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
RC.REV. 314/2018 Page 1 of 14
Signature Not Verified
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