Mr. Pradeep Gupta, Adv. (through VC) v. SMT POOJA

Judgment

1. The respondent/ landlady1 filed an Eviction Petition being RC/ ARC No. 09/ 20 titled as ‘Smt. Pooja vs. Subhash Gupta & Ors.’ under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 against the petitioners/ tenants3 seeking eviction from shop nos. 1 and 2 on ground floor of property bearing no. A-4/27, Krishna Nagar, Delhi- 1100514 before the learned SCJ/ RC5, on the ground of bona fide requirement for opening a departmental/ grocery store to be operated by the landlady herself and her son as there was no suitable alternative accommodation available with her for the said purpose. 2. Succinctly put, it was the case of the landlady in her Eviction 1 Hereinafter referred to as “landlady” 2 Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” 3 Hereinafter referred to as “tenants” 4 Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises” 5 Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC” RC.REV. 116/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:02:12 Petition that her late husband became the owner of the subject premises vide registered Will dated 01.12.1992 executed by her late mother-in-law and subsequently, vide registered Will dated 27.05.2011, executed by her late husband in landlady’s favour, she became the owner thereof. Further, the tenants were old joint tenants in the said shop(s), which were let out to the late father of the tenants by the late mother-in-law of the landlady through an oral agreement, and for which they were paying a monthly rent of Rs.150/-. As such, the landlady became the owner of the subject premises by operation of law. It was also her case that since she and her son Sh. Sunny Chawla intended to open a big departmental/ grocery store, a bona fide requirement arose although there were other accommodations however, they were/are not ‘suitable’ for the aforesaid purpose. 3. Upon being served, the tenants filed an application under Sections 25B(4) and 25B(5) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend wherein it was primarily their case that the registered Will(s) dated 01.12.1992 and

27.05.2011, through which ownership was claimed, were null and void in the absence of probate and barring the landlady, there were various other co-owners of the subject premises as well. More so, the landlady failed to disclose her source of income and her financial status. It was also their case that her son, Sh. Sunny Chawla, was already running a business of selling cosmetics and other ancillary goods under the name and style of M/s. Stella from property bearing no.KG-1/346, shop no.2, Vikaspuri, Delhi-110 018, with GSTIN No. 07ADUFS06781Z9, as also since the subject premises was situated in residential area and as per the Master Plan 2020-21, it was not fit for opening a departmental/ grocery store. It RC.REV. 116/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.11.2025 17:02:12 was also their case that the landlady had possession of shop nos.7 and 8 and a big hall situated behind the subject premises along with various other alternative accommodations all across Delhi, which were fit for opening up a departmental/ grocery store. 4. After hearing both sides, the learned ARC passed order dated

12.03.2020 granting leave to defend and directed the tenants to file their written statement. Thereafter, the tenants filed their written statement and both parties led their respective evidence. Based thereon, the learned ARC passed an order of eviction dated 08.12.20236 in favour of the landlady and directed the tenants to vacate the subject premises. 5. Being aggrieved thereby, the tenants have preferred the present revision petition impugning the eviction order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the learned ARC. 6. This Court, vide order 13.02.2025 had issued notice in application being CM APPL. 8662/2025 moved by the tenants for raising additional grounds. As such, the same shall be adjudicated along with all the other grounds raised by the tenants in the present revision petition. Thereafter, this Court stayed the execution proceedings vide order dated 28.03.2025. 7.

Today, Mr. Pradeep Gupta, learned counsel for the tenants, relying upon Mitter Sen Jain vs. Shakuntala Devi 7, Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra (Dead) through his Lrs.8, Sunder Dass vs. Ram Prakash, 9 Seema Rani vs. Umesh Kumar Trehan,10 and Nitin Arora &