Ms. Anushka Gupta, Adv. (through VC) v. GAURI SHANKAR ANR. Through

Judgment

1. The respondents/ landlords1 filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,2 before the learned Additional Rent Controller-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi3, seeking eviction of the petitioner/ tenant4 from a room, at the ground floor in plot no.536, Mukim Pura, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi-110 0075. 2. As per landlords, based upon the registered Will dated 10.01.19496 executed by late Sh. Prabhu Dyal, the then owner of the subject premises 1 hereinafter referred to as “landlords” 2 hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” 3 hereinafter referred to as “ARC” 4 hereinafter referred to as “tenant” 5 hereinafter referred to as “subject premises” 6 hereinafter referred to as “Will” RC.REV. 253/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:17.09.2025 15:05:32 in favour of the landlords herein, and as filed before the learned ARC, they were the owners of the subject premises. Further, based on the Rent Agreement dated 03.09.19637 executed inter se Sh. Prabhu Dyal, the late father of the landlords and Sh. Kharaity Lal, the late father of the tenant as filed before the learned ARC, it was their case that the tenanted room of the subject premises was rented out to the father of the tenant. For this, rent receipts issued by late father of the landlords in the name of the late father of the tenant were also filed before the learned ARC. As per landlords, after the demise of his father, the tenant herein became the statutory tenant of the subject premises. Also, relying upon the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2023 passed by Additional District Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in a Suit for partition being CSDJ 3796/2017 entitled “Gauri Shankar v. Ganga and Ors.”, the ownership of the subject premises was conferred upon both the landlords herein, the issue of their being the owners stood settled. It was, thus, their case that

there existed a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties herein. 3. Also, since both landlords were residing in rental accommodation(s) with their families, and neither of them possessed any other suitable residential alternate accommodation, they had a bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for their own residence as well as that of their family. 4. Upon service, the tenant filed an application for leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) and (5) of the DRC Act, wherein he claimed to be the owner of the subject premises since it was a joint ancestral property. It was his case that the subject premises was in a dilapidated condition as it 7 hereinafter referred to as “Rent Agreement” RC.REV. 253/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:17.09.2025 15:05:32 was constructed/ renovated by him and his father, who was in occupation thereof since 1958. Relying upon a Show Cause Notice dated 28.04.1958 issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi8 in the name of his father, the postal receipts and Aadhar card of his father, as per tenant, he should be considered as the owner/ occupier thereof. Thus, as per tenant, there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties herein and the Rent Agreement and the rent receipts relied upon by the landlords were fabricated, and further the registered Will did not establish that the late father of the landlords was the owner of the subject premises. Also, the landlords were having alternative accommodation(s) in the form of independent flats stated in the memo of parties therein, as also that they failed to demonstrate how just one room fulfilled the requirement of residence for their families. 5. In response thereto, as per landlords, the late father of the tenant was a tenant of a room in the subject premises only till 1960 when he vacated and handed it over to the late father of the landlords, and who then demolished the old structure and rebuilt it up to the second floor. It was then that a new tenancy for one room was created in favour of the father of the tenant by virtue of a fresh Rent Agreement. 6. The learned ARC, after hearing the parties, vide the impugned order dated 19.03.20259, after holding that there existed a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, as also considering the scope of the DRC Act, since there was no need to prove absolute ownership, and further since the tenant failed to raise any triable issue qua bona fide requirement 8 hereinafter referred to as “MCD Notice” 9 hereinafter referred to as “impugned order” RC.REV. 253/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:17.09.2025 15:05:32 and/ or alternative accommodation, and finding that there were triable issues raised by the tenant, dismissed his application for leave to defend, asking him to evict the subject premises. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition by the tenant. 8. Ms. Anushka Gupta, learned counsel for the tenant, submitted that the Rent Agreement and the rent receipts filed by the landlords before the learned ARC were forged. She submitted that since the Notice issued by MCD was addressed only to the late father of the tenant and not the late father of the landlords, it was sufficient for the learned ARC to conclude that the late father of the tenant was indeed the owner of the subject premises. She also submitted that even the registered Will of the late father of the landlords vide which the landlords claimed ownership, never disclosed that their father was, in fact, the owner of the subject premises. 9. It was the case of Ms. Anushka Gupta that all the aforesaid factors have not been considered by the learned ARC. 10. Then Ms. Anushka Gupta submitted that the learned ARC has also ignored the alternate accommodation(s) available with the landlords, and more importantly they have failed to demonstrate how a single room could suffice the residential requirements of their respective families. 11. 12. Learned counsel for the landlords accepts notice. Controverting the Issue notice. aforesaid submissions made by Ms. Anushka Gupta, he submitted that by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2023, detailed hereinabove, since the landlords have already been declared as owners of the subject premises, there can be no doubt that they both are, in fact, the landlords thereof. He further submitted that since the landlords had been residing in RC.REV. 253/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:17.09.2025 15:05:32 rental flats with their families, they had a bona fide requirement of the subject premises for themselves and their families, more so, since they did not have any alternate accommodation. 13. Learned counsel for the landlords further submitted that since each of the aforesaid have been duly considered by the learned ARC, the present petition deserves dismissal at the outset. 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties, as also perused the pleadings and documents on record. 15. As is apparent from the above, Ms. Anushka Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the tenant is seeking to rearguing/ reagitating the very same contentions which have been negated by the learned ARC in the impugned order thereby seeking to re-adjudicate the same issues, and that too without bringing anything new on record for substantiating them. In the considered opinion of this Court, this is beyond the settled tenets of law as this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction, especially under Section 25 B (8) of the DRC Act, cannot traverse beyond the purview thereof. The tenant cannot be allowed to challenge the impugned order as if it were an appeal, more so, since the scope for interference is very limited and this Court is not a fact-finding authority [Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua10, Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.11 and Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal12].