* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: December 06, 2025 + RC.REV. 331/2018, CM APPL. 29121/2018 RADHEY SHAYAM CHOUHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Samrat Nigam, Sr. Adv.

alongwith Mr. Abhishek Verma, Ms. Arpita Rawat and Ms. Shabana, Advs. (M- 9811744539)

Versus GEETA DEVI & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Apurva Tyagi, Ms. Divyanshu Rathi and Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advs.

for R-1 to and 3.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE J U D G M E N T (ORAL

1. As per respondents/ landlords (landlords) in their Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act whereby the tenant was directed to vacate, the entire property where the subject premises, comprising of one large room with a tin shed in front on the ground floor of the building (commonly known as “Rath Khana”) bearing Municipal No.447, Cycle Market, Esplanade Road, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 006 (subject premises), is situated was their ancestral property, and of the 27 surviving members/ co-owners thereof, the landlords were duly authorised by the other co-owners to file the same.

2. More so, by means of a judgment and decree dated 20.12.1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a Suit for Partition being C.S.(O.S.) No.224/1974 (earlier suit), the respective shares of the aforesaid co-owners were demarcated. Pursuant thereto, the same attained finality, in view of the subsequent order dated 11.08.1986 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in RFA(OS) No.29/1985 (earlier appeal). There was a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord no.1 for setting up a business of a retail outlet of flowers and other articles relating to the serving of deity in temple as the same is the most ideal location and there was no alternate accommodation available with the landlords for the said purpose.

3. Upon service, the petitioner/ tenant (tenant) filed an application seeking leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) and (5) of the DRC Act, inter alia, primarily alleging that all the co-owners were only holding the subject premises in the capacity of the Mahants/ Pujaris and the landlords were not the owners since they had no title qua the property where the subject premises was situated.

4. Hearing both parties, the learned Rent Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (learned ARC) passed order dated 06.03.2018 (impugned order), since the tenant failed to raise any triable issue, the application seeking leave to defend of the tenant was dismissed and the tenant was directed to vacate the subject premises.

5. Hence the present revision petition filed by the petitioner/ tenant seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 06.03.2018 of the learned ARC.

6. Though the tenant has raised various grounds in the present revision petition, however, learned senior counsel for the tenant has primarily argued that the subject premises were not forming part of either the earlier suit or the earlier appeal inter se the landlords and their family members along with other co-tenants, who were proforma parties therein. Thence, the learned senior counsel drawn attention of this Court to a receipt dated 10.03.1987 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), which pertains to a portion of a ratable value of the same subject premises (pdf page 215), wherein it is categorically specified as under:-

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlords submits that the parties to the earlier suit comprised of two branches of the same family of the landlords, i.e. the plaintiff nos.1 to 7 representing one branch, the defendant nos.1 to 13 therein representing the other branch, and the defendant nos.14 to 20 therein were impleaded as they were the tenants occupying various portions of the two separate properties, one of which included where the subject premises is situated. The learned counsel submits that though, admittedly, the father of the tenant was impleaded as defendant no.18 therein, he n