Mr. Satyam Thareja and Mr. Deepak Kumar Arya, Advs v. RAM KISHORE AGGARWAL

RC.REV. 710/2019 Page 1 of 5 $~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 710/2019 & CM APPL. 55729/2019 KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satyam Thareja and Mr. Deepak Kumar Arya, Advs. Versus RAM KISHORE AGGARWAL (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS .....Respondent Through: Mr. Deepak Kr. Agarwal, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 02.12.2025 1. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner/ tenant seeks setting aside of the order dated 30.10.2019 (impugned order) passed by learned Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari District Courts, Delhi (learned RC) whereby Eviction Petition No.77383/2016 filed by the respondent/ landlord under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) qua the premises being two rooms measuring 425 sq. ft. (approximately) in the front portion of first floor of property no.17A, Block No.3, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110 003 (subject premises) has been allowed, and the application of the tenant seeking leave to defend has been dismissed. 2. It is primarily the case of the tenant before this Court that considering the size of the subject premises, the requirement urged by the landlord of operating his business was impossible, as also since the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:08:04 RC.REV. 710/2019 Page 2 of 5 landlord was already carrying on business from other spaces within the same property of which the subject premises was a part. The same, as per learned counsel for the tenant was sufficient to qualify as a triable issue. In furtherance thereof, learned counsel submits that there was lack of bona fide on part of the landlord, since no requirement was specifically shown by him for the subject premises. Further, relying upon Naveen Kumar vs. Rekha Sharma 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2831 and Sanjay Kumar Sharma vs. Urmila Jain 2025 SCC OnLine Del 2167, wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that triable issues were raised since the landlord(s) therein had abstained from clarifying qua occupancy/ tenancy of alternative accommodation(s) as in the site plan(s), he submits that since in the present case too, the landlord filed a vague Site Plan, and did not explain/clarify the occupancy/ tenancy of alternative accommodations, leave to defend ought to have been granted. 3. Learned counsel for the tenant, lastly, seeks to rely upon the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the learned RC against the very same landlord in another Eviction Petition bearing No.79211/2016 entitled ‘Ram Kishore Aggarwal v. Sandeep Aggarwal’, as also the subsequent withdrawal of the revision petition being RC.REV. 628/2019 arising therefrom by the landlord before this Court on 08.11.2019. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the landlord submits that since the tenant had raised averments without producing any supportive documents/ proofs therewith before the learned RC, the application seeking leave to defend has rightly been rejected, and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the tenant before this Court are untenable. 5. Learned counsel further submits that, in any event, considering that This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:08:04 RC.REV. 710/2019 Page 3 of 5 the above orders dated 13.09.2019 and 08.11.2019 were passed by the learned RC and by this Court in other proceedings, and which were admittedly not pertaining to the subject premises but to the adjoining premises, as also were inter se different parties, they have no relevance to the facts involved in the present proceedings. 6. This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties as also gone through the pleadings and documents on record. 7. Considering that this Court is exercising revisional jurisdiction, as held in Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (1998) 8 SCC 119 and Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua (2022) 6 SCC 30, the scope of interference with the impugned order is very limited, and the findings rendered by the learned RC shall not be disturbed unless there are errors apparent on the face of the record. 8. Since no arguments were addressed qua the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the findings rendered by the learned RC thereto need not be adverted to, and the same is deemed to have been established. 9. Qua bona fide requirement by the landlord and existence of an alternative accommodation available with the landlord, it is evident from the record that the tenant only made bald and vague assertions without substantiating them through any documents/ proofs, in the wake of the pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778, the same were clearly insufficient for the learned RC to conclude that the tenant was able to raise a triable issue. 10. Moreover, this Court is in complete agreement with the well- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:08:04 RC.REV. 710/2019 Page 4 of 5 reasoned and detailed findings qua both the aspects of bona fide requirement by the landlord and existence of an alternative accommodation available with the landlord rendered by the learned RC in the impugned order. In light thereof, the judgements cited by learned counsel for the tenant, Naveen Kumar (supra) and Sanjay Kumar Sharma (supra), also do not offer any aid to the case of the tenant. 11. Lastly qua the orders dated 13.09.2019 and 08.11.2019 passed by the learned RC and by this Court in other proceedings, since they are, admittedly, not pertaining to the subject premises and not inter se the same parties before this Court, the tenant cannot seek to claim any benefit thereof. All the more, since the tenant has been unable to show the relevance, particularly, the similarities thereof, to the facts of the present proceedings. 12. In view of the afore-going reasoning and analysis, this Court sees no reason for interference with the impugned order. 13. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated 30.10.2019 passed by the learned RC is upheld. 14. Considering that the period of six months granted to the tenant under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act has already expired, the tenant, in furtherance of the impugned order, shall handover vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the subject premises to the landlord in compliance thereof. However, till such time, the tenant shall continue paying the user and occupation charges @ Rs.25,000/- per month, as already fixed by this Court vide order dated 14.01.2021. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the landlord submits that the user and occupation charges deposited by the tenant pursuant to aforesaid order This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/12/2025 at 12:08:04 RC.REV. 710/2019 Page 5 of 5 dated 14.01.2021 of this Court are liable to be released to the landlord. 16. Learned counsel for the tenant has no objection to the aforesaid request of the learned counsel for the landlord. 17. As such, learned counsel for the landlord seeks, and is granted, a period of one week to initiate appropriate steps for release of the user and occupation charges deposited by the tenant pursuant to the order dated 14.01.2021 of this Court. 18. Accordingly, the present petition, alongwith the pending application(s), is disposed of in terms of the above. SAURABH BANERJEE, J. DECEMBER 2, 2025/Ab