$~10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 16/2018 RAM BABU GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kuldeep Gala and Mr. Sumit Kumar, Advs.

Versus RAM SHANKER GUPTA .....Respondent Through: None CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 16.12.2025

1. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner/ landlord seeks setting aside the order dated 12.10.2017 (impugned order) passed by learned ACJ-Cum-ARC-Commercial Civil Judge (South), Saket Court (learned ARC) in eviction petition No.E-6151/2016, by virtue whereof the tenant’s leave to defend application was allowed.

2. Learned counsel for the landlord submits that the application seeking leave to defend of the tenant has primarily been allowed by the learned ARC on two grounds, firstly, that the tenant was able to raise a triable issue with respect to there being no bona fide requirement of the landlord for his son Mr. Pradeep Gupta since the eviction petition had been filed in collusion with one Mr. Mahabir Bansal, to whom the subject premises had already sold by the landlord, and the possession thereof was required to be transferred by the landlord to the said Mr. Mahabir Bansal, and, secondly, that the landlord son’s firm namely M/s. R.D. Trading Company had already shifted its business to Faridabad from Delhi and the Rent Agreement qua the property no. B-2/162, Madangir, New Delhi was executed merely to make out the case of eviction of the tenant, once again in collusion of the said Mr. Mahabir Bansal. He submits that none of the aforesaid grounds were sufficient to qualify as triable issues.

3. Learned counsel submits that there was no involvement of the third party Mr. Mahabir Bansal, as the issue qua him had already long back been conclusively adjudicated and settled by virtue of the judgment dated 30.09.2014 by learned CJ-02 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No.

202/2014 entitled “Ram Shanker Gupta vs. Mahavir Bansal and anr.”

4. Learned counsel further submits that even though the aforesaid judgment was placed before the learned ARC, the same was not taken into consideration, and that it was the case of the landlord since the very inception that he and his family members were dependent upon the income of his son, for whom there was a bona fide requirement of the subject premises for running his office to attend his customers and storing products within Delhi. Lastly, he submitted that since the landlord had shifted his residence to Faridabad, Haryana, there was a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord.

5. At the outset, this Court finds that the tenant had not placed on record even an iota of documentary material to substantiate his plea qua involvement of one Mr. Mahabir Bansal, to whom the landlord had allegedly sold the property. In the absence of any such material, and since the tenant’s case rested solely on vague, bald and unsubstantiated assertions, the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, could not have been a sufficient reason for the learned ARC to hold that the tenant was able to raise a triable issue. All the more whence, the issue qua the said Mr. Mahabir Bansal had already long back been conclusively adjudicated and settled by virtue of the judgment dated 30.09.2014 passed by learned CJ-02 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS No. 202/2014 entitled “Ram Shanker Gupta vs. Mahavir Bansal and anr.”, wherein it has already been observed as under:

“… …Admittedly, defendant no.1 has no right or title or interest in the suit property i.e.no.H-330-A, 2^nd Floor, Sec-5, Dakshinpuri, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi-110052, however, plaintiff has failed to establish his possession over the roof on the 3^rd floor and his rights thereof as tenant… .”

6. Moreover, considering it has been the consistent case of the landlord since the very beginning that his son had no alternative accommodations for carrying out his business in Delhi and that being a resident of Faridabad, Haryana, he required an accommodation within the p