$~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 378/2025 PRAVEEN JAIN & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Shubham Kulshreshtha and Mr.

Satya Rath, Advs versus MALTI GUPTA .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 27.11.2025 CM APPL. 74594/2025 (for exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application stands disposed of.

RC.REV. 378/2025, CM APPL. 74593/2025 (Stay)

3. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioners/ tenants seeks setting aside of the order dated 16.12.2024 (impugned order) passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi (learned ARC) in RC ARC No.185/2019 filed by the respondent/ landlady under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the Act) qua the premises being room no.4, Second Floor, property bearing no.400, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006 (subject premises).

4. Amongst the many grounds taken by the tenants, it is the sole contention of learned counsel for the tenants before this Court that the landlady and her son were having sufficient alternative accommodation(s) available with them in the same property where the subject premises is situated, as also, that since the said submission made by tenant before the learned ARC was only vaguely denied by the landlady, the tenant was able to raise a triable issue before the learned ARC.

5. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned ARC has meticulously dealt with all the aspects involved in the eviction petition threadbare, including but not limited to, the aspect of landlord-tenant relationship in paragraph nos.9 to 11, qua the aspect of bona fide requirement in paragraph nos.12 to 15, and lastly, qua the availability of suitable and reasonable alternative accommodation with the landlady vide paragraph nos.16 to 23 of the impugned order. Since learned counsel for the tenant is laying stress thereon, for ease of reference, the same are reproduced as under:

“16. In the application for leave to defend, it is contended by the respondents that the petitioner has available with her several properties, all of which can constitute a reasonable suitable accommodation to the demised premises.

17. The respondents have contended that the petitioner is joint owner with Smt. Attro Devi in property no. 3570 to 3573 situated in Gali Than Singh, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi. However, this contention has been denied by the petitioner by stating that the property bearing no. 3570 to 3573 situated in Gali Than Singh, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi was sold by the joint owners in the year 1992. The respondent did not place on record a single document to show that the said property is owned by the petitioner. As such, as regards the availability of this property with the petitioner, no triable issue arises.

18. The respondents have further contended that the husband of the petitioner was the owner of property no. 3647, Gali Rodha Delhi-110006, and after his death the petitioner and her son became the coowner of the same. The petitioner has denied this contention and has stated that this property was sold by the husband of the petitioner in the year 1992. Again, the respondents did not place on record anydocument to show that the said property is owned by the petitioner. As regards the availability of the said property with the petitioner, no triable issue arises.

19. The respondents have further contended that the petitioner and her son own a go-down at Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, House no. R-6/1 Ground Floor, Modal Town III, Delhi in which commercial activities are going on. The petitioner has denied this allegation by stating that the said house is being used for residential purposes for her and her family members. Being residential, this property cannot be said to constitute any reasonable suitable accommodation available with the petitioner to the demised premises. The respondents have failed to substantiate their assertion by placing on record any document or photog