$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 373/2025, CM APPL. 73524/2025 MOHD SULEMAN AND ANR .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ahmad Zohgham, Mr. Saif Naseem and Ms. Sidra Khan, Advocates with petitioner no.1 in person. versus ZIA UL HAQ AND ORS .....Respondents Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025

1. This Court on 24.11.2025, after hearing arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners/ tenants passed the following order:-

“... ...

3. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioners (tenants seeks setting aside of the impugned order dated 26.08.2025 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, (learned ARC) in the Eviction Petition being RC ARC No.78248/2016 filed by the respondents (landlords) under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) whereby the tenants were directed to vacant the premises i.e., Shop forming part of property No. 1939, Ground Floor, Gall Kallu Channa Mal, Suiwalan, New Delhi-110 002 (subject premises).

4. The owner-landlords filed the Eviction Petition, since subsequent to the death of their late father they became the absolute owners of subject premises vide registered Sale Deed dated 27.06.2010. As per them, since the tenants were inducted by their late father vide Rent Agreement dated 01.05.1993, the landlords became such by operation of law. It was their case that the landlord no.1 had a bona fide requirement for the subject premises to commence his independent business to support his family as there were no suitable alternative accommodations for the said purpose.

5. Upon service thereof, in response, the tenants filed an application seeking leave to defend, wherein, primarily they disputed the Site Plan filed by the landlords as being incorrect and as per them the landlords had concealed the existence of multiple accommodations available with them. It was also their case that the landlords had not given the complete/ true details of his family members and the Eviction Petition was only a means to secure the high value subject premises under the pretext of a bona fide requirement thereof.

6. After hearing the parties and going through the documents on record as well as taking the judgments cited by them into consideration, the learned ARC dismissed the application seeking leave to defend vide order dated 26.08.2025 and directed the tenants to handover the subject premises to the landlords.

7. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants have preferred the present revision petition.

8. At the outset, amongst the various grounds taken by the tenants in the present revision petition, learned senior counsel has restricted his submissions primarily to the counter Site Plan filed by the tenants before the learned ARC. For ease of convenience, learned senior counsel for the tenants draws the attention of this Court to the said counter Site Plan (@ page 102 of the paper book), based whereon he submits that there are three adjacent shops involved, out of which the Shop no. ‘X-1’ has already been sold by the predecessor of the landlords, the Shop no. ‘X-3’, though lying vacant, and in the possession of the landlords, has not been adverted to by the learned ARC, and Shop no. ‘X-2’ is the subject premises for which the Eviction petition was filed by the landlords. Thus, both Shop no. ‘X-1’ and Shop no. ‘X-3’ are adjacent to the subject premises.

9. Barring the above, learned senior counsel for the tenants has not put forth any submissions.

10. As such, there is no challenge to the findings by the learned ARC qua the aspects of landlord tenant relationship between the parties and there being a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlords. In effect, the tenants are raising a dispute qua the landlords having alternative accommodation available with them.

11. Considering that Shop no. ‘X-1’ has already been sold, there is no occasion for this Court to deal with that. However, qua Shop