* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: November 22, 2025

% Pronounced on: December 23, 2025

+ RC.REV. 218/2020, CM APPL. 25936/2020

PARSHOTTAM LAL .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Inderbir Singh Alag, Senior

Advocate with Mr. R. S. Bisht and

Mr. J.S. Lamba, Advocates.

Versus

NEW LIGHT TRADING COMPANY & ORS. .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Ankur Mahindro, Advocate for

R-1, 2, 3 & 7.

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for

R-4, 5, 6 & 8.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner/ landlord filed the Eviction Petition, E. No.39/2020, before the learned Rent Controller, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi1 against the respondents/ tenants being two companies and their respective directors, qua the premises bearing Shop No.520, Ground Floor, Katra

Ishwar Bhawan, Khari Baoli, Delhi-110 006, Hereinafter ‘subject premises

2. It was the case of the landlord before the learned RC that though the said petition was initially filed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B and Section 14(1)(a), (b) and (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, Hereinafter ‘the Act

1 Hereinafter ‘learned RC

the landlord subsequently withdrew the same with respect to Section 14(1)(a), and then also with respect to Section 14(1)(b) and (j), and pursued the same only under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act; on the ground that his younger son was unemployed, and wished to start his own business from the subject premises, as also he did not have any other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available to fulfil the said bona fide requirement of his son. In support of his claims, the landlord relied upon one Sale Deed dated 11.06.2002 (Ex. PW1/1) executed in his favour by his brother, Mr. Ashok Kumar, who had obtained rights in the same through testamentary devolution by way of Will dated 24.01.1983.

3. In response thereto, it was the case of the tenants in their written statement before the learned RC that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties; further that since the younger son of the landlord was already having an income, the landlord had no bona fide requirement for the subject premises; and lastly, that there were numerous alternative accommodations available with the landlord. As per tenants, the landlord could not have become the owner of the subject premises vide the said Sale Deed dated 11.06.2002 (Ex. PW1/1), since the said Mr. Ashok Kumar was merely one of the legal heirs of the erstwhile owner and there was no partition between him and the other legal heirs. Also, the alleged Will dated 24.01.1983 (Ex. PW2/R1) by which the said Mr. Ashok Kumar acquired rights in the subject premises was also not produced by the landlord before the learned RC. Further, the tenants never tendered any rent to the landlord. Also, since it was evident from the Income Tax Returns filed by the son of the landlord that he was not dependent upon his father, there was no bona fide requirement by the landlord. Lastly, there were other alternative accommodations available with the landlord wherefrom his son could run his business.

4. In replication, the landlord pled that he was the absolute owner of the subject premises by virtue of the proper and duly registered Sale Deed dated 11.06.2002, as also that the income of the son of the landlord as per his Income Tax Returns was through fixed investments made by him, and not by his own business/ employment. He further reiterated that all the alternative accommodations alleged by the tenants were otherwise occupied by different members of his family, and the subject premises was the only suitable accommodation for his son.

5. After evidence was led by both parties, the learned RC heard both the parties and thence proceeded to pass the order dated 27.11.20214 dismissing the Eviction Petition of the landlord.

6. Hence, the present petition filed by the landlord seeking setting aside the impugned order dated 27.11.2021 passed by the learned RC.

7. Before this Court, Mr. I