$~35 & 36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 358/2025, CM APPL. 71452-71454/2025 M/S BHARAT ENGINEERING WORKS .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Payal Jain and Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advs.

Versus PADAM CHAND JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Thukral and Ms. Shiwani Meena, Advs.

36 + RC.REV. 359/2025, CM APPL. 71467-71469/2025 ANIL KUMAR NARANG .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Payal Jain and Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advs.

Versus PADAM CHAND JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Thukral and Ms. Shiwani Meena, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 18.12.2025

1. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner (tenant) seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment(s) dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned SCJ Cum RC, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (learned ARC), whereby the Eviction Petition of the respondent (landlord) filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, after a full- fledged trial had been allowed and the tenant was consequently directed to vacate one shed/ shop measuring 1141 sq. ft. on the ground floor of property bearing no. 52/3C, Rama Road, Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110 015 (subject premises).

2. Pursuant to last order, learned counsel for the tenant has filed the requisite document(s) pertaining to the evidence of the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the parties before the learned ARC.

3. Though the tenant has raised various grounds in the present revision petition(s), however, learned counsel for the tenant has primarily restricted her arguments qua the non-existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties. The learned counsel in this regard has taken this Court through various depositions made by the witnesses who appeared for and on behalf of both the parties. Qua the same, the learned counsel submits that the son of the landlord, namely Mr. Sanjay Jain, had earlier instituted an Eviction Petition bearing no. E-637/06/04 under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act, against tenant and Shri Vijay Kumar Narang, late father of the tenant qua the subject premises, asserting his status as the owner/ landlord thereof. By virtue of the judgement dated 22.01.2007 passed thereon by the learned ARC therein, only Mr. Sanjay Jain could be the landlord of the subject premises.

4. Barring this, learned counsel for the tenant has only made a passing reference to there being suitable alternative accommodations available with the landlord, however, the same was not pressed by her. No other argument(s) qua any of the grounds taken in the present revision petitions have been professed by the learned counsel.

5. In response, learned counsel for the landlord in support of the findings rendered by the learned ARC submits that since the impugned judgment(s) are well-reasoned, elaborate and has every answer to the contentions sought to be raised by learned counsel for the tenant, this being a revisionary jurisdiction, there is hardly any scope of interference by this Court, more so, since the tenant has not been able to raise any ground(s) for consideration therein.

6. This Court has heard the lengthy submissions advance by the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents and pleadings on record.

7. At the outset, a perusal of the record reveals that the learned counsel for tenant is primarily disputing the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, however, the case of the tenant was quite contrary before the learned ARC, who has not only addressed the same in detail, but also rendered detailed findings thereon in the impugned judgment(s). The grounds asserted by the tenant herein pales into insignificance in view of the categoric admissions made by (RW1), i.e., Sh. Anil Kumar Narang, in his cross-examination qua the landlord tenant relationship. The same is evident from the findings rendered by the learned ARC in the impugned judgment(s) reproduced as under:-

“40. In view of the above categorical admission made by the RW1 in his cross-e