$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 370/2025 VINOD KAPOOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Mr. Sanjeev Manchanda, Mr. Aaditya Sharma, Ms. Yashaswi D., Mr. Uttam Panwar, Ms. Shubhi Vijaywargia and Mr. Harish Chawla, Advocates.

versus GURMUKH SINGH SACHDEV .....Respondent Through: Mr. K.N. Singh, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 20.11.2025 CM APPL. 72873/2025 (For exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL. 72874/2025 (For condonation of delay in re-filing

3. By virtue of the present application, the petitioner/ tenant seeks condonation of a delay of three days in re-filing of the captioned petition.

4. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed, and the delay of three days in re-filing of the captioned petition stands condoned.

5. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

RC.REV. 370/2025, CM APPL. 72872/2025

6. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner/ tenant seeks setting aside of the order dated 09.07.2025 (impugned order) passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (learned ARC) in RC ARC No.804/23 entitled “Gurmukh Singh Sachdev Vs Vinod Kapoor” filed by the respondent/ landlord seeking eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises.

7. It is the case of the tenant that triable issues were raised by the tenant before the learned ARC, particularly, since the Eviction Petition was not filed by the landlord himself, but by another party on the strength of a Power of Attorney; as also since the son of the landlord for whose requirements the subject premises was sought to be evicted has already established his clinic in the shop(s) adjacent to the subject premises, and so, no bona fide requirement qua the subject premises was surviving; and lastly, since the landlord has numerous suitable alternative accommodations available with him.

8. Learned counsel for the tenant primarily submits before this Court qua the Power of Attorney executed by the landlord in favour of another party, and seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Man Kaur (Dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha [(2010) 10 SCC 512] as also the judgement rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sunil Charla v. Madanlal [2023 SCC OnLine Del 3850] to contend that the eviction petition, filed on the basis of and by the holder of a Power of Attorney, was per se not maintainable.

9. Prima facie, this Court is not convinced with the aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the tenant, as the same have been duly dealt with by the learned ARC in the impugned order as follows:

“12) Next, it is contended that the petition has been filed by an attorney. However, it is no longer res integra that an eviction petition can be filed on behalf of the principal by his attorney. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the case of Jatinder Kaur v. Rohit Chopra, RCR (Rent) 262 Further. the contention that the attorney is not valid as the same was executed prior to the execution of the rectification deed qua the relinquishment deed executed by the legal heirs in favour of the petitioner is also devoid of merits. It is not in dispute that Minder Kaur was the wife of the petitioner and therefore, on her demise, petitioner as his legal heir became co-owner of the tenanted premises. Therefore, even if the relinquishment deed and the subsequent rectification deed are ignored, petitioner being the legal heir of erstwhile owner Minder Kaur is a co-owner of the tenanted premises. Hence, as co-owner, he had authority to appoint attorney on his behalf with respect to his share. It is well settled law that petition u/s 14 (1) (e) of DRC Act can be filed even by one of the co-owners without impleading the other co-owners. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s India Umbrella Manufacturing Company Vs. Bhaja Ban