$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 447/2017, CM APPL. 23163/2025 RAMANAND & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv.

alongwith Mr. Rajiv Talwar, Mr. Tarun Rana, Mr. Pushkar Karni Sinha and Mr. Kushal Kumar Chauhan, Advs.

Versus DR GIRISH SONI & ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Ms. Simran Rao and Mr. Rishabh Varshney, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 26.11.2025

1. Since 25.11.2025, was declared a holiday on account of ‘Guru Teg Bahadur’s Martyrdom Day’, the present matter is being taken up for hearing today.

2. The respondents/ landlords (landlords) filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) seeking eviction of the tenants from the subject premises being Shop No.30A, Khan Market, New Delhi admeasuring 534 square feet as there was a bona fide requirement of the respondent no.1 of running a dental clinic for shifting his dental practice to the subject premises and as he had no other alternative accommodation available with him for the said purpose.

3. Upon service, the tenants/ petitioner nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 herein (tenants) filed their application seeking leave to defend on 06.02.2009 and in April/ May, 2011 respectively, raising various issues, however, not denying the landlord tenant relationship between the parties. The said applications were allowed, whereafter they filed their written statements before the learned ARC.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the documents on record as well taking the judgments cited by them into consideration, the learned Rent Controller (RC) vide the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2017, allowed the Eviction Petition of the landlords and directed the petitioners/ tenants to vacate the subject premises after the lapse of the statutory period of six months in terms of Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.

5. The tenants filed the present petition seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2017 passed by the learned RC.

6. Of the many grounds raised herein by the tenants, Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel for the tenants submits that the landlords entered into an alleged oral Agreement to Sell. For this, the learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to the manner in which the alleged audio recording of the conversation inter se the landlords and the tenants as also the efforts made by the landlords to sell the subject premises, have not been taken into consideration by the learned RC. This, according to the learned senior counsel, is amply clear from the letters dated 19.02.2010 and 11.03.2010. The learned senior counsel places reliance upon Adil Jamshed Frenchman (dead) By LRs. vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust & Others, (2005) 2 SCC 476, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-

“8. The decree of the trial court is based on the landlords' bona fide requirement of the accommodation. In appeal, the question before the court for adjudication was whether the trial court was justified in passing the decree in favour of the landlords on the ground of bona fide need and the tenants obviously were within their rights to show that the need of the landlords was not genuine. The evidence produced in that direction would be relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the question of need of the landlords. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] this Court has held that a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be