt of the summons of the Eviction Petition on 02.02.2024, the Petitioners filed an application for leave to defend on 15.02.2024.

7. On 23.03.2024, the Respondent filed reply to the application for leave to defend. On 27.01.2025, the application for leave to defend filed by the Petitioners was dismissed and the Impugned Judgment was passed.

8. Being aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the present revision petition has been preferred by the Petitioners. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has submitted that the Eviction Petition was filed with ulterior motive as there was no bona fide requirement Signature Not Verified Signed By:NEELAM of the marriage of the elder son of the Respondent as similar eviction petitions have also been filed against the other tenants of the first floor of the premises and the eviction orders have already been passed against all of them on the same date.

10. It was further submitted that the Respondent has deliberately concealed that Sh. Mangat Ram expired on 24.05.2019, leaving behind the Petitioners, his widow, who is also residing in the tenanted premises and five (5) daughters. However, the Eviction Petition was filed by the Respondent only against the Petitioners without making the other legal heirs being the mother and the sisters of the Petitioners as party to the Eviction Petition.

11. It was further submitted that the Impugned Judgment was passed contrary to the well-established law that in case of death of the tenant, all his legal heirs are necessary party and in absence of joining them, the entire legal proceedings are void ab initio.

12. It was further submitted that the Impugned Judgment has erroneously distinguished the judgment in case of Suraj Lamp & Industry Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana: AIR 2012 SC 206 relied upon by the Petitioners, which held that ruled that tr