$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 17^th February, 2026 Pronounced on: 15^th April, 2026 + RC. REV. 200/2023 SMT NATHO DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manu Sishodia and Ms. Hina Rajput, Advocates.

versus PADAM SINGH .....Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Bardhan Mohanty, Mr.

Sagar, Ms. Nilakshi Chaudhary and Ms. Rubi Kumari, Advocates.

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, For short, ‘DRCA’, has been filed seeking the following prayers: -

“In view of the above said facts and submissions, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to :

a) call for records of Eviction Petition No.E-123/14/10 titled as 'Smt.Natho Devi vs Padam Singh' from Ld.Trial Court;

b) set-aside the impugned Order dated 24.2.2021 passed by Shri Ajay Nagar, Ld.ARC (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. E- 123/14/10 titled as 'Smt.Natho Devi vs Padam Singh' and allow the petition of the petitioner, as prayed for, in the interest of justice c) pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent..”

2. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord assailing the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 passed by learned ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Eviction Petition No.E-123/14/10 qua the premises comprising one room and balcony on the First Floor at Property No.10528, Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘demised premises’). By way of the impugned judgment, learned ARC has dismissed the eviction petition filed on behalf of the petitioner-landlord.

3. The petitioner had filed subject eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises. It was stated that the premises were let out by the petitioner to the respondent for residential purposes and the latter has been residing there along with his family members. In the eviction petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the owner/landlady of the demised premises and same was purchased by her vide usual document, i.e., Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, etc., all dated 27.12.1990, from the grandfather of her husband, namely, Bholu Ram. It is further stated that, even otherwise, the grandfather of her husband was the owner of the demised premises. It is further stated that after death of the father-in-law of the petitioner, the subject property default on all the legal heirs of her father-in-law which included five other brothers, besides her husband. All six brothers are residing in the property bearing No.10525-27, and all six brothers are having their own family members. Five brothers of petitioner’s husband were residing on the ground floor and first floor of the property along with their respective family members. It is further stated that legal heirs of three deceased brothers of her husband were residing in ground floor of the aforesaid property, whereas two brothers and their family members were residing on the first-floor portion of the said property. It is the case of the petitioner that she is staying on the second-floor portion of the property and is having one room and one tin shed only which is not habitable and cannot be counted as a room. The family of the petitioner comprised of her husband, her three daughters, and herself. The petitioner and her husband are senior citizens and their one daughter is married and other two unmarried and are staying with the petitioner in the said one room with great difficulty. It was further stated that their married daughter visits the petitioner along with her husband and due to lack of accommodation, the petitioner cannot accommodate her married daughter owing to the insufficient space available with her, and