$~8 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 652/2019, CM APPL. 18518/2020 ANOOP ARORA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kunal Kalra, Adv.

Versus M/S RD STEEL CORPORATION .....Respondent Through: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 03.12.2025

1. The petitioner/ landlord, Hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord filed an Eviction Petition being E.P. No.482/ 2017 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 before the learned Additional Rent Controller (Central), Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as ‘learned ARC seeking eviction of the respondent/ tenant, Hereinafter referred to as ‘tenant from Shop No. 4079-A, Kuncha Diiwaii Singh, Ajmeri Gate, Delhi-110 006, Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject premises

2. Succinctly put, it was the case of the landlord before learned ARC that the tenant was inducted in the subject premises by his late father. After his demise, the tenant started paying rent to him @ of Rs. 93.5 paise per month from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2011 vide rent receipt(s), thereby admitting the landlord tenant relationship between them. It was also his case that a bona fide requirement for the subject premises arose as his son intended to commence a business of selling firefighting equipments, as also there was no other suitable alternative accommodation available with him for the said purpose.

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act

3. Upon service of summons, the tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend under Sections 25B(4) and (5) of the DRC Act disputing the landlord tenant relationship between them contending that the rent receipts filed by the landlord were fabricated; that the son of the landlord was still a student and he had no intention to start any business in the near future and there was one shop lying vacant, possession of which has recently been taken by the landlord and thus there was an alternative accommodations available with the landlord.

4. Thereafter, though the landlord’s brother, Sh. Satya Narain Arora6 moved an application under Order I rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) claiming that he required the property for his own bona fide need, the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.09.2017. Relevantly, the same has become final and binding since there was no challenge thereto by the said brother, who, instead filed an Eviction Petition being E.P. No.801/17 independently qua the same subject premises.

5.

However, to bring on record the subsequent facts arising therefrom, the tenant filed an application for taking them into consideration, which was allowed vide order dated 19.02.2018 passed by the learned ARC, whereafter, the application seeking leave to defend of the tenant was allowed vide order dated 15.03.2018 and the Eviction Petition was then listed for recording of the landlord’s evidence.

6. Subsequently, an application under Order VII rule 11 and Order XII rule 6 read with Section 151 of the CPC of the tenant was dismissed by the

6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘brother of the landlord

learned ARC vide order dated 18.12.2018, however, based on the averment made by the brother of the landlord in the already dismissed application under Order I rule 10 of the CPC, the learned ARC fixed the matter for recording of statement of the landlord and the said brother under Order X rule 2 of the CPC before proceeding further with recording of the evidence.

7. Upon recording the statement of the said brother of the landlord under Order X rule 2 of the CPC, the learned ARC vide order dated 24.12.2018⁷, dismissed the Eviction Petition of the landlord on the ground that the said brother being a co-owner had an objection to the filing of the aforesaid Eviction Petition by the landlord and as per settled law, the same was not maintainable.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 24.12.2018 passed by the learned ARD, the landlord has preferred the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order.

9. It is primarily the ca