$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 515/2017 VED KUMARI SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Seema Seth, Mr. Sourav Kumar and Ms. Muskaan Deswal, Advocates.

versus VINEETA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akhil Sharma, Advocate (through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 16.12.2025

1. The petitioner/ landlord filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581 before the learned Administrative Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller-cum-Commercial, Civil Judge, North East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as ‘learned ARC seeking eviction of the respondents/ tenants from one shop measuring 7’ x 5’approx. (triangular shape having back wall 3 feet in length) situated on the ground floor and forming part of property number D1/12 A, New Seelampur, Jafrabad Road, Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject premises

2. Succinctly put, the petitioner claimed to be the owner-landlord of property bearing No. D-1/12A, New Seelampur, Jafrabad Road, Delhi,

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act

wherein the subject premises was situated, and that her only income was the meagre rent of Rs. 2,000/- per month, which was/ is insufficient to meet her basic needs. As such, she was in bona fide requirement of the subject premises for starting her own business for her livelihood.

3. Upon service of summons, the respondents filed an application seeking leave to defend, which, after being allowed was followed by their written statement wherein they disputed the petitioner being the owner- landlady of the subject premises; that the late father of respondents was earlier inducted as a tenant in the subject premises by one Mr. Ayyub; that after the death his father, respondent no. 2 stepped into his shoes and an oral tenancy agreement was entered inter se Mr. Ayyub and respondent no. 2; that the respondent no. 2 had regularly been tendering rent to Mr. Ayyub.

4. Controverting the aforesaid, the petitioner filed her replication. After considering the material on record and hearing the parties, the learned ARC dismissed the Eviction Petition of the petitioner vide judgment dated 17.07.2017, Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned judgment

5. Amongst the various grounds taken by the petitioner in the present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted her submission only to the aspect of landlord tenant relationship and contends that although it is well-settled that even though in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, ownership of the tenanted premises is not to be strictly looked into as in a suit for declaration of title, despite that the learned ARC erred in examining the issue of absolute title of the landlord. She further submits that the learned ARC has ignored that the

respondent no.2 has categorically admitted in his cross examination that he was paying rent to the petitioner, as also that there were no documents on record filed by him to show that he was paying rent to Mohd. Ayyub.

6. She submits that in an earlier Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(a) and 14(1)(b) of the DRC Act, being E-198/2001 filed by the petitioner in respect of the same subject premises Smt. Bimlesh, mother of the respondents herein/ respondent no.1 therein, in her written statement categorically admitted that the subject premises was let out to her husband in the year 1986-87 and that after his death, she continued as a tenant in the said premises, which the learned ARC also failed to consider.

7. Based thereon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supporting the findings rendered by the learned ARC submits that none of the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner need consideration since they have been duly dealt therein. He submits that since Mr. Ayyub had inducted the respondents’ late father as