$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 15^th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 12^th March, 2026 + RC.REV.165/2018 GOPAL KRISHAN PURI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S. C. Singhal, Advocate.

versus UCO BANK .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajesh Rattan, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present revision petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the “DRC Act”), seeks the following prayers: -

“It is, therefore, prayed that the present petition be allowed and the impugned judgement Dated 15.01.2018 passed in Eviction Petition No. 81/2012 by the court of Shri Navjeet Budhiraja, ACJ/CCJ/ARC(West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi be set aside by accepting the present petition and eviction order be passed in terms of the prayer clause of the eviction petition.

Any other or further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondent.”

2. The present revision petition assails the impugned judgment dated 15.01.2018, passed by the learned ARC, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “learned ARC”), in Eviction Petition No. 81/2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “eviction petition”), whereby the eviction petition preferred by the petitioner against the respondent was dismissed.

3. It was the case of the petitioner that he is the owner/landlord of premises bearing No. B-7, Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, Delhi-110015 (hereinafter referred to as the “subject premises”), which he had inherited from his father, late Shri Badri Nath. A tenancy was created in the year 1964 for a period of ten years, by the father of the petitioner in respect of two rooms and a veranda on the ground floor of the subject premises (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted premises”) vide a registered Lease Deed in favour of the respondent. The said tenancy was further renewed for another period of ten years, up to 31.12.1985. Thereafter, no further lease deed was executed and the tenancy became a month-to-month tenancy at a rent of INR

190/- per month.

4. It was further stated that the tenanted premises were bona fidely required by the petitioner and his family members, as the existing accommodation forming part of the subject premises, consisting of one room on the ground floor, three rooms on the first floor and one barsati room on the second floor, was highly insufficient for the purposes of residing. It was further stated that the petitioner has a large family comprising himself, his wife, two married sons, their wives and two granddaughters, and on account of age-related ailments and knee problems, the petitioner and his wife faced difficulty in climbing stairs and required accommodation on the ground floor of the subject premises. It was further pleaded that no other alternate accommodation was available to meet the said requirement of the petitioner.

5. It was further stated that the petitioner was residing in the subject premises, where the tenanted premises are situated. The portion of the premises where the petitioner resides consists of one room on the ground floor, three rooms and one drawing room on the first floor, and one barsati room on the second floor.

6. An application seeking leave to defend dated 29.09.2011 was filed on behalf of the respondent. Thereafter, a reply to the leave to defend application dated 27.02.2012 was filed by the petitioner in the eviction proceedings. Leave to defend was allowed vide order dated 20.11.2013, pursuant to which the respondent filed its written statement dated 07.01.2014, and the petitioner filed its replication dated 19.02.2014.

7. Evidence was led by both parties, and the petitioner stood cross- examined on 24.01.2015, while RW-1 stood cross-examined on 09.09.2015. The eviction proceedings were finally heard on 11.01.2018, and the impugned order was passed on 15.01.2018 b