Delhi High Court - Orders
Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Prakash Chand Gupta & Ors on 2 December, 2025
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 397/2024, CM APPLs. 75632-75633/2024, 25463-
25464/2025, 33747-33748/2025, 75545/2025
AJAY KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, Mr.
Rajesh Bansal, Mr. Arun Srivastava
and Mr. Prashant Kumar,
Advocates.
Versus
PRAKASH CHAND GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Viney Sharma, Mr. Imran Khan
and Mr. Kanishk Babbar,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 02.12.2025
1. By virtue of the present petition, the petitioner/ tenant, inter alia, seeks setting aside of order dated 09.08.2024 (impugned order), passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (learned ARC) in RC ARC No.170/2022 filed by the respondents/ landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) seeking eviction of the shop situated at the Ground Floor, E-22, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110 007 (subject premises).
2. Though the tenant has taken multiple grounds in the present revision petition, learned counsel for the tenant has restricted her submissions primarily to the maintainability of the Eviction Petition filed by the landlords before the learned ARC, especially, since the Gift Deed which formed the basis of the said Eviction Petition, was only executed on RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 1 of 6 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 08/12/2025 at 20:46:14 24.12.2021, and so, in view of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act, no eviction proceedings could have been initiated by the landlords till the expiry of a minimum period of five years therefrom. She further contends that another Eviction Petition filed by the very same landlord against another tenant qua another premises on the basis of the very same Gift Deed dated 24.12.2021 has been dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2025 on the very same ground of the statutory bar under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act.
3. Learned counsel then relying upon Chapter 22 pertaining to 'Directions for streamlining the procedure for speedy disposal of cases under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958' of Notification No.99/Rules/DHC dated 15.03.2010 contends that since the landlords failed to disclose about the earlier Eviction Petition for the very same subject premise inter se the same parties, wherein a truce was reached between them, the landlord did not approach the learned ARC with clean hands, as also they never disclosed anything about multiple other similar proceedings qua other shops instituted by the landlords, some of which had already been dismissed.
4. In response, learned counsel for the landlords submits that since the aforesaid Gift Deed dated 24.12.2021 was a valid document executed within members of the same family, the statutory bar under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act was not applicable to the facts involved, as also the landlords were not bound to disclose other eviction proceedings initiated by the landlords qua other premises.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents and pleadings on record.
6. At the outset, this Court finds that the landlords, in the relevant RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 2 of 6 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 08/12/2025 at 20:46:14 portion of paragraph no.18(a) of the Eviction Petition, has pleaded as under:-
"(ii) That parents of the petitioners let out 1 (One) shop to the respondent's father, Shri Jai Narain Gupta on the ground floor in the property bearing No. E-22, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-
110007 since year about 1954 and he died on 31.01.1992 and, after his death, the respondent occupied the said tenanted premises on the rent of Rs.15,00/- per month. The other Legal Heirs of-Late Shri Jai Narain Gupta surrendered their tenancy rights in favour of respondent vide Surrender Deed dated 01.05.2010. Site Plan is enclosed as ANNEXURE-C.
(iii) That the mother of the petitioners, namely, Smt. Vidyawati died on 04.03.2020, leaving behind her husband, Shri Rattan Lal and 7 (Seven) children, namely, Shri Prakash Chandra Gupta, Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Shri Sunil Gupta, Smt. Kamlesh, Smt. Mithlesh, Smt. Renu Gupta and Smt. Anju Gupta. It 1s submitted that Smt. Vidyawati also had 1 daughter namely, Smt. Bimlesh who predeceased Smt. Vidyawati leaving behind her 3 three children. It is further submitted that all the children of Smt. Vidyawati have relinquished their rights in the property vide 2 relinquishment deeds dated 19.01.2021 & 24.03.2021, in favour of Shri Rattan Lal (Father of the petitioners). {Copy of Death Certificates of Smt. Vidyawati: and Smt. Bimlesh and relinquishment deeds 24.03.2021 are enclosed as ANNEXURE-D & E.
(iv) That Shri Rattan Lal, father of the petitioners is a far sighted person of the age of more than 94 years and just to avoid any controversy/ dispute which may arise in future between his legal heirs has executed a gift deed dated 24.12.2021 in favour of his three sons i.e. petitioners, having registration No. 12612 in Book No.1, volume No. 8850 on pages 91 to l00. "
7. There is no denial of the above by the tenant anywhere before the RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 3 of 6 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 08/12/2025 at 20:46:14 learned ARC.
8. The aforesaid reflects that the subject premises fell into the hands of the landlords after members of the same family initiated certain steps inter se themselves. Also, that they all had been/ were co-owners of the subject premises at some point of time. Thus, the said steps were of a nature akin to a family settlement. The learned ARC has rendered his findings proceeding on the said basis, and in line with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. N. Sarin vs. Major Ajit Kumar Poplai 1966 SCR (1) 349 on the scope and intent of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act.
9. This Court is in complete agreement with the aforesaid findings of the learned ARC. In the considered opinion of this Court, the bar under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act comes into play only when "... ...a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer... ...", and where, in the present case, the landlords were not rank outsiders/ third parties, were, admittedly, owners of the subject premise before through lineage, and all subsequent documents were executed inter se members of the same family, it cannot be held that there was an acquisition by transfer as envisaged in Section 14(6) of the DRC Act. Even otherwise, the tenant was unable to show as to how the said Gift Deed dated 24.12.2021 would come under the ambit of the bar under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act. This gives no reason for this Court to disagree with the findings rendered by the learned ARC qua the above.
10. Further, reliance on Chapter 22 pertaining to 'Directions for streamlining the procedure for speedy disposal of cases under Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958' of Notification No.99/Rules/DHC dated 15.03.2010 by learned counsel for the tenant is misplaced, since the same pertains only to RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 4 of 6 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 08/12/2025 at 20:46:14 pending proceedings between the same parties, or qua different parties but qua the same premises. Clearly, the same did not place any condition upon the landlords to disclose already concluded proceedings between themselves and the same tenant or other tenants, or even pending proceedings with other tenants since they were not pertaining to the same subject premises. More so, when the tenant was unable to show as to how the subject premises and the other premises in other eviction proceedings were the same. Agreeing with the contentions raised by learned counsel for the tenant would tantamount to adding something which is missing from the Statute and over-riding the legislative intent behind the DRC Act, which has withstood the effect of time as it is.
11. In any event, when the tenant failed to refute the bona fide requirement of the landlords or show how other premises could suffice for the bona fide requirement of the landlords in lieu of the subject premises, or that they were/ are reasonably suitable alternative accommodations, merely showing that there were pending eviction proceedings filed by the landlords is per se not sufficient to conclude that the landlords were precluded from filing a fresh Eviction Petition against the tenant qua the subject premises.
12. As far as the order dated 12.09.2025 passed by another learned ARC in separate proceedings between the landlords and another tenant is concerned, the same is beyond the purview of the present revision petition, and need not to be adverted to by this Court. The learned ARC, and much less this Court, are/ is not bound by the findings rendered therein, more so, since the tenant has not been able to show the relevance and/ or connection thereof with the present proceedings.RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 5 of 6
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 08/12/2025 at 20:46:14
13. At the end of the day, in an eviction proceeding under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord has only to establish a landlord- tenant relationship between the parties; and that there is existing a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord; and lastly, that the landlord does not have any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available with him. All the aforesaid have been duly discussed and dealt with by the learned ARC in the impugned order.
14. Considering the law as settled 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 by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is constrained to the limited purpose of ascertaining whether there are any errors apparent on the face of the impugned order.
15. Resultantly, not finding any infirmity in the impugned order, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the same. As such, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
16. Though there is nothing left to be heard from learned counsel for the tenant, however, at this stage she seeks, and is granted, a period of two weeks to seek instructions qua the feasible time period within which the tenant would vacate the subject premises and handover peaceful physical possession thereof to the landlords, along with the terms of payment qua user and occupation charges for the aforesaid period.
17. Accordingly, renotify on 20.12.2025.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J DECEMBER 2, 2025/NA RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 6 of 6 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 08/12/2025 at 20:46:14