$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 397/2025, CM APPL. 78603/2025, CM APPL.

78604/2025 YASH RAI & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Nikhil Palli, Mr. Satyam Thakeja and Ms. Niyati, Advs.

versus RAJESHWAR JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Imran Khan and Ms. Jahanvi Garg, Mr. Yash Mittal and Ms. Aarushi Jain, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 17.12.2025

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 19.08.2025 (impugned order), passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (learned ARC in RC ARC No. 344/2024 entitled “Rajeshwar Jain vs. Yash Rai & Anr.” whereby the tenant’s application seeking leave to defend came to be dismissed and consequently an eviction order was passed in favour of landlord.

2. Today learned senior counsel for the tenant has handed over a written synopsis which is taken on record.

3. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the tenant fairly submits that since there is no dispute regarding the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the same need not be dwelled into by this Court.

4. Regarding the existence of bona fide requirement of the landlord, learned senior counsel has restricted his submissions to the extent that the alleged requirement of the subject premises by the landlord for the business of his son, Mr. Ayush Raj Jain, was not bona fide, since his son was already running a separate business under the name of M/s. Renu Jain Appetizers & Beverages. For this, he relies upon the screenshots of a webpage exhibiting that his son was indeed doing business in the aforesaid name from premises situated at 2490, Teliwara Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, as also few WhatsApp chats transcripts.

5. Based thereon, learned senior counsel submits that, since the son of the landlord was already carrying on his business, and that too from a different premises, there was no requirement for the landlord to file the Eviction Petition seeking eviction of the tenant from the subject premises.

6. Learned senior counsel further submits that since the very landlord who has professed his bona fide requirement for the subject premises, had already sold the properties/ shops in the year 2022, it cannot said to be genuine and sincere.

7. Lastly, regarding (non-)availability of alternative accommodation, learned senior counsel submits that the landlord has other alternative accommodations available with him in the form of property bearing no.4740/21, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi (Deputy Ganj property), as also the shops on the mezzanine and first floor of the property no. 2490, Teliwara Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.

8. Based on the aforesaid, learned senior counsel for the tenant submits that the tenant was able to raise triable issue before the learned ARC and leave to defend should have been granted to him.

9. In order to buttress the aforesaid contentions, learned senior counsel for the landlord has also relied upon Bharat Bhusan & Ors. vs. Atul Gupta: RCR No. 196/2023, Geeta Press vs. Madhu Rastogi: Civil Appeal No. 5591/2021, Mukesh Bansal vs. Madhu Gupta: SLP(C) No.

7489/ 2016 and Shanti Devi vs. Rajesh Kumar Jain: (2015) 2 SCC 158

10. Issue notice.

11. Learned counsel for the landlord accepts notice. In contravention of the case set up by the tenant, he submits that all the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the tenant has already been duly dealt and rightly rejected by the learned ARC in the impugned order. As such, he submits that there is no occasion for interference by this Court, much less while exercising revisional jurisdiction.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties as also have gone through the records.

13. Inasmuch as the aspect of landlord tenant relationship has been unequivocally admitted by the tenant, the same is established and this Court need not traverse into the said aspect any further.

1