* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: November 11, 2025

% Pronounced on: December 16, 2025

+ RC.REV. 325/2023

CHAMAN LAL .....Petitioner

Through: Ms. Sopna Rani Padhy, Adv.

Versus

MANISH KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary and Mr.

Ankit Kumar, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner/ landlord, Hereinafter referred to as “landlord filed an Eviction Petition being E-44/12 now new RC ARC No. 885/2016 entitled as Sh. Chaman Lal vs. Sh. Manish Kumar & Ors., 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 respondents/ tenants, Hereinafter referred to as “tenants seeking eviction of one shop at the ground floor bearing no.742, Khasra no.264/81/1, Jheel Khurenja, Scooter Market, Delhi-110 051, Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises before the

learned ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC

2. Succinctly put, in the Eviction Petition, it is the case of the landlord that he had become the sole owner of the property where the subject premises is situated by virtue of the Will, General Power of Attorney

(GPA) and Gift Deed dated 16.06.1993, Hereinafter referred to as “ownership document(s), executed in his favor by his late mother namely, Smt. Risalo Devi⁷, and since she had inducted the tenants’ father⁸ late Sh. Hanuman Prasad as a tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.80/- therein, upon his death, the tenants automatically stepped into his shoes by operation of law. Thereafter, an Agreement dated 14.05.1986 was executed inter se the late mother of the landlord and late father of the tenants qua the construction of the subject premises, whereby the late father of the tenants was to spend money on construction cost initially only to recover the same later and commence paying the rent. However, despite the completion of construction, and the money being recovered, no rent was being paid since the year 1991 till filing of the Eviction Petition.

3. It was also the case of the landlord that there was a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by him as he was facing harassment from the police to shift his Kadhi Chawal business, which he was operating on the public road in front of the subject premises, as also, that there was no suitable alternative accommodation available with him for the said purpose.

4. Upon being served, the tenants filed an application under Section(s) 25B(4) and 25B(5) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend, primarily, contending that the late mother of the landlord was never the owner of the land where the subject premises was situated as the same belonged to the government. Since, she had no title therein, she could not have executed any document in favour of the landlord. Moreover, there was no privity inter se the parties, since the landlord had never attorned the tenants, as

7 Hereinafter referred to as “late mother of the landlord

8 Hereinafter referred to as “late father of the tenants

also, her legal heirs never approached the tenants or his late father either to demand rent or for the purpose of eviction after her death. The landlord had sufficient commercial alternative accommodations in his possession and, thus, the Eviction Petition was liable to be dismissed.

5. Though, the application seeking leave to defend by the tenants was dismissed by the learned ARC on 10.07.2014, however, the same was set aside vide order dated 11.12.2015 by this Court.

6. After completion of pleadings and leading of respective evidences, the learned ARC proceeded to pass a detailed judgment dated 12.09.20239 dismissing the Eviction Petition of the landlord.

7. Hence, the present revision petition filed by the landlord seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 12.09.2023 passed by the learned ARC.

8. Ms. Sopna Rani Padhy, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the learned ARC erred by dwelling into the