$~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 637/2019 NARESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. D.K. Rustagi, Ms. Astuti Verma and Ms. Anjali Pandey, Advs. versus SHIV SHANKAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. N.D. Pancholi, Mr. Amit Srivastav, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 16.12.2025

1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner/ landlord submits that in another Eviction Petition bearing No.E-589/14/10 filed by him with respect to the adjacent premises of the subject premises herein, an application seeking leave to defend filed by the tenant therein, wherein the very same grounds were urged, was dismissed by the learned Rent Controller (learned RC). Not only that, the revision petition bearing RC. REV. 377/2017 filed by the tenant thereagainst before this Court was also dismissed vide order dated 23.08.2017.

2. As such, learned counsel submits that the learned RC has granted leave to defend to the tenant in the present case vide impugned order dated 04.06.2019, merely because there was a gap of two and a half years in the filing of the Eviction Petition wherein the impugned order has been passed and the earlier one. This, according to him could not have formed any basis of consideration.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the bills relied on by the tenant to claim that the landlord was running the business of retail sarees could also not have raised any triable issue. Accordingly, the findings rendered by the learned RC are erroneous and liable to be set aside.

4. For the ease of reference, regarding above, the relevant extracts from the impugned order are reproduced as under:-

“15. Lastly, Respondent has claimed that present petition was filed by petitioner after 2^1/2 years of filing of eviction petition pertaining to shop no.4 in property in question. As per respondent, petitioner had requirement of shop in question and shop no. 4, he should have filed it simultaneously. The fact that petitioner had filed this petition after a gap of 2V2 years, indicated that it is an afterthought on the part of petitioner. In response to the same, petitioner simply denied it. Fact of the matter remains that, this petition was filed immediately after filing of eviction petition pertaining to shop no. 4. So, bonafide need of petitioner is under the scanner and it has to be appreciated, as to whether petitioner has a bonafide need or has a mere desire.

16. Coupled with the same, bills relied by respondent for claiming that petitioner is running the business of retail sarees independently, can only be appreciated during trial.”

5. Prima facie, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by learned counsel for the landlord. Mere gap of two and a half years between the two Eviction Petitions filed by the landlord could not have acted as a fetter to the bona fide requirement of the landlord, more so, there are no reasons for substantiating the same given in the impugned order. In any event, whence it was the case of the landlord that he wished to expand his saree business, mere retail bills could not deter him from his bona fide requirement.

6. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the respondent seeks adjournment on the ground of personal difficulty.

7. In the interest of justice, renotify on 12.02.2026.

CM APPL. 79218/2025 (by respondent for filing additional affidavit)

8. By virtue of the present application, the tenant seeks to file an additional affidavit alongwith the photographs enclosed therewith.

9. Considering that the impugned order has been passed by the learned RC way back on 04.06.2019, and the present application has been filed by the tenant only now, that too without giving any specification(s) therein, this Court sees no reason to issue notice at this stage.

10. However, considering that learned counsel for the tenant has sought adjournment on ground of personal difficulty today, in the interest of justice, renotify on 12.02.2026.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J DECEMBER 16, 2025/bh