Mr. V.K. Sharma, Adv v. ISHWAR CHAND

Judgment

1. Although no formal notice has been issued in the present matter, the respondent has entered appearance before this Court. With the consent of the parties, the present matter was taken up for hearing and is being disposed of by way of this judgment. 2. The petitioner/ landlord instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581 before the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi2 seeking eviction of the respondent/ tenant from Shop No. 2, Ground Floor, Property No. 20-E/1, Babarpur Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110 0323. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ARC’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject premises’ RC.REV. 215/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:11.11.2025 14:52:34

3. Succinctly put, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties before the learned ARC that as per landlord, he is the owner of the entire built-up property bearing No. 20-E/1, Babarpur Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi- 1100324, wherein the subject premises is situated and is comprising of two

shops and one godown on the ground floor, one godown on the first floor, and the second and third floors. The said property was originally owned by one Mr. Vipin Gupta, who had let out the subject premises to the tenant in 1984. Later, after the landlord purchased the premises vide a registered Sale Deed dated 26.09.2006, admittedly, the tenant started paying the monthly rent @ Rs. 350/- to the landlord, however, no fresh Rent Deed was executed between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord expressed his bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises since his unemployed married son, Yashasvi, intended to open a general store so as to earn his livelihood independently. 4. Upon service of summons, the respondent/ tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend under Sections 25B(4) and (5) of the DRC Act, inter alia contending that (i) the DRC Act was inapplicable, (ii) there was no bona fide requirement of the landlord since his son was already employed and was running a shop in the name of M/s Akansha Generators (iii) there were other sufficient alternative accommodations available with the landlord. 5. The learned ARC, after considering the materials on record and hearing the parties, vide order dated 24.05.20245, allowed the tenant’s leave to defend application holding that the landlord has “... ...failed to 4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘property’ 5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned order’ RC.REV. 215/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:11.11.2025 14:52:34 make out a prima facie (case) qua his bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises so as to be entitled, at this stage, to the relief of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. Further, it would also have to be proved in trial whether the area of Babarpur is covered under the DRC Act. Consequently, the tenant’s application seeking leave to defend was allowed... ...” 6. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord is before this Court by way of the present revision petition impugning the order dated 24.05.2024 of the learned ARC. 7. Mr. V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the bona fide requirement on account of the married son of the landlord for the subject premises was genuine as he intended to carry out his own independent business to meet his day-to-day expenses, more so, since the subject premises was the only suitable commercial accommodation available with the landlord. He, then, submitted that Babarpur village wherein the subject property is situated falls within the revenue estate of Maujpur, which has been urbanized vide Notification issued under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. As such, he sought setting aside of the impugned order. 8. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the tenant submitted that no revision petition is maintainable against an order allowing an application seeking leave to defend like that of the tenant. He submitted that the tenant was able to raise a substantial triable issue qua the bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord, as it was substantiated by photographs showing the son of the landlord being already gainfully employed since he was running a showroom/ shop of RC.REV. 215/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:11.11.2025 14:52:34 water filter and inverter batteries under the name of M/s. Akansha Generators. Then, relying upon Dr. (Mrs.) N.D. Khanna vs. Hindustan Industrial Corporation6, he submitted that since there were no pleadings about the landlord having any other reasonable, suitable or alternative accommodation with him in the eviction petition, there was a non- disclosure of cause of action. Lastly, relying upon Smt. Jamna Devi & Ors. vs. Kude Ram & Anr.7, Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Anr. vs. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal8, Sukh Dev Raj Sharma vs. Kuljeet Singh Jass9, Rakesh Kumar vs. Pawan Khanna10, he submitted that barring the aforesaid, the tenant had also raised various other triable issues in his application for leave to defend. In effect, he supported the impugned order. 9. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as also gone through the documents and pleadings on record and the case law cited by them at Bar. 10. At the outset, in view of the judgments in R.S. Bakshi vs. H.K. Malhari11, R.S. Bakshi vs. H.K. Malhari12, Sanjay Mehra vs. Sunil Malhotra13, Prem Lata vs. Pawan Kumar Khurana14, Pravesh Jain vs. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd.15, Amrit Mohini & Anr. vs. Brij Mohan Gupta16, this Court need not dwell upon the issue of maintainability of the 6 AIR 1981 Del 305. 7 AIR 1982 SC 1456. 8 AIR 1982 SC 1518. 9 (2012) 195 DLT 56 (Del.). 10 (2012) 195 DLT 341 (Del.) 11 (2002) 62 DRJ 272 (DB) 12 (2003) 67 DRJ 410 13 (2010) 117 DRJ 654 14 (2012) 187 DLT 340, 15 2017 SCC OnLine Del 10882 16 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6008 RC.REV. 215/2024 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:11.11.2025 14:52:34 present revision petition. The said objection of the tenant is, thus, outrightly rejected. 11. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the application seeking leave to defend of the tenant has been allowed by the learned ARC, firstly, on the ground that the landlord had failed to establish a prima facie case qua his bona fide requirement of the subject premises and secondly, since the subject premises is situated in the area of Babarpur, the DRC Act was not applicable. 12. Before this Court, there is no dispute qua the landlord-tenant relationship inter se the parties. Therefore, the finding by the learned ARC that “… …from the affidavits of both the parties, the relationship of the landlord and tenant between the parties does not seem to be disputed… …” is established. 13. Regarding bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord, the landlord has always maintained that the same is needed for a dependent family member, i.e., his unemployed married son. As held in Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Company17 and Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini 18, a genuine assertion by the landlord like the above is generally sufficient for the learned ARC to presume the genuineness of his bona fide requirement for the subject premises. Nonetheless, as held in Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua19 and Baldev Singh Bajwa (supra), the same is rebuttable, but only if the tenant is able to make meaningful assertions and substantiate them to having raised