RC.REV. 158/2020Page 1 of 28

$~1 (SB-I)

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

RC.REV. 158/2020

DR. SANJIV GUPTA & ANR.

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr

Mukul

Gupta,

Senior

Advocate with Mr Nitin Soni,

Mr Sanjay Sharma and Mr

Sumit

Kumar

Mishra,

Advocates. (M: 9810434067)

versus

SH. S.S. VERMA

…. Respondent

Through:

Mr Mohit Khanna, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

NAJMI WAZRI, J. (ORAL)

The hearing has been conducted through hybrid mode (physical

and virtual hearing).

1.The petitioners impugn the order dated 24.10.2019 passed by

the learned Additional Rent Controller („ARC‟), Patiala House

Courts, New Delhi, granting the respondent-tenant Leave to

Defend, in the petitioner‟s application seeking the tenant‟s

eviction under section 14(1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,

1958. Since 1983, the tenant is in occupation of the tenanted

premises comprising two rooms- one large and one small, one

pantry, one wash room and an open area in the rear portion of

the building numbered as 82/10, First Floor, Tolstoy Lane,

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001556

RC.REV. 158/2020Page 2 of 28

Janpath, New Delhi. The property is located in New Delhi‟s

most prestigious commercial area. The tenanted area marked in

the site plan filed with the eviction petition is reproduced

hereunder:-

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001556

RC.REV. 158/2020Page 3 of 28

2.The

son and daughter-in-law of petitioner

no.1

are

professionals. Since 2009 the son is a practicing advocate in

Delhi, his wife is a Chartered Accountant. They are dependent

upon petitioner no. 1 for their office accommodation and would

like to be provided the same at the earliest so that they can

firmly establish and augment their professional career.

According to them, there can be no other place more suitable,

convenient and a more prestigious, address than the tenanted

premises which lies in the heart of New Delhi, i.e. Connaught

Place.

3.There is no dispute qua the existence of landlord-tenant

relationship. The petitioners/landlords have brought on record

documents to show their right and title in the property. It has

been mentioned in the impugned order as under:

“…

photograph, copy of the site plan map. …”

4.The sole reason why the leave to defend was granted is that the

tenants

had

made

out

a

triable

case

apropos

the

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001556

RC.REV. 158/2020Page 4 of 28

petitioners/landlords having alternate accommodation in the

vicinity.

5.In the leave to defend application, the respondent/tenant has

contended that the landlord owns: i) a property bearing no.2,

Commissioner Lane, Civil Lines, Delhi -110054, where four

people reside, ii) property nos. 82 & 84 Tolstoy Lane, Janpath,

which are composite properties and there are a lot of vacant

portions available therein; iii) petitioner no.1 is “stated to be

occupying” 200sq. ft. of area on the ground floor of property

bearing no. 82, Tolstoy Lane, Janpath; iv) the petitioners have

let out 2673 sq. ft. of the first floor to a tenant and some portion

to ICICI Bank on the ground floor and; v) the petitioners also

own a property in Bazar Sitaram, Delhi.

6.It is the tenant‟s contention that the leave to defend has rightly

been granted because the landlord is seeking additional

accommodation whereas, he is already in possession of alternate

vacant space in the same building one unit-room on the ground

floor, which was earlier occupied by the bank, now stands

vacated.

7.In the eviction petition, the petitioners/landlords have

elaborately explained the reason why the shop on the ground

floor, albeit larger in size, than the tenanted premises, is not

suitable. It has averred as under:

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: