$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 5/2017, CM APPL. 47906/2025 DALJIT DUTTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pawan Aggarwal and Mr.

Amish Tiwari, Advocates.

versus SUKHDEV MONGIA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Nitin K. Gupta, Mr. Sanchay Mehrotra, Ms. Ayushi Arya, Mr. Parth Kansal, Mr. Prasoon Kumar and Mr. Punit Singhla, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 18.12.2025 CM APPL. 48223/2024 (for enhancement of rent)

1. Vide order dated 26.11.2019, this Court fixed user and occupation charges qua the subject premises @ Rs.8,000/- per month w.e.f. 01.01.2017, which, as per learned counsel for the parties the same are being paid regularly by the tenant.

2. Learned counsel for the parties, without entering the merits involved, submit that after passing of the order dated 26.11.2019 by this Court, much water has flown then, more so, since more than six years have lapsed.

3. Considering the aforesaid, this Court deems it fit and appropriate to call upon the tenant to pay the enhanced user and occupation charges at an enhanced rate @ Rs.16,000/- per month from the date of filing of the present application i.e. August, 2024 till the vacation of the subject premises by the tenant.

4. Learned counsel for the tenant, as per instructions, from the tenant appearing in person submits that the tenant is agreeable to pay the same in terms of the aforesaid, along with the arrears also. He submits that the composite amount of arrears shall be cleared and paid within a period of four weeks as an outer limit.

5. In view of the above, the present application is disposed of.

6. RC.REV. 5/2017

7. This Court on the last date of hearing i.e., on 08.12.2025, after conclusively hearing the learned counsel for the parties, passed the following order:-

“ 1. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner (tenant) seeks setting aside of the order dated 10.06.2016 (impugned order) passed by Additional Rent Controller Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (learned ARC), whereby the learned ARC had directed the tenant to handover the physical and peaceful possession of the one room and a kitchen on the ground floor with a common bathroom and an open courtyard on the ground floor and another room on the mezzanine floor of the property bearing no. 4759/5, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazar, Delhi-110 006 (subject premises) to the respondent (landlord).

8. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both parties at length.

9. Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, learned counsel for the tenant submits that the Eviction Petition filed by the erstwhile landlord is no more maintainable as the requirement of the landlord no longer survives since the landlord has expired, as also since the landlord has since the office nearby to the subject premises has since been sold by his Legal Heirs. Drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph 18(a) of the Eviction Petition, the learned counsel submits that this is so, since it was the case of the landlord at the time of filing thereof that he required the subject premises for his own residential purposes as also since it was nearby his office being merely 500 meters away.

10. In support thereof, Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, has placed reliance upon Kedar Nath Agrawal (dead) & Anr. vs. Dhanraji Devi (dead) by LRs. & Anr.: (2004) 8 SCC 76 Shakuntala Bai & Ors. vs. Narayan Das & Ors.: (2004) 5 SCC 772, Natwarlal Shamji Gada vs. Vinay Raghunath Deshmukh: 2024: BHC-AS: 31405 and Seshambal (dead) through LRs. vs. M/s Chelur Corporation Chelur Building & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 565/2005 decided on 17.02.2010, to contend that the Eviction Petition of the landlord does not survive subsequent to his demise as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as also the Bombay High Court in the aforementioned judgment(s).

11. On the other hand, Mr. Nitin K. Gupta, learned counsel for the landlord has handed over a set of documents and, primarily, placing reliance upon Ruparel & Company (Delhi) vs. S. Avtar Singh Puri & Ors.: MANU/DE/4898/2009, whe