* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: November 04, 2025

% Pronounced on: November 26, 2025

+ RC.REV. 311/2024, CM APPL. 64579/2024, CM APPL. 23881/2025

SUKHDEV @ SUKHDEV RAJ .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Sr. Adv and Mr. Sachin Puri, Sr. Adv. alongwith Mr. Rehman, Mr. Sunil Kumar, Ms. Mehak Ghaloth and Mr. Suraj Singh, Advs.

Versus

ASHOK KUMAR .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Alok Sinha, Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Ms. Divya and Mr. Aakash Saini, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. The respondent/ landlord1 filed an Eviction Petition being RC ARC No. 80114/ 2016 titled as ‘Sh. Ashok Kumar vs. Sh. Sukhdev @ Sukhdev Raj’ under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 against the petitioner/ tenant3 seeking eviction from two shop(s) measuring 6’4” X 10’6” and 67’10” X 14’5”4 at property bearing No.6165/1, facing gali no.3, block-1, khasra no.4084/193, Basti Regar, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110 0055 before the learned SCJ/ RC, Central District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi,6 on the ground of bona fide requirement for opening a restaurant/ Dhaba as there was no suitable alternative accommodation available for the said purpose.

2. Succinctly put, as per landlord in his Eviction Petition, the entire property wherein the subject premises was situated, subsequent to the death of his late grandmother i.e., Smt. Shiv Devi, devolved upon her three sons, namely, Sh. Mangal Singh, Sh. Soren Lal and Sh. Budhsen. Thereafter, pursuant to a Settlement Agreement dated 24.04.20157 in the Partition Suit being CS(OS) 1377/ 2009 entitled “Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Raj Kumar Sharma”8 inter se them, the subject premises, which was undivided, came to the share of the landlord and his sister i.e., Manju Devi and they became the joint owners thereof. As the subject premises came to his share, and that of his sister as per the Settlement Agreement, Mr. Yashpal Sharma i.e., cousin of the landlord sent a Letter dated 09.06.2015 to the tenant asking him to pay the future rent to landlord and his sister i.e., Manju Devi and not to other Legal Heirs. Not receiving the rent, the landlord then sent a Termination Notice dated 26.10.2015 to the tenant asking him to vacate and handover possession of the subject premises.

3. As per landlord, the father of the tenant Sh. Pyare Lal was inducted in the subject premises for running a Dhaba i.e., “Vaishnav Dhaba”. After his demise, the tenant started paying the rent for the same subject premises to one of the aforementioned Legal Heirs. Facing difficulties, since there was a bona fide requirement of the subject premises and there was no alternative accommodation available for the said need, the landlord filed an Eviction Petition.

4. Upon being served, the tenant filed an application under Section(s) 25B(4) and 25B(5) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend wherein it was primarily his case that his father, late Sh. Pyare Lal, was paying rent to uncle of the landlord, late Sh. Soren Lal Sharma, and subsequently to his wife, late Smt. Shanti Devi @ of Rs. 250/- per month and further to their son, Sh. Yashpal since 01.10.2011. It was also his case that the landlord had earlier filed an Eviction Petition bearing no. E-501/ 20069 under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act jointly with his sister Smt. Manju Devi, wherein, he admitted Sh. Soren Lal Sharma as the landlord of the subject premises and since a lis was pending qua title of the subject premises, he had filed an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 190810 for seeking adjournment of the said earlier Eviction Petition sine die on account of the pending partition suit. Later, the said Eviction Petition was withdrawn by the landlord, however, Smt. Manju Devi moved an application under Section 151 of the CPC seeking revival thereof, which was also disposed of with the finding that the rights of Smt. Manju Devi survived therein.

5. It wa