Mr. O.P. Gupta, Advocate (Through VC) v. MOHIT ARORA ORS

Judgment

1. The respondent no.1/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition being RC ARC No.737/2019 titled as ‘Mohit Arora vs. Komal Garg & Ors.’ under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 against the petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 4/ tenants3 seeking eviction of one room situated at the first floor of property bearing private number 32-B First Floor, 165 to 166 and 203 to 232, Om Bhawan, Corporation Building, Fatehpuri, Chandni 1 hereinafter ‘landlord’ 2 hereinafter ‘the Act’ 3 hereinafter ‘tenants’ RC.REV. 196/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35 Chowk, Delhi-110 006 in Ward No.II, admeasuring 25.08 sq. meter of 18’x15’4 before the then learned Additional Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi5, on the ground that the same was required for his own bona fide need of storing equipment/ tools as also since the same was situated closer to where the landlords were presently working. 2. Briefly put, it was the case of the landlord that after the demise of his

father, he became the owner of the subject premises, which is affirmed by the Sale Deed dated 25.03.2008. The subject property was let out to the mother of the tenants, Ms. Kailash Devi for residential purposes and after her death the tenancy had devolved to the tenants herein. However, the tenants had shifted to Shahdara and the subject premises was lying locked. It was further stated that the landlord is running a business of sale/ resale of battery as well as repair of all electrical appliances and since the landlord is facing a space crunch, the subject premises are required for his bona fide requirement of keeping his equipment/ tools as well as other articles as also since the subject premises was situated closer to his present place of work. 3. Upon being served, all the tenants jointly filed an application under Section 25B(4) of the Act seeking leave to defend. It was primarily their case therein that the landlord was not the owner of the subject premises and the tenants had not been attorned. Rather, one M/s. Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. was the owner of the subject premises who inducted the mother of the tenants as the tenant. In any event, the Sale Deed dated 4 hereinafter ‘subject premises’ 5 hereinafter ‘learned ARC’ RC.REV. 196/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35

25.03.2008 was under challenge in a suit bearing no. CS(OS) 3164/2014 instituted by the said M/s. Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd., albeit, qua a different property. There was no resolution passed in favour of the Chairman Shri Kailash Nath. The eviction petition was bad for non-joinder of parties as Late Shri. Rajinder Prasad and his other legal heirs who were named in the Sale Deed dated 25.03.2008 were not impleaded in the eviction petition. The landlord had concealed that he was the owner of multiple (twenty four) properties in Chandni Chowk area besides inheriting various properties from his late father. The landlord was only interested in getting a higher rent from the subject premises. Between 2017 to 2019, the landlord had not only let out various properties but the landlord had also purchased several properties in the name of his wife Smt. Preeti Arora in and around Chandni Chowk area, which were also not specified in the eviction petition. 4. In response thereto, it was the case of the landlord that after the demise of his father, he became the sole/ absolute owner of the subject premises as there were no other legal heirs barring him, which is affirmed by the Sale Deed dated 25.03.2008. Also, the suit CS(OS) 3164/2014 instituted by M/s. Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. already stood withdrawn. Of the other properties referred by the tenants, in addition to the subject premises, the landlord was the owner of three of them and the other properties were in the name of his wife, who was a self-employed lady. 5. Based on the above, as also after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned ARC dismissed the application for leave to defend of the tenants and consequently eviction order was passed vide order dated RC.REV. 196/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35

08.01.20236. 6. Hence the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 08.01.2023 passed by the learned ARC. 7. On the very first day of listing of the present petition on 27.07.2024, this Court had recorded the following submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the tenants:- “… …7. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner, in application for grant of leave to defend along with affidavit, has mentioned that the respondent no. 1 is having more than 20 properties as alternative accommodation but the said fact was not properly dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned order dated 08.01.2024……”

8. Subsequent thereto, on 14.01.2025, this Court made certain observations qua the issues raised in the impugned order and recorded as under:- “5. The perusal of the Impugned Order shows that the landlord-tenant relationship and ownership of the subject premises is not under challenge. Respondent No.1 is the son of the original owner of the subject premises and a sale deed in support of ownership was also filed before the learned Trial Court. The challenge raised on this aspect by the Petitioners was repelled by the learned Trial Court, and this Court does not find any infirmity with the same.

6. On the aspect of bonafide need and alternate suitable accommodation, the need as projected by Respondent No.1 is for his personal business for sale and resale of batteries and repair of electronic goods. There is no challenge to that 6 hereinafter ‘impugned order’ RC.REV. 196/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35 aspect in the Impugned Order by the Petitioners as well.

7. The challenge in the Leave to Defend/ Contest Application filed by the Petitioners is to the availability of alternate properties which are stated to be available with Respondent No.1, including the properties of his wife. The Impugned Order also shows that each of the properties that are mentioned in the Leave to Defend/Contest Application filed by the Petitioners have been dealt with by the learned Tria Court.”

9. Regarding alternative accommodation available with the landlord, Mr. O.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the tenants submitted that the learned ARC, though has referred to the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Precision Steel Engineering Works and Another vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal7, but not appreciated it correctly. He submitted that the landlord was the owner of about twenty four properties in and around the same building in Chandni Chowk and that between the years 2017 to 2019, the landlord had got vacant possession of several properties, as also sold and bought properties as well. 10. Per Contra, Mr. Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the tenants failed to substantiate their assertion that the landlord was the owner of about twenty four properties. Even otherwise, there is no suitable alternative accommodation available with him as he only owned three other properties. Of them, one was under the tenancy of another tenant qua which the litigation was pending, another property was under the tenancy of one Mohit and the third property was in an inhabitable condition 7 AIR 1982 SC 1518 RC.REV. 196/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35 and was on the third floor. He submitted that the landlord was also facing a space crunch and was looking for a suitable place for keeping his equipment/ tools and the subject premises was situated closer to his present place of work. 11. Lastly, he submitted that as per the settled position of law, the degree of interference by the revisionary court is to be exercised sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances under Section 25B of the Act. 12. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties as also has gone through the documents as well as the judgments cited at the Bar. 13. This Court, on 14.01.2025, has already recorded that there is no challenge to the aspect of an existing landlord tenant relationship between the parties as also bona fide requirement of the landlord for the subject premises. There is no dispute qua that today as well. As such, this Court need not, thus, to go into either of the two aspects. Even otherwise, this Court is agreeable with the findings rendered by the learned ARC qua the said issues in the impugned order. Thus, the same need no interference. 14. Coming to the aspect of availability of alternative accommodation with the landlord, this Court has to view the same through the eyes of a revisionary Court while dealing with the present revision petition under Section 25B of the Act. 15. As held in Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand8 and Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal9, the tenants in the present case were required to raise a tenable

father, he became the owner of the subject premises, which is affirmed by the Sale Deed dated 25.03.2008. The subject property was let out to the mother of the tenants, Ms. Kailash Devi for residential purposes and after her death the tenancy had devolved to the tenants herein. However, the tenants had shifted to Shahdara and the subject premises was lying locked. It was further stated that the landlord is running a business of sale/ resale of battery as well as repair of all electrical appliances and since the landlord is facing a space crunch, the subject premises are required for his bona fide requirement of keeping his equipment/ tools as well as other articles as also since the subject premises was situated closer to his present place of work. 3. Upon being served, all the tenants jointly filed an application under Section 25B(4) of the Act seeking leave to defend. It was primarily their case therein that the landlord was not the owner of the subject premises and the tenants had not been attorned. Rather, one M/s. Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. was the owner of the subject premises who inducted the mother of the tenants as the tenant. In any event, the Sale Deed dated 4 hereinafter ‘subject premises’ 5 hereinafter ‘learned ARC’ RC.REV. 196/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35

25.03.2008 was under challenge in a suit bearing no. CS(OS) 3164/2014 instituted by the said M/s. Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd., albeit, qua a different property. There was no resolution passed in favour of the Chairman Shri Kailash Nath. The eviction petition was bad for non-joinder of parties as Late Shri. Rajinder Prasad and his other legal heirs who were named in the Sale Deed dated 25.03.2008 were not impleaded in the eviction petition. The landlord had concealed that he was the owner of multiple (twenty four) properties in Chandni Chowk area besides inheriting various properties from his late father. The landlord was only interested in getting a higher rent from the subject premises. Between 2017 to 2019, the landlord had not only let out various properties but the landlord had also purchased several properties in the name of his wife Smt. Preeti Arora in and around Chandni Chowk area, which were also not specified in the eviction petition. 4. In response thereto, it was the case of the landlord that after the demise of his father, he became the sole/ absolute owner of the subject premises as there were no other legal heirs barring him, which is affirmed by the Sale Deed dated 25.03.2008. Also, the suit CS(OS) 3164/2014 instituted by M/s. Om Oil & Oil Seeds Exchange Ltd. already stood withdrawn. Of the other properties referred by the tenants, in addition to the subject premises, the landlord was the owner of three of them and the other properties were in the name of his wife, who was a self-employed lady. 5. Based on the above, as also after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned ARC dismissed the application for leave to defend of the tenants and consequently eviction order was passed vide order dated RC.REV. 196/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35

08.01.20236. 6. Hence the present revision petition seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 08.01.2023 passed by the learned ARC. 7. On the very first day of listing of the present petition on 27.07.2024, this Court had recorded the following submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the tenants:- “… …7. The counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner, in application for grant of leave to defend along with affidavit, has mentioned that the respondent no. 1 is having more than 20 properties as alternative accommodation but the said fact was not properly dealt with by the trial court while passing the impugned order dated 08.01.2024……”

8. Subsequent thereto, on 14.01.2025, this Court made certain observations qua the issues raised in the impugned order and recorded as under:- “5. The perusal of the Impugned Order shows that the landlord-tenant relationship and ownership of the subject premises is not under challenge. Respondent No.1 is the son of the original owner of the subject premises and a sale deed in support of ownership was also filed before the learned Trial Court. The challenge raised on this aspect by the Petitioners was repelled by the learned Trial Court, and this Court does not find any infirmity with the same.

6. On the aspect of bonafide need and alternate suitable accommodation, the need as projected by Respondent No.1 is for his personal business for sale and resale of batteries and repair of electronic goods. There is no challenge to that 6 hereinafter ‘impugned order’ RC.REV. 196/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35 aspect in the Impugned Order by the Petitioners as well.

7. The challenge in the Leave to Defend/ Contest Application filed by the Petitioners is to the availability of alternate properties which are stated to be available with Respondent No.1, including the properties of his wife. The Impugned Order also shows that each of the properties that are mentioned in the Leave to Defend/Contest Application filed by the Petitioners have been dealt with by the learned Tria Court.”

9. Regarding alternative accommodation available with the landlord, Mr. O.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the tenants submitted that the learned ARC, though has referred to the dicta of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Precision Steel Engineering Works and Another vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal7, but not appreciated it correctly. He submitted that the landlord was the owner of about twenty four properties in and around the same building in Chandni Chowk and that between the years 2017 to 2019, the landlord had got vacant possession of several properties, as also sold and bought properties as well. 10. Per Contra, Mr. Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the tenants failed to substantiate their assertion that the landlord was the owner of about twenty four properties. Even otherwise, there is no suitable alternative accommodation available with him as he only owned three other properties. Of them, one was under the tenancy of another tenant qua which the litigation was pending, another property was under the tenancy of one Mohit and the third property was in an inhabitable condition 7 AIR 1982 SC 1518 RC.REV. 196/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.10.2025 17:48:35 and was on the third floor. He submitted that the landlord was also facing a space crunch and was looking for a suitable place for keeping his equipment/ tools and the subject premises was situated closer to his present place of work. 11. Lastly, he submitted that as per the settled position of law, the degree of interference by the revisionary court is to be exercised sparingly and only under exceptional circumstances under Section 25B of the Act. 12. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties as also has gone through the documents as well as the judgments cited at the Bar. 13. This Court, on 14.01.2025, has already recorded that there is no challenge to the aspect of an existing landlord tenant relationship between the parties as also bona fide requirement of the landlord for the subject premises. There is no dispute qua that today as well. As such, this Court need not, thus, to go into either of the two aspects. Even otherwise, this Court is agreeable with the findings rendered by the learned ARC qua the said issues in the impugned order. Thus, the same need no interference. 14. Coming to the aspect of availability of alternative accommodation with the landlord, this Court has to view the same through the eyes of a revisionary Court while dealing with the present revision petition under Section 25B of the Act. 15. As held in Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand8 and Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal9, the tenants in the present case were required to raise a tenable