A landlord’s failure to fully account for existing alternative suitable accommodations constitutes a triable issue, entitling a tenant to leave to defend under the Delhi Rent Control Act.

O R D E R

05.01.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeks the following prayers: -

“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records of case bearing E.P. no. RC ARC 6/2023, entitled Geeta Mittal & anr. versus Sh. Akesh Kumar Jain, & anr., and to set aside the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the court of Shri Rahul Venna, CCJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dismissing the application of the petitioners for leave to defend and contest the eviction petition and to allow the application of the petitioners for leave to defend and grant to the petitioners leave to defend and contest the eviction petition on its merits.

The Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to pass such other/further orders in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents as deemed fit and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that learned ARC while passing the impugned order has ignored the relevant averments made by the petitioners in their application seeking leave to defend and in particular, details of the commercial properties belonging to the respondents on the ground floor which had been let out by the respondents after previous tenant had vacated the same.

4. It is further pointed out that the respondents had filed 4 petitions simultaneously with regard to the requirement of subject properties for alleged bonafide use for her son as well as her husband. It is pointed out that both the son and the husband are Directors in the same company for which a godown has been taken on rent in Burari. It is further pointed out that there are alternate suitable accommodations in the first floor of the subject property which are lying vacant. It is further argued that one of the properties which was vacated by the respondents, i.e., Shop No.547, on the ground floor by way of eviction proceedings is still lying vacant.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that in the four separate eviction petitions filed simultaneously on behalf of the respondents, the aforesaid fact of filing the eviction petition has been fully disclosed in the respective petitions. It is further pointed out that the shops which had been vacated in pursuance of one such petition was for the bonafide usage of respondent No.1’s son. It is submitted that shops which are lying vacant on the first floor are not suitable for the purposes of usage which has been sought, i.e., running a godown.

6. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.1’s husband is already in possession of a godown in Burari, and despite the same, the learned ARC concluded that there is no property available with the respondents herein which can constitute a reasonable alternate suitable accommodation for requirement as disclosed in the eviction petition.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

8. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly admitted that the husband of the respondent No.1 is in occupation of a godown which is situated at Burari. It is also noted in the impugned order that the entire first floor and the second floor of the subject property is lying vacant and is in occupation possession of the respondents. It is also a matter of record that Shop No. 547, situated at Esplanade Road, Cycle Market, Chandni Chowk