Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Imran Khan and Ms. Jahanvi Garg, Advocates v. RADHEY SHYAM VERMA

Judgment

1. The petitioners/ landlords1 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, New Delhi District, Patiala House, New Delhi3 seeking eviction of the respondent/ tenant4 from the tenanted shop i.e., shop in property no. IV/1/58, survey no.52/15, Gopi Nath Bazar, Shastri Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-1100105. 2. As per landlords, they were the joint purchasers of the property(s) bearing no. IV/1/58, 59,60, survey no. 52/15, Gopi Nath Bazar, Shastri Bazar, Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010 through a registered Sale Deed 1 Hereinafter referred to as “landlords” 2 Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” 3 Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC” 4 Hereinafter referred to as “tenant” 5 Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises” RC.REV. 232/2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:25.09.2025 19:44:15 dated 15.12.2005. Out of the said properties, property bearing no. IV/1/58, survey no. 52/15, is the tenanted shop/ subject premises admeasuring 11’3 x 25’. 3. In was also the case of the landlords that prior to filing of the said Eviction Petition, they had instituted Suit no.272/ 2016 before the learned Additional District Judge-01, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi6 against the very same tenant for a decree of possession, recovery of damages, and mesne profits for unauthorized occupation of the subject premises. It was the case of the tenant therein that he was inducted

as a tenant in the subject premises on 06.02.1986 by one Mr. Ajay Gupta, the erstwhile owner, and that he had subsequently started depositing rent under Section 27 of the DRC Act. Vide judgment and decree dated

31.10.2019, though the said suit was held to be barred in view of the embargo of Section 50 of the DRC Act, however, it was held that the landlord tenant relationship between the parties was established as the landlords became the predecessor-in-interest of the erstwhile owner, Mr. Ajay Gupta, due to the transfer of leasehold rights in their favour. 4. As such, as per the landlords, there being no challenge thereto by the tenant, the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 has attained finality, and is binding upon the tenant. The landlords then sent a Legal Notice dated 22.09.2020 to the tenant. In response thereto, on 25.09.2020, though the tenant accepted the landlord tenant relationship between the parties, however, he denied that there was a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlords. 6 Hereinafter referred to as “learned ADJ” RC.REV. 232/2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:25.09.2025 19:44:15

5. It was also the case of the landlords that their earnings took a hit due to Covid-19 pandemic, and that they intended to start a new joint business for providing a source of sustenance and financial help for their respective families, however, they had no alternative accommodation/ commercial property to start the new joint business. 6. Upon service of the eviction petition, the tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) and (5) of the DRC Act, contending that as per the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019, no landlord-tenant relationship existed inter se them since the Delhi Cantonment Board was owner of the subject premises and Mr. Ajay Gupta, being a mere lessee, could not have sold his rights therein via the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2005 to any third party like the landlords. In effect, the said Sale Deed was admittedly illegal vide judgment and decree dated

31.10.2019, as also the tenant in the civil suit had produced and proven a document denying the title of the landlords therein. 7. It was also the case of the tenant that there was no bona fide requirement as all the three landlords were gainfully employed, and that they never disclosed the nature/ kind of businesses they intended to commence from the subject premises. Also, the landlords concealed that they were having numerous alternate accommodations. 8. After hearing both parties, by virtue of the order dated 11.07.2022,7 the learned ARC held that the tenant was able to raise triable issues qua bona fide requirement as the landlords did not disclose the nature of the business they intended to carry, as also failed to demonstrate/ disclose the RC.REV. 232/2022 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:25.09.2025 19:44:15 dependency of their family members and the current source of income. As such, the application for leave to defend of the tenant was allowed. 9. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is preferred by the landlords. 10. On 23.09.2022, this Court issued notice and stayed further proceedings in the Eviction Petition before the learned ARC. 11. Today, Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, learned counsel for the landlords submits that there is a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 15.12.2005 which was affirmed through the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2019 whereby the learned ADJ held that the landlords were indeed the landlords of the subject premises as they are the predecessor-in-interest of Mr. Ajay Gupta, erstwhile owner, due to the transfer of lease hold rights qua the subject premises. 12. Further, relying upon Raj Kumar Khaitan & Ors. v. Bibi Zubaida Khatun & Anr.8, Shri Gurcharan Lal Kumar v. Srimati Satyawati & Ors.9 and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Company10, he submits that the reasons given by the learned ARC qua the impugned order is contrary to the settled position of law as the landlords were not required to indicate the precise nature of the business they intended to commence from the subject premises as also a presumption of bona fide requirement has to be considered in favour of the landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. Then, relying upon Vijay Sharma v. Namita Aggarawal11,