$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 288/2024, CM APPL. 61871/2024 SUDERSHAN KUMARI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Deepti Kathpalia and Ms.

Charu Saxena, Advs.

Versus SUMAN JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Ms. Akansha Saini, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 16.12.2025

1. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner/ tenant seeks setting aside of order dated 29.04.2024 (impugned order) passed by ACJ-cum- CCJ-cum-ARC, South District Courts Complex, Saket, Delhi (learned ARC) in RC ARC No.27/2021, whereby the tenant’s application seeking leave to defend was dismissed and consequently an eviction order was passed in the favour of the respondent/ landlady.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the landlady has handed over a copy of the order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC (South), Saket Courts in EX 81/2025 entitled “Suman Jain vs. Sudershan Devi”, which is taken on record.

3. Considering the findings rendered by learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC (South), Saket Courts in paragraph nos.9(i) to 9(iii) of the aforesaid order dated 15.12.2025, it is made clear that, since the tenant had not been making any payment qua user and occupation charges, the learned Executing Court is free to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. 4. Today, of the many grounds raised in the present revision petition, learned counsel for the tenant submits that the requirement of the landlady for setting up her bushiness of ornaments, jewellery, etc was not bona fide inasmuch as the landlady had no past experience and/ or qualification for the purpose for which she was requiring the subject premises, and thus, there was no occasion for the learned ARC to have dismissed the tenant’s application seeking leave to defend, particularly when, at best, the landlady was able to show only a projected need, which, according to her, was not sufficient for the landlady to seek vacation of the subject premises.

5. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel drawn attention of this Court to Challan dated 25.10.2022, issued by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, MCD, South, in the name of one Mr. Salman to contend that the landlady let out the premises to other person to put up kiosk and herself does not do any business.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlady, while supporting the impugned order, has drawn attention of this Court to paragraphs nos. 21, 23, 24, 25 and 26 thereof to contend that the learned ARC has dealt with the issue of bona fide requirement of the landlady in detail and returned well-reasoned findings. The learned counsel further submits that the learned ARC has similarly rendered cogent and well-reasoned finding in paragraph nos. 27 and 28. As such, it is contended that there is hardly any occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents and pleadings on record.

8. Regarding the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, since the tenant has not disputed the findings rendered by the learned ARC qua the same in paragraph no.6, the same are final and binding.

9. Regarding the bona fide requirement by the landlady, learned counsel for the tenant has, unfortunately, only reiterated/ reagitated the very same contentions raised by him before the learned ARC. The record reveals that the same have been negated/ discarded by the learned ARC by dealing with them in the form of well-reasoned findings as under: “21. The petition is filed by petitioner and her own bonafide requirement has been pleaded to start her business of ornaments, jewellery, etc. The petitioner has alleged that she is unable to do the tedious work of setting up kiosks and as such wants to set up a big showroom in the entire ground floor of shop no.15. There can be no age limit to start any business and respondent can certainly not challenge the petitioner's will and intent to start a whol