Mr. R.K. Jain and Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Advocates v. SH RAM KUMAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE J U D G M E N T (ORAL)

1. The respondent/ landlord (landlord) instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) before the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (learned RC) seeking eviction of the petitioners/ tenants (tenants) from premises bearing no.WZ-812, Ram Chander Basti, Nangal Raya, Delhi- 110 046 (subject premises). 2. Before the learned RC, it was the case of the landlord that he was/ is owner of the subject premises by virtue of registered Will dated

11.05.1987 and was in bona fide requirement of the subject premises for his unmarried daughter’s residence as well as for setting up a boutique for her therein and since there were no suitable alternative accommodation RC.REV. 389/2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:09.12.2025 15:33:24 available with him for the said purpose. 3. Upon service of summons, tenants filed their application seeking leave to defend though disputing the ownership of the landlord, however, admitting the landlord tenant relationship between the parteis, bona fide requirement and the (non-)availability of alternate accommodation. 4. The learned RC, after considering the material on record and hearing the parties, vide order dated 30.07.2025 (impugned order), dismissed the application seeking leave to defend of the tenants and proceeded to pass the eviction order in favour of the landlord. 5. Hence the present revision petition filed by the petitioners/ tenants seeking setting aside of the impugned order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the learned RC. 6. Though the tenants have raised various grounds, however, learned counsel for the tenants does not wish to harp upon the existance of landlord tenant relationship, since it was admitted from the very inception. The landlord tenant relationship, in view of the tenants’ categoric admission has been held to be established. The learned counsel, however, submits that since the landlord was/ is in possession of several other accommodations and that his bona fide requirement was neither honest nor sincere as both daughter and son of the landlord were gainfully employed, the tenants were able to disclose sufficient facts in their leave to defend application to raise a triable issue, and thus, the learned RC was duty-bound to grant leave. The learned counsel relies upon Precision Steel & Engineering Works & Anr. vs. Prem Deva Niranajan Deva Tayal: