* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: October 08, 2025 + RC.REV. 237/2023, CM APPL. 43500/2023-Stay, CM APPL.

43502/2023-Addl.doc.

RAKESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajay Kumar, Mr. R.M. Tiwari and Mr. Manmohan Jha, Advs.

Versus SH. AJAY GUPTA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pratyaksh Raj, Adv. (Through VC)

CORAM:

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

1. The respondent/ landlord, hereinafter ‘landlord filed an eviction petition being RC ARC No.4/2022 entitled ‘Ajay Gupta vs. Rakesh Kumar’ under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, hereinafter ‘the Act against the petitioner/ tenant, hereinafter ‘tenant seeking eviction of shop bearing no.1, ground floor, hereinafter ‘subject premises, forming a part of property bearing no.B-9, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi-110 007, hereinafter ‘property before the ACJ/ARC/North-West, Rohini District Courts, Delhi, hereinafter ‘learned ARC, on the ground that the same was required for his own bona fide need of opening a general store/ grocery shop.

2. Briefly put, it was the case of the landlord before the learned ARC that the property was jointly purchased by the landlord’s father Mr. Kuldeep Rai and his two brothers vide a registered Sale Deed dated 02.05.1968. Thereafter, vide a Partnership Dissolution Deed dated 11.04.1975 and then vide a Sale Deed dated 08.06.2007, the landlord became a co-owner of the property, which was an undivided and jointly owned by his family members. Later on, it came to his share on account of an oral arrangement. The subject premises was initially let out to the tenant’s father, Mr. Sukh Lal, however, after his death, the tenancy had devolved upon the tenant herein. In fact, the landlord filed three rent receipts issued by himself between 2017-2020 in the name of the father of the tenant. Lastly, though the landlord was working as an Insurance Agent, however, due to health reasons, he was unable to carry out the field work and wanted to start his own business by opening up a general store/ grocery shop from the subject premises since it was situated right below his residence and he did not have any vacant property and/ or any other alternative suitable accommodation available at his disposal for the said purpose.

3. Upon being served, the tenant filed an application under Section 25B(4) of the Act seeking leave to defend. It was primarily the case of the tenant that although his father was inducted as a tenant in the subject premises, however, there existed no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, as also that the landlord was not the owner of the subject premises and there was a pending dispute being Eviction Petition No.463/1989 entitled ‘Abhay Kumar S/o Kewal Krishan vs. Sh. Sukh Lal & Ors.’ inter se the co-owners qua the subject property. Also, the other legal representatives of the tenant had not been impleaded as parties before the learned ARC. Further, since the landlord had sufficient alternative accommodation available to him as out of the seven shops in the subject property, three shops were lying vacant for the past five years. Lastly, the tenant disputed the oral family agreement as it was a sham. Since the landlord and his father were affluent people engaged in the business of money lending, there was no bona fide need of subject premises by the landlord and the filing of the eviction petition was a tool being used to enhance the rent.

4. In response thereto, the landlord reiterating its stance as stated in the eviction petition, denied the submissions advanced by the tenant in the leave to defend application. In rejoinder to the aforesaid reply, the tenant reaffirmed the submissions advanced in the leave to defend application.

5. Based on the above, as also after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned ARC dismissed the application for leave to defend of the tenant vide order dated 23.03.2023, hereinafter ‘impugned order holding that the landlord-tenant relation being a