Mr. Vishal Mahajan, Mr. Ashok Mahajan, and Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocates v. MANJU RANI
Case Details
Acts & Sections
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. By virtue of the present petition(s), the petitioners/ tenants1 seek to 1 Hereinafter referred to as “tenants” RC.REV. 331/2025 & RC.REV. 332/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:04.11.2025 17:32:47 impugn the order(s) dated 27.03.20252 passed by the learned R.C. Shahdara Courts, Delhi3 whereby the Eviction Petition(s) bearing RC/ ARC No.130/2023 & RC/ ARC No.131/2023 filed by the respondent/ landlord4 under Sections 14(1)(e) and 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 19585 seeking eviction of the tenants from shop(s) nos. 4, and 5 situated at property no. A-4 Kabir Nagar, Shahdara-110 0946, was allowed. 2. Succinctly put, it was the case of the landlord in both the Eviction Petitions that the uncle of tenant no.1 late Sh. Ramakant was inducted in the year 1984 in shop no.5 and was paying a monthly rent @ of Rs. 240/- to her late father-in-law Lt. Sh. Kashi Ram. Similarly, by virtue of an agreement dated 01.03.2001, the tenant no.1 was let out shop no. 4 @ of Rs. 600/- per month and the said shop(s) were combined to make space for commencing a business for selling firecrackers. Subsequently, the landlord became the absolute owner of the subject premises by virtue of the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 23.08.2021 executed by the legal heirs of her late husband Lal Singh Rathore and thus she became the landlord of the tenants by operation of law. It was also her case that after the death of her late husband, the income accrued from shop no.6 operated by Sh. Aman (son of the landlord), from where car/ bike accessories were being sold since 2018, was insufficient for meeting financial requirements of her family. More so, since the other son of the landlord, i.e., Sh. Ankit was unemployed and wanted to commence business of online services 2 Hereinafter referred to as “impugned order(s)” 3 Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC” 4 Hereinafter referred to as “landlord” 5 Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” 6 Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises” RC.REV. 331/2025 & RC.REV. 332/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:04.11.2025 17:32:47 pertaining to money transfer and flight ticket bookings, a bona fide requirement arose for the said shop(s) at the subject premises, as there was no suitable alternative accommodation available with them for the said purpose. 3. Upon service, the tenants filed application(s) seeking leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) and (5) of the DRC Act, wherein they denied the ownership of the subject premises in the name of landlord, as tenant nos.3 and 4, who were the legal heirs of late Sh. Ramakant, were the co-owners of shop nos. 4 and 5 vide Will dated 27.03.2016 as also the registered Relinquishment Deed 23.08.2021 and that the Site Plan relied upon by the landlord was incomplete/ incorrect respectively. It was also their case that the son of the landlord, Sh. Aman was working in an MNC and was not running any car/ bike accessories shop from the subject premises and Sh. Ankit, other son of the landlord, was not unemployed but was running a milk dairy from another premises, thus there was no bona fide requirement for the subject premises as there were alternative accommodations available to the landlord. 4. In response thereto, the landlord denied the averments made by the tenants and reiterated the contents of the Eviction Petition(s). 5. Based on the above, as also after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned ARC dismissed the application(s) for leave to defend of the tenants vide impugned orders(s) dated 27.03.2025 and granted order(s) of eviction in favour of landlord and against the tenants. 6. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants have preferred the present petitions. At the very outset, Mr. Vishal Mahajan, learned counsel for the tenants, whilst referring to Precision Steel & Engg. Works vs. Prem Deva RC.REV. 331/2025 & RC.REV. 332/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:04.11.2025 17:32:47 Niranjan Deva Tayal7, Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand8, Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh9, Rachpal Singh vs. Gurmit Kaur10 and S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram11, submits that there were triable issues raised qua the ownership of the subject premises pertaining to the aspect of non-consideration of the Will dated 27.03.2016, veracity of the Site Plan, availability of alternative accommodation, lack of bona fide requirement and material concealment of facts by the landlord. 8. The prime arguments addressed by learned counsel for the tenants is qua the Will dated 27.03.2016, which, admittedly was not forming a part of record before the learned ARC, and for which the tenants have filed CM APPL. 67664/2025 in RC.REV. 331/2025 and CM APPL. 67667/2025 in RC.REV. 332/2025 seeking permission for bringing the same on record at this stage. However, since the said application is bereft of any material particulars of the manner, time and/ or the other details qua the said Will and/ or as to when it came to his knowledge and/ or possession, this Court sees no reason for taking the same on record at this belated stage. In fact, same is the case qua the other documents i.e., Tenancy Agreement dated 08.03.2001 and Supplementary Tenancy Agreement dated 19.04.2001, which the tenants by virtue of CM APPL.67664/2025 & CM APPL.67667/2025 seek to bring on record. Accordingly, CM APPL.67664/2025 in RC.REV. 331/2025 and CM APPL. 67667/2025 in RC.REV. 332/2025 are dismissed.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
1. By virtue of the present petition(s), the petitioners/ tenants1 seek to 1 Hereinafter referred to as “tenants” RC.REV. 331/2025 & RC.REV. 332/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:04.11.2025 17:32:47 impugn the order(s) dated 27.03.20252 passed by the learned R.C. Shahdara Courts, Delhi3 whereby the Eviction Petition(s) bearing RC/ ARC No.130/2023 & RC/ ARC No.131/2023 filed by the respondent/ landlord4 under Sections 14(1)(e) and 25B of Delhi Rent Control Act, 19585 seeking eviction of the tenants from shop(s) nos. 4, and 5 situated at property no. A-4 Kabir Nagar, Shahdara-110 0946, was allowed. 2. Succinctly put, it was the case of the landlord in both the Eviction Petitions that the uncle of tenant no.1 late Sh. Ramakant was inducted in the year 1984 in shop no.5 and was paying a monthly rent @ of Rs. 240/- to her late father-in-law Lt. Sh. Kashi Ram. Similarly, by virtue of an agreement dated 01.03.2001, the tenant no.1 was let out shop no. 4 @ of Rs. 600/- per month and the said shop(s) were combined to make space for commencing a business for selling firecrackers. Subsequently, the landlord became the absolute owner of the subject premises by virtue of the registered Relinquishment Deed dated 23.08.2021 executed by the legal heirs of her late husband Lal Singh Rathore and thus she became the landlord of the tenants by operation of law. It was also her case that after the death of her late husband, the income accrued from shop no.6 operated by Sh. Aman (son of the landlord), from where car/ bike accessories were being sold since 2018, was insufficient for meeting financial requirements of her family. More so, since the other son of the landlord, i.e., Sh. Ankit was unemployed and wanted to commence business of online services 2 Hereinafter referred to as “impugned order(s)” 3 Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC” 4 Hereinafter referred to as “landlord” 5 Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” 6 Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises” RC.REV. 331/2025 & RC.REV. 332/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:04.11.2025 17:32:47 pertaining to money transfer and flight ticket bookings, a bona fide requirement arose for the said shop(s) at the subject premises, as there was no suitable alternative accommodation available with them for the said purpose. 3. Upon service, the tenants filed application(s) seeking leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) and (5) of the DRC Act, wherein they denied the ownership of the subject premises in the name of landlord, as tenant nos.3 and 4, who were the legal heirs of late Sh. Ramakant, were the co-owners of shop nos. 4 and 5 vide Will dated 27.03.2016 as also the registered Relinquishment Deed 23.08.2021 and that the Site Plan relied upon by the landlord was incomplete/ incorrect respectively. It was also their case that the son of the landlord, Sh. Aman was working in an MNC and was not running any car/ bike accessories shop from the subject premises and Sh. Ankit, other son of the landlord, was not unemployed but was running a milk dairy from another premises, thus there was no bona fide requirement for the subject premises as there were alternative accommodations available to the landlord. 4. In response thereto, the landlord denied the averments made by the tenants and reiterated the contents of the Eviction Petition(s). 5. Based on the above, as also after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the learned ARC dismissed the application(s) for leave to defend of the tenants vide impugned orders(s) dated 27.03.2025 and granted order(s) of eviction in favour of landlord and against the tenants. 6. 7. Aggrieved thereby, the tenants have preferred the present petitions. At the very outset, Mr. Vishal Mahajan, learned counsel for the tenants, whilst referring to Precision Steel & Engg. Works vs. Prem Deva RC.REV. 331/2025 & RC.REV. 332/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:04.11.2025 17:32:47 Niranjan Deva Tayal7, Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand8, Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh9, Rachpal Singh vs. Gurmit Kaur10 and S. Kaladevi vs. V.R. Somasundaram11, submits that there were triable issues raised qua the ownership of the subject premises pertaining to the aspect of non-consideration of the Will dated 27.03.2016, veracity of the Site Plan, availability of alternative accommodation, lack of bona fide requirement and material concealment of facts by the landlord. 8. The prime arguments addressed by learned counsel for the tenants is qua the Will dated 27.03.2016, which, admittedly was not forming a part of record before the learned ARC, and for which the tenants have filed CM APPL. 67664/2025 in RC.REV. 331/2025 and CM APPL. 67667/2025 in RC.REV. 332/2025 seeking permission for bringing the same on record at this stage. However, since the said application is bereft of any material particulars of the manner, time and/ or the other details qua the said Will and/ or as to when it came to his knowledge and/ or possession, this Court sees no reason for taking the same on record at this belated stage. In fact, same is the case qua the other documents i.e., Tenancy Agreement dated 08.03.2001 and Supplementary Tenancy Agreement dated 19.04.2001, which the tenants by virtue of CM APPL.67664/2025 & CM APPL.67667/2025 seek to bring on record. Accordingly, CM APPL.67664/2025 in RC.REV. 331/2025 and CM APPL. 67667/2025 in RC.REV. 332/2025 are dismissed.