$~62 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 41/2026 & CM APPL. 7848/2026 (Stay)

MR. VINOD SHARMA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhishek Raj Sharma, Mr. Ajay Sharma, Ms. Radhika Sharma, Mr. Harshall Misra, Ms. Manogya Misra, Ms. Shalini Parashar, Advocates.

versus MR. ANUBHAV MEHRISH .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 05.02.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 7849/2026 (Exemption) & CM APPL. 7850/2026 (Exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disposed of.

RC.REV. 41/2026 & CM APPL. 7848/2026 (Stay)

3. The present petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeks the following prayers: -

“A. Set aside the eviction order dated 27.10.2025 passed in RC ARC No. 458/2024;

B. Allow the Petitioner's Leave to Defend Application:

C. Restore the eviction petition to the stage of trial and direct adjudication after evidence;

D. Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.”

4. The present petition challenges the order dated 27.10.2025 whereby the learned ARC has dismissed the application seeking leave to defend preferred on behalf of the petitioner. The respondent had filed an eviction petition with respect to one shop at ground floor bearing Municipal No.1952, Ground Floor, Katra Lachhu Singh, H.C. Sen Road, Fountain, Chandni Chowk, having an area of around 28sq feet approximately.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the leave to defend application, the following plea was taken: -

“1. That the petitioner, Anubhav Mehrish has filed a false and frivolous petition U/S 14(1)(e) R/W Section 25(B) DRC Act against the respondent as the plaintiff has already sold out his residential share himself alongwith the relinquishment of his mother and elder brother in his ancestral property no.1953 on dated 14.11.2022 which is annexed herewith as Annexure-1 and the plaintiff has already sold out his commercial share in property no.1952/1954/1955 himself alongwith the relinquishment of his mother and elder brother in his ancestral property on dated 16.10.2023 which is annexed herewith as Annexure-2 which proves that neither the petitioner was the owner nor the landlord of this shop in question, which has been mentioned by the petitioner for eviction.”

6. It is submitted that along with the aforesaid leave to defend application, the copies of various sale deeds entered into by the respondent and his other family members selling their respective share to respective buyers, were placed on record to demonstrate that the respondent had already sold the entire plot except the subject shop to the builder way back in 2023. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the sale deed executed by the respondent in favour of one Mrs. Sadhna Sharma with respect to his 20 % share in the shop situated at ground floor bearing Municipal Number 1955. It is further submitted that this ground has not been considered by the learned Trial Court.

7. The Court has perused the impugned order dated 27.10.2025 and it is observed that this issue has been dealt with by the learned ARC in the following manner: -

“8.6 Now in view of this legal position, let me advert to the facts of the present case. In the entire application of leave to defend the respondent has failed to make any specific averment to deny the bonafide requirement of the petitioner and only vague denial has been made. Said denial cannot rebut the presumtion of bonafide requirement in favour of the petitioner, as discussed above. Again with respect to availability of alternate accommodation avaiable with the petitioner, the respondent has again made only vague averments and nothing is specified which shops were allegedly sold by the petitioner and when they were sold. In the reply of the application of leave to defend, the petitioner has clearly denied about any such sale of shops by him.”

8. Clearly, the sale deeds had been placed on record; however, the same ha