SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 46260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
LAXMI ELECTRIC COMPANY – Appellant
Versus
MAHESH VAIDYA – Respondent
RC.REV.-314/2018



##PAGE1##

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: December 09, 2025

% Pronounced on: December 23, 2025

+ RC.REV. 314/2018, CM APPL. 27846/2018

LAXMI ELECTRIC COMPANY .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Ashutosh Lohia, Ms. Shraddha

Bhargava, Ms. Rishika Jain and Mr.

Varun Kumar, Advocates.

Versus

MAHESH VAIDYA .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Achal Gupta and Mr. Ujjwal Jain,

Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. The respondent/ landlord, Hereinafter referred to as “landlord filed an Eviction Petition being E.P.

No.757/ 2017 under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi

Rent Control Act, 1958, Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act against the petitioner/ tenant, Hereinafter referred to as “tenants before the learned

CCJ cum ARC, Pilot Court (Central District) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC

seeking eviction from Shop no.1820 admeasuring 889 sq. ft., ground floor,

Bisso Mai Colony, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110 006.5

5 Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises

RC.REV. 314/2018 Page 1 of 14

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:BABLOO SHAH

Signing Date:23.12.2025

03:39:20

##PAGE2##

2. Succinctly put, it was the case of the landlord therein that after the

demise of his mother, late Smt. Dropadi Devi, by virtue of the Will dated

15.09.2003, the entire property where the subject premises is situated came

to his share along with his two brothers. Thus, he and his brothers became

the joint owners thereof. Prior thereto, since the subject premises had

already been let out to the tenant for commercial purposes vide a Rent Deed

dated 25.06.1971, the tenant which was a Partnership Firm, paying rent

first to the late father of the landlord, Sh. Mangal Lal Vaidya and then after

his death, to his late mother. Thus, since the landlord became a joint owner

of the entire property wherein the subject premises is situated after the

demise of his mother, he, by operation of law, assumed the capacity/ status

of the landlord qua the tenant.

3. As per landlord, since he had already retired and was getting a paltry

sum towards pension, and as his two sons were earning meagre amounts

with their own families to support, it was insufficient. Moreover, since he

was interested in commencing his own business, for which he was learning

business of electrical parts, and since the subject premises was in the hub of

electric parts market it was the best location, and since it was the biggest

Shop amongst others with other tenants, as per the landlord, these were all

sufficient to satisfy his bona fide requirement. Lastly, there were no suitable

alternative accommodations available with him for satisfying his bona fide

requirement.

4. After service, 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

RC.REV. 314/2018 Page 2 of 14

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed

By:BABLOO SHAH

Signing Date:23.12.2025

03:39:20

##PAGE3##

its case that it was operating from Shop no.1819 and not from the Shop

no.1820 as alleged by the landlord, as it was under occupation of one M/s.

Super Power Controls. In support thereof, the tenant produced the Member’s

Directory, 2017 of the Delhi Electric Traders Association, Electricity bill of

May 2017, and Sales Tax Registration Certificate dated 13.05.1954, Hereinafter referred to as “tenant’s document(s)

5. The tenant also disputed the Site Plan filed by the landlord, and that

the landlord deliberately omitted to disclose all the Shop(s) in the property

where the subject premises is situated. The tenant, by filing a separate Site

Plan depicted all the Shop(s) and to demonstrate that it was operating from

Shop no.1819 and not from Shop no.1820. Further, the landlord did not take

consent from the other two brothers i.e., joint owners of the entire property

where the subject premises is situated even whence there were serious

disputes inter se the three brothers. Lastly, the landlord was misleading qua

the ways/ manner, the other properti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top