Mr. Mohit Seth, Adv v. DINESH KUMAR JAIN AND ANR

Judgment

1. The petitioner/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition being E-305/2020 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 against the respondents/ tenants3 seeking eviction from property bearing no.1349, first floor, largest room facing the main road with attached Chajja, Vaidwara, Maliwara, Delhi4 as per the Site Plan attached therewith, before the learned Administrative Civil Judge cum Additional Rent Controller (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi5, as there was a bona fide requirement to expand his own jewellery business in Delhi. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’ 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.163/2023 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:43:58

2. In a nutshell, as per landlord his father became the owner of the subject premises vide a Partition Deed on 07.09.1976, whereafter, he bequeathed his properties, including the subject premises, to the landlord vide a Will dated

01.05.19836. Although, the tenant no.1 took on rent the subject premises for use as a godown/ warehouse for only himself in the year 2000, however, he later requested his son, the tenant no.2 to be also inducted as a tenant. They only paid rent till January 2018, as they neither paid the rent nor House Tax charges after that. Though the landlord sent repeated Legal Notices to them, however, failure to pay the rent, coupled with his bona fide requirement to expand his jewellery business in absence of availability of a suitable alternative accommodation in or around Delhi, prompted filing of the eviction petition by him. 3. Upon service, the tenants filed an application for leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) & (5) of the DRC Act. Succinctly put, as per tenants, the landlord had no bona-fide requirement for the subject premises as he had no jewellery business in Jaipur and, hence, there was no requirement for its expansion in Delhi. The Will did not confer absolute title upon the landlord, and even otherwise there is no probate thereof. The landlord had vacant alternative accommodation available with him, specifically as it is his own case in paragraph 12 of the eviction petition that “The construction of the premises is old as our other properties in the area.” 4. In response thereto, the landlord categorically stated that there is a typographical error in paragraph 12 of the eviction petition as the word 6 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Will’ RC.REV.163/2023 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:43:58 “our” was to be read as “are”. 5. Vide order dated 14.10.20227, the learned ARC held the landlord tenant relationship existed between the parties. However, qua bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord, though the learned ARC has observed that the landlord had vaguely denied the availability of other suitable accommodation and rather admitted that there were other tenants in the building who had vacated the premises and further held that the landlord failed to explain as to how such vacant premises did not serve his requirement. With respect to the typographical error in paragraph 12 of the eviction petition, the learned ARC has held that the same cannot be brushed aside as it materially affects the merits of the case. Consequently, the learned ARC has held that the tenants were able to raise a triable issue and the availability of vacant suitable alternative accommodation in possession of the landlord was a subject matter of trial. Thus, the application seeking leave to defend of the tenants was allowed by the learned ARC. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition has been filed by the

landlord challenging the order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the learned ARC. 7. Mr. Mohit Seth, learned counsel for the landlord submits that the landlord is the true owner/ landlord of the subject premises as per the Will of his father, and that the Will does not need to be probated in Delhi. He submits that the vacant properties on the first floor do not belong to the landlord. He further submits that the typographical error in paragraph 12 of the eviction petition where the word “our” was to be read as “are” has been 7 Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’ RC.REV.163/2023 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:43:58 wrongly ignored by the learned ARC as that simply does not mean that the landlord was having an alternative accommodation with no corroboration by the tenants. 8. Mr. Mohit Seth, learned counsel relying upon Liaq Ahmed vs. Habeeb-Ur-Rehmaan8, submits that the tenants had only raised baseless and bald pleas, upon which their application for leave to defend could not have been allowed. Further relying upon Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua9, the learned counsel submits that the learned ARC had come to wrongful finding qua there being no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord and also that there were other reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available with the landlord. 9. Per contra, Mr. Jayant Pawar, learned counsel for the tenants submits that since the landlord is not running any jewellery business in Jaipur, there was no bona fide requirement for expansion thereof. Even otherwise, he submits that there was no proof thereof. He further submits that the landlord has sufficient vacant suitable alternative accommodation available with him. For this, he relied upon paragraph 12 of the eviction petition. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the documents on record and the case laws cited in support thereof as well. 11. Since there is no challenge to the finding qua the existence of landlord tenant relationship between the parties by the learned ARC, the same stands proven and need not be addressed any further by this Court.