Kumar, Mr. Harsh Bansiwal, Mr. Rishabh Khari and Mr. Ribhu Priydarshee, Advocates v. SATISH CHANDER SIKKA

Judgment

1. The respondent/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 before the learned SCJ-cum-RC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi3 seeking eviction of the petitioner/ tenant4 from property i.e. Shop admeasuring 22’9” 1 hereinafter referred to as “landlord” 2 hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” 3 hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC” 4 hereinafter referred to as “tenant” RC.REV. 35/2023 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:18:26 x 9’4 ½”, Ground Floor, 13/33, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 for the bona

fide requirement of the premises to enable his grandson, Mr. Vaibhav Sikka to establish his independent business of food and beverages, as there was no other suitable alternate accommodation available. 2. In brief, as per landlord, he became the absolute owner of the complete property having the subject premises vide order dated 30.03.2007 passed by this Court in a Suit for Partition being CS(OS) no.2007/1999 entitled Suresh Chandra Sikka Vs. Salish Chandra Sikka. On the strength of a Rent Agreement dated 16.11.1983, whereby the subject premises was let out to M/s. Mohindra Electronics, sole proprietorship of the tenant herein, and then vide Rent Agreement dated 16.09.1985, it was transferred to the name of the tenant, there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Moreover, there was a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord for his grandson to establish a new fast food/ dessert cafe restaurant business as, after completing his MBA, he had left his job. Considering the location of the subject premises as well as the purpose of the bona fide requirement for his grandson, there were no other suitable alternative accommodation with the landlord to cater to the aforesaid bona fide requirement for opening a fast food/ dessert cafe restaurant. 3. Upon service, the tenant filed an application for leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) and (5) of the DRC Act. In a nutshell it was the case of the tenant that the eviction petition was not maintainable by the General Power 5 hereinafter referred to as “subject premises” RC.REV. 35/2023 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:18:26 of Attorney6 holder as the site plan had not been filed by the landlord and there was more than one owner of the subject premises. It was also their case that there was no bona fide requirement of subject premises for the grandson of landlord as he, in view of his ‘LinkedIn’ profile status, was working, thus, well settled and not financially dependent upon the landlord, and the landlord had alternative accommodation available with him, and he had sold and bought various properties recently as well. 4. In response thereto, as per landlord, though the tenant had admitted the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, however, he had taken inconsistent pleas therein qua ownership of the landlord. 5. Finding that the tenant was unable to raise any triable issue qua any of the issues of there being no landlord tenant relationship between the parties, there being no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord, and there being no available alternative accommodation for the landlord, the learned ARC vide order dated 24.09.20227 allowed the eviction petition of the landlord and directed eviction of the tenant from the subject premises, albeit, after the period of six months, in terms of Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, are over. 6. 7. Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant, referring to Hence, the present revision petition by the tenant. Rahabhar Productions (P) Ltd. vs. Rajendra K. Tandon8, M.M. Quasim vs. 6hereinafter referred to as “GPA” 7hereinafter referred to as “impugned order” 8(1998) 4 SCC 49 RC.REV. 35/2023 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:18:26 Manohar Lal Sharma9, Khem Chand & Ors. vs. Arjun Jain & Ors.10, Vishwanath vs. Gurmeet Singh & Anr.11, Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh12, Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand13 and Precision Steel & Engineering Works vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal14 submitted that the landlord is not the exclusive owner of the subject premises; and since there were discrepancies qua the GPA filed by the landlord in the eviction petition, the same was not maintainable; and the grandson of the landlord, for whom the subject premises is being sought, was working in JK Tyre Industries Ltd., since 2016; and his grandson was inexperienced for running a food business. As such, the demand of landlord for the subject premises is not tenable since there is no bona fide requirement. He further submitted that since there are several alternative accommodations available with the landlord in the same building, triable issues were raised qua the aforesaid grounds and the present petition should be allowed. 8. Per contra, Mr. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the landlord, relying on the judgments entitled M/s. Ramnath Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vinita Mehta &Anr.15 and Shakuntala Devi vs. N.S. Mohan Chit Fund & Finance Co. Pvt. Ltd.16, submitted that the issue qua GPA was a technical defect, which stood rectified and the learned ARC has taken due note thereof. He then