$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 28^th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 9^th April, 2026 + RC.REV. 294/2023 & CM APPL. 55270/2023 BATLIBOI LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Akshay Ringe, Mr. Rambhakt Agarwal, Ms. Megha Mukherjee, Mr. Suyash D. Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Anjum Singh, Mr. Amit Kr. Singh, Mr. Varun Maheshwari, Mr. Manan Soni, Advs. versus KIRAN SHARMA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Mittal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Amit Sharma, Mr. Sourav Kumar, Mr. Praveen Tanwar &

Ms. Kashish Jain, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

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

“The Petitioner humbly prays before this Hon’ble Court:

i. That the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed in RC ARC no. 5026 of 2015 titled Kiran Sharma Vs. Batliboi Ltd. be reversed and the eviction petition be dismissed;

ii. Pass any other or further orders in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The present petition assails the order dated 27.04.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Order”), passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Learned ARC”), in RC ARC No. 5026/15 (hereinafter referred to as the “Eviction Petition/Eviction Proceeding”) whereby, eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act, preferred on behalf of Mr. Kiran Sharma, i.e., the present Respondent, against M/s Batliboi Ltd., i.e., the present Petitioner, was allowed and an eviction order was passed qua the present Petitioner.

3. Relevant facts, necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under: -

i. The property bearing Plot No. N-197-A, Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Tenanted Premises”) was acquired by the mother of the Respondent, namely Mrs. Sumitra Devi Sharma, by virtue of a Registered Sale Deed dated 20.01.1961. Thereafter, after her demise on 20.07.1991, the tenanted premises devolved upon her legal heirs, i.e., the Respondent along with his brother and sister;

ii. The tenanted premises were let out by the mother of the Respondent, to the present Petitioner, vide a lease deed dated 02.11.1976 at a monthly rent of INR 1150/-;

iii.It was stated that the Petitioner had stopped paying rent for the tenanted premises after the year 1997 and because of successive defaults in payment of rent, the Respondent had preferred an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, in the year 1997. It was further stated that since the Respondent and the other co-owners of the tenanted premises were residing in Malaysia, the said eviction petition could not be pursued diligently and the same was dismissed in default for non-prosecution in the year 2000;

iv. It was further stated that a legal notice dated 06.06.2012 was issued by the Respondent to the Petitioner for terminating the tenancy and seeking vacation of the tenanted premises. Thereafter, a reply dated 12.07.2012 to the said notice was received by the Respondent, whereby the Petitioner had refused to vacate the tenanted premises;

v. A Civil Suit bearing No. 247/2014 was preferred by the Respondent before the Court of learned ADJ, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, against the Petitioner, seeking ejectment of the latter from the tenanted premises. The said Civil Suit was dismissed vide order dated 02.02.2015, being barred by Section 50 of the DRC Act, and thereafter, the present eviction petition was preferred by the Respondent against the Petitioner;

vi. The bona fide requirement as stated by the Respondent was that the tenanted premises are required by the Respondent and his daughter, as they wanted to settle in Delhi and further the Respondent required the tenanted premises, n