$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 149/2024 & CM APPL. 31072/2024 PRAVEEN KUMAR RATHOR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kailash Vasdev, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Kunal Madan, Mr. Gurmukh Singh Arora Ms. Neoma Vasdev & Ms. Aastha Bhardwaj, Advocates versus SIMMI MALHOTRA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akshay Makhija, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Aadarsh Chamoli, Advocate CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 12.12.2025

1. By virtue of the present revision petition filed under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the petitioner (landlord) seeks the following reliefs:-

“(a) Call for lower court records of the Eviction Petition No. E-29/20 New no.107/2020 titled Praveen Kumar Rathor Vs. Simmi Malhotra & Anr.” pending adjudication before the Court of Ms. Arjinder Kaur, ARC-02, (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

(b) Setting aside/quash the impugned Order dated 27.01.2024 passed by Ms. Neetu Nagar, the then ARC-02, (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. E-29/20 New no. 107/2020 titled Praveen Kumar Rathor Vs. Simmi Malhotra & Anr.”

(c) Dismiss Leave to Defend Application of the Respondents/ Tenants and allow Eviction Petition of the Petitioner thereby ordering eviction of the Respondents/ Tenants from the tenanted premises i.e. one Front Shop at Ground Floor of property no. 1442, Maliwara, Delhi shown in Green Colour and described as ‘G’ in the site plan forthwith, in the interest of justice.”

2. Though the landlord has raised various grounds in the present petition, Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel appearing for the landlord has primarily argued qua the findings, which, according to him, are perverse and against the very tenets of the DRC Act. Succinctly put, he submits that the learned Additional Rent Controller (learned ARC) has erred in holding that the respondents (tenants) were able to raise a triable issue with respect to the suitability of the subject premises, which, as per settled law, is the sole prerogative of the landlord. He further submits that the findings qua the aforesaid rendered by the learned ARC in paragraph 16 of the impugned order are totally contrary to the assertions made by the landlord in the Eviction Petition.

3. Further, Mr. Kailash Vasdev submits that though the learned ARC on the one hand has observed/ held that the income of the landlord was irrelevant for deciding the Eviction Petition, however, on the other hand, he has gone onto hold that since it was the landlord’s case that he had limited income, the same was sufficient to raise a triable issue. Drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 21 of the impugned order, wherein the learned ARC has held that “… …Therefore, the requirement of the Petitioner resting upon the financial stringencies without trial cannot be established in the present case… …”, Mr. Kailash Vasdev submits that the same was beyond the purview of the learned ARC.

4. Lastly, Mr. Kailash Vasdev submits that the learned ARC has erred in holding that the party seeking leave to defend ought not be denied an opportunity to test the truth qua the assertions made by the landlord in cross-examination and the rival affidavit(s) may not furnish reliable evidence for concluding the point one way or the other, which again, according to him is contrary to the principles enshrined in the DRC Act.

5. Per contra, Mr. Akshay Makhija, learned senior counsel for the tenants submits that since the landlord, who alongwith his family, had discontinued to reside at the first floor of the property wherein the subject premises was/ is situated and had moved to a new house, leaving his old father, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the learned ARC, since no response was filed by the landlord to the said assertions.

6. Mr. Akshay Makhija then submits that since the landlord was having an adjacent shop in the same property which was lease