Delhi High Court - Orders
Ramanand & Ors vs Dr Girish Soni & Anr on 26 November, 2025
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 447/2017, CM APPL. 23163/2025
RAMANAND & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Adv.
alongwith Mr. Rajiv Talwar, Mr.
Tarun Rana, Mr. Pushkar Karni
Sinha and Mr. Kushal Kumar
Chauhan, Advs.
Versus
DR GIRISH SONI & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Ms. Simran
Rao and Mr. Rishabh Varshney,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 26.11.2025
1. Since 25.11.2025, was declared a holiday on account of 'Guru Teg Bahadur's Martyrdom Day', the present matter is being taken up for hearing today.
2. The respondents/ landlords (landlords) filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) seeking eviction of the tenants from the subject premises being Shop No.30A, Khan Market, New Delhi admeasuring 534 square feet as there was a bona fide requirement of the respondent no.1 of running a dental clinic for shifting his dental practice to the subject premises and as he had no other alternative accommodation available with him for the said purpose.
3. Upon service, the tenants/ petitioner nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 herein (tenants) filed their application seeking leave to defend on 06.02.2009 and RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 1 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 in April/ May, 2011 respectively, raising various issues, however, not denying the landlord tenant relationship between the parties. The said applications were allowed, whereafter they filed their written statements before the learned ARC.
4. After hearing the parties and going through the documents on record as well taking the judgments cited by them into consideration, the learned Rent Controller (RC) vide the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2017, allowed the Eviction Petition of the landlords and directed the petitioners/ tenants to vacate the subject premises after the lapse of the statutory period of six months in terms of Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.
5. The tenants filed the present petition seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2017 passed by the learned RC.
6. Of the many grounds raised herein by the tenants, Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel for the tenants submits that the landlords entered into an alleged oral Agreement to Sell. For this, the learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to the manner in which the alleged audio recording of the conversation inter se the landlords and the tenants as also the efforts made by the landlords to sell the subject premises, have not been taken into consideration by the learned RC. This, according to the learned senior counsel, is amply clear from the letters dated 19.02.2010 and 11.03.2010. The learned senior counsel places reliance upon Adil Jamshed Frenchman (dead) By LRs. vs. Sardar Dastur Schools Trust & Others, (2005) 2 SCC 476, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"8. The decree of the trial court is based on the landlords' bona fide requirement of the accommodation. In RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 2 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 appeal, the question before the court for adjudication was whether the trial court was justified in passing the decree in favour of the landlords on the ground of bona fide need and the tenants obviously were within their rights to show that the need of the landlords was not genuine. The evidence produced in that direction would be relevant for the purpose of adjudicating the question of need of the landlords. In Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] this Court has held that a bona fide requirement must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire in contradistinction with a mere pretext for evicting the tenant on the part of the landlord claiming to occupy the premises for himself or for any member of the family which would entitle the landlord to seek ejectment of the tenant. The question to be asked by a judge of facts by placing himself in the place of the landlord is whether in the given facts proved by the material on record the need to occupy the premises can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. The concept of bona fide need or genuine requirement needs a practical approach instructed by the realities of life. In Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal [(2001) 5 SCC 705] this Court reiterated that bona fide requirement has to be distinguished from a mere whim or fanciful desire. The bona fide requirement is in praesenti and must be manifested in actual need so as to convince the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.
9. It cannot be denied that the documents sought to be produced by the tenants are material and if substantiated, would have a material effect on the case of the landlords of their bona fide need of the suit premises. If, in fact, the landlord has entered into negotiations with M/s Godrej & Boyce Co. Ltd. for selling or use by them of the property, the need cannot be said to be genuine. Similarly, a change in the construction plan may show that the alleged need of the landlord for the construction may not be genuine. The third document proposes to demolish the case of availability of the funds for construction with the landlord. Two of the RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 3 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 documents came into existence after the passing of the decree by the trial court. Similarly, the correspondence entered into by the landlord with a third party could not have been within the knowledge of the tenant and therefore, the tenant's statement that the documents could not have been produced before the trial court, in spite of the exercise of due diligence, was highly probable. In such circumstances, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the first appellate court permitting additional evidence."
7. In addition, Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel also seeks to argue that the learned RC has, in the impugned judgment, wrongly considered the said audio recording considering the earlier findings recorded vide order 31.03.2012, when the application seeking leave to defend of the tenants was allowed. This, according to him, is sufficient for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment.
8. Refuting the submissions made by Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel for the tenants qua execution of an alleged oral Agreement to Sell, Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, learned counsel for the landlords, submits that the landlords had never made any efforts for entering into an Agreement to Sell qua the subject premises during the pendency of the Eviction Petition with anyone, much less, Mr. Amhar Pal Singh Kohli. The learned counsel also submits that it has been proved before the learned RC that the purpose for which Mr. Amhar Pal Singh Kohli was engaged was to assist the landlords in conversion of the property from leasehold to freehold, which authority, when misused, was revoked vide letter dated 18.03.2010.
9. Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, learned counsel further submits that the tenants in collusion with the alleged expert witness without seeking any RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 4 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 permission, made unauthorised copies of the CD lying on the Court record, which, despite initial denial was, in fact, later admitted by the expert witness during cross-examination. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel draws the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of the expert witness, who, on 20.09.2016, has deposed as under:-
"Question: Can you tell why you made a false statement earlier that you did not carryout any copying of Disc prior to 07.01.2016?
Answer: I did not make any false statement. Since I did not replicate any disc in court premises prior to 07.01.2016 and had only done it in my laboratory.
It is correct that on 09.12.2015 a disc was replicated from the disc available on the court records. On 09.12.2015 the instruments required for replicating of the disc were brought by me to the court premises. I had submitted the disc replicated by me on 09.12.2015 in my Institute in which I am an employee. It is correct that I had replicated the CD Ex. R- 2 on two occasion i.e on 09.12.2015 and 07.01.2016. I had filed the authorization of Premier Forensic Science Institute to replicate a disc. The same is now Ex. RW 8/P-2."
[Emphasis supplied]
10. After hearing learned (senior) counsel for the parties, who have concluded their respective arguments, as also having perused the records along with the judgment cited by them, this Court, prima facie, is not convinced with the submissions made by Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel for the tenants, especially since, the landlords had been able to prove the letter dated 18.03.2010 (Exhibit PW1/17 to Exhibit PW1/20). Also, since, even though despite the tenants being unable to prove the case set up by them based on the alleged letter, which was merely a copy from RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 5 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 the record of the NDMC, they never summoned any witness from the NDMC despite having included it in their own list of witnesses.
11. The arguments qua the CD, although the Expert Witness was deposed before the learned RC, however, he was an independent witness who was not qualified to be an expert. In any event, the same was denied by RW8.
12. Further, this Court finds that in paragraph nos.19 and 20 of the impugned judgment, the learned RC has not only elaborately dealt with the aforesaid aspect qua the alleged audio recording but also qua the alleged Agreement to Sell of the subject premises as under:-
"19. Now coming back to the main issues. I shall deal first with the contention regarding the letter of Sh. Amarpal Singh Kohli.
19.1 In the cross examination of RW 1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Gupta, he has stated that the contents of letter dt. 19.02.2010 and 19.03.2010 mentioned in para 13 of the affidavit were obtained from the NDMC. The contents of these letters have been reproduced hereunder:
"Sub: Permission for sale of shop No. 30-A, Khan Market Dear Sir, We have applied for conversion of leasehold to free hold of shop No. 30-A, Khan Market, New Delhi in your office and the same is under process. We are also in receipt of your demand note No.S.O. (STC)/D-1508 S.A.-1 for sum of Rs.5,55,225/- inclusive of conversion charges, Misuse and Damages Charges.
The same has been deposited vide Cheque no.771996 of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Panchsheel Branch, New Delhi as directed RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 6 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 in your Axis Bank Account at Barakhamba Road. Further we have also submitted an affidavit undertaking duly notarized alongwith an indemnity bond on Non-judicial Stamp Papers in your office as desired by you in the above-mentioned demand note.
We understand that though we have cleared all the necessary formalities for conversion of leasehold to freehold the final confirmation of the same could take some time. Hence, we request you to grant us permission of sale and execution of sale deed in favour of the buyer Amarpal S Kohli.
Your Cooperation in the matter is highly appreciated, Thanking you Yours faithfully Sd/- Sd/-
(Krishna Soni) & (Dr. Girish Prem Soni)"
19.2 Letter dt. 18.03.2010 to New Delhi Municipal Council is reproduced hereunder:
"Re: Sale permission of Shop Nos. 30-A & 30-B at Khan Market."
Dear Sir, The present Lessees of the Shop Nos. 30-A & 30-B at Khan Market, Mrs. Krishna Soni and Dr. Girish Prem Soni have applied for conversion from Leasehold to Freehold in you good office. The demands notices dt. 11.02.2010 bearing no. S.O. (S.T.C.)/D-1507 S. A-1 for Rs.5,25,228/- in respect of shop No. 30B and S.O. (S.T.C.)/D-1508 S. A.-1 for Rs.5,55,225/- for Shop No.30-A were also paid in Axis Bank, Barakhamba Road branch, New Delhi by cheque Nos.
771996 and 771997 of Bank of Rajasthan, Panchsheel Park Branch, New Delhi.
RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 7 of 15This 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 The Said lessees Mrs. Krishna Soni and Dr. Girish Prem Soni have applied for sale permission in my favour vide their letter dated 19.02.2010 as the process of conversion from leasehold to freehold was time consuming.
The sale shops namely, 30-A and 30-B at Khan Market are the subject matter of Agreement to Sell between the lessees Mrs. Krishna Soni and Dr. Girish Soni (Sellers) and myself Amarpal Singh Kohli, (Buyer) and I have paid substantial advance to them for the same.
The sale permission for the said shops in my favour my be expedited at the earliest so that I could release the balance payments to them and get the Conveyance Deed in my favour as per out mutually agreed terms and conditions. The issuance of sale permission in any other name shall be bad in law.
Awaiting as early responses from your end.
Thanking you Yours faithfully Sd/-
(Amarpal S. Kohli) CC: Mrs. Krishna Soni & Dr. Girish Prem Soni at D-140, Defence Colony New Delhi-110024 A-428, Defence Colony New Delhi-110024 A-163, Defence Colony New Delhi-110024"
19.3 It is stated by respondent no.2 that he had gone to NDMC and had inspected the said letters in the end of March, 2010. He admitted that NDMC had never given permission to inspect the record relating to the file mentioned in his affidavit. After getting this cross examination, learned predecessor of the court put a question to the witness to whether he had seen the file officially or unofficially to which he replied that the had seen the file unofficially. It was RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 8 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 further observed by learned Predecessor that the witness cannot take undue benefit without following the legal procedure. The testimony in this respect was declared to be hearsay evidence. These letters cannot be read now as these are part of the observation made by the learned Predecessor of this court which was not challenged anywhere and had attained finality. It is a matter of record that the respondents have made no efforts to summon the file of the NDMC in order to exhibit the letter dt. 19.02.2010 or 19.05.2010. It is also a matter of record that Sh. Amarpal Singh Kohli was mentioned as a witness in the list of witness but the respondents did not produce him in the witness box in order to ascertain the truth and in order to prove their defence. A suggestion was specifically given to the petitioner no.1 during his cross examination wherein he specifically stated that the lines with respect to the sale of the property were scrolled of in the original letter with NDMC by the petitioners and Sh. Amarpal Singh. Though in the cross examination of RW 1, he had denied this suggestion given by the counsel for petitioners but had not done anything extra to prove the same. Even the original letter have not been proved on record. The onus to prove the fact that any such letter was written to NDMC by Sh. Amarpal Singh wherein he alleged that petitioners have entered into an agreement to sale the property bearing no. 30A and 30 B Khan Market has not been proved. The stand of the petitioners from the very beginning is that they authorized one Sh. Amarpal Singh Kohli to get their properties converted from leasehold to freehold but he manipulated the same and after coming to know about, they removed his authority and in this regard they have proved their letter dt. 11.03.2010 and 18.03.2010 Ex. PW 1/19 and Ex. PW 1/21 respectively. The respondents have made no efforts to show that even after entering into the alleged agreement to sell with petitioner by Sh. Amarpal Singh, he had filed any case against the petitioners to get the sale deed registered in his name of properties bearing No. 30A and 30B Khan market, New Delhi.RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 9 of 15
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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 19.4 Petitioners have also filed a legal notice given by Sh. Amarpal Singh Kohli to petitioners and in turn the reply to the notice which they had given to him denying having entered into any agreement to sell with him. The onus to prove the entire transaction was upon the respondents but they have failed to prove the same. Merely by setting up defence and making the allegation in the written statement is not sufficient to shake the case of the petitioners. Respondents are duly bound to produce all the documents of the property in respect of their defence to substantiate the same but in the present case apart from stating that they are relying upon the letter which is also not been proved, nothing has been shown to prove that petitioners, In any way, were making efforts or attempt to sell the property and they had no requirement of same for their own use. It is pertinent to mention here that the public notice on which the respondents were relying which was allegedly given by the advocate of Sh. Amarpal Sing Kohli in the newspaper is dt. 30.03.2010 whereas the letter revoking the authority of Sh. Amarpal Singh is dt. 11.03.2010 and 18.03.2010. Though the public notice was not proved as no original newspaper was filed but the averment of attempt to sell the property losses its significance as there is sufficient evidence from the side of petitioners that they removed the authority of Sh. Amarpal Singh with respect to their properties before this alleged public notice was issued.
19.5 From the evidence of RW 1, it is clear that they RW 1 came into the knowledge of these letters and these conversation in March 2010 but they alleged this for the first time before the court in the leave to defend application filed in March, 2011 i.e. after complete one year from the date of their knowledge. Therefore, this contention of the respondents that petitioner were having the intention to sell the property and were in the due process of doing the same has not been proved is liable to be rejected.
20. Second in this tape recorded conversation, the alleged RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 10 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 conversation between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 is of February 2010. RW 1 in his cross examination has stated that CD EX. R-2 was prepared by Sh. Vaibhav Gupta RW 4 in his presence in the month of March-April 2010 however this fact of alleged conversation between petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 2 was for the first time produced on record in leave to defend application moved by the respondent no. 7 and 8 in April 2011. The original memory card of the same was not taken on record. A application for taking the same was moved after two years i.e. In the year 2013. The permission was given only to examine the conversation by a private examiner after completion of RE. Before examining the veracity of the report of the private expert, It is important to mention here that RW 1 is Respondent no. 2 in the present eviction petitioner who had allegedly spoken to petitioner no. 1 on phone. He in his leave to defend application had stated that he has no concern with the property though he in his cross examination has states that he is a Manager in the shop for the last 10-12 years. It is further important to point out that RW 4 Ramanand who is respondent no. 4 in this petition and is admittedly the tenant in the property has stated in his cross examination that Sh. Mukesh Gupta has no concern with the business. However, he sometimes go to the shop to assist respondent no. 8 Dinesh Kumar, RW 4 had nowhere stated that he is the Manager of the shop since last several years.
20.1 Petitioner has stated that he had a conversation with the respondents at the relevant period but he had completely denied having any such conversation between him and respondent no. 2. The expert was examined as RW 8. He exhibited his opinion RW 8/1. He was extensively cross examined by Ld. Counsel for petitioners wherein he stated that he has not filed any certificate for the qualifications mentioned by him in his examination in chief. He has not brought any certificate showing that he worked as Scientific Assistant Physics with GNCT of Delhi. He has not filed any training certificate of GEQD, Hyderabad. It is pertinent to RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 11 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 mention here that at first instance he denied having made copy of CD in the court premises without permission but thereafter he accepted the same. He stated that it is correct that on 09.12.2015 a disc was replicated from the disc available on the court records. On 09.12.2015 the instruments required for replicating the CD were brought by him to the court premises. He had submitted the disc replicated by him on 09.12.2015 in his institute in which he is any employee. He further admitted that he had replicated the CD on two occasions i.e. on 09.12.2015 and 07.01.2016. He was further asked a specific question that he has not mentioned the number on the disc on which he had copied the disc from the number of the CD in the file during copying of the CD on 08.12.2015 although he had done so in his inspection on 07.01.2016 to which he stated that he was not aware about the same since he was copying the same for the first time in court. He admitted that without the number of the CDs it was not possible to ascertain as to which CD he had brought to court on 09.12.2015 and which CD he has taken out of the court without permission on 09.12.2015.
20.2 He denied the suggestion that he has done tampering and replacement of the CD at the instance of his client. He also stated that he has not submitted the CD replicated on 09.12.205 as nobody asked for the same. He also stated that it is not possible to ascertain as to whether the conversation recorded in the CD is the first copy from the original device or the copy from the CD. It is pertinent to mention here that CD was copied twice firstly on 09.12.2015 and secondly on 07.01.2016. The hash value has been given for the CD copied on 07.01.2016 but no hash value has been given to the CD copied on 09.12.2015. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that every time CD is read the hash value changes if the write blocker is not used while reading the CD. Nothing has been brought on record in order to show that CD which was taken by the expert from the court on that day was a CD which was lying on court record or which was taken for copying the same. Both the hash values are not preserved for the RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 12 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 purposes of perusal so as to avoid the chances of tampering and fabrication. This report of RW 8 cannot be taken into consideration in view of the fact that the same is suffering from several lapses as pointed above and the possibility of tampering with the CD cannot be ruled out as certain acts were done by the respondents through the expert without taking permission of this court. Therefore, this tape recorded conversation is not admissible for the purposes of assessing whether there was any communication between respondent no.2 and petitioner no. 1 in respect of the sale of the property. Even otherwise the voice of petitioner no. 1 in tape recorded conversation is not proved to be that of him in evidence."
[Emphasis supplied]
13. This Court is also not agreeable with the submission/ reliance placed by Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel for the tenants on the alleged admission of the voice in audio recording being that of the landlords at the time of allowing the application whereby the tenants sought leave to defend since, it has been categorically recorded by the learned RC at the time of allowing the leave to defend application that the voice has been selectively edited. For ease of reference, the relevant extract therefrom is as under:-
"... ... Alongwith the affidavits a compact disk was also filed on behalf of the respondents which was played in the court in the presence of the petitioner no.1 and his counsel. Having heard the conversation contained in the compact disk the petitioner no.1 admitted that the voice on the compact disk is of him and added that the voice has been selectively edited."
[Emphasis supplied]
14. Furthermore, since it is an admitted case of the parties that the landlords have never actually sold the subject premises and have always RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 13 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 retained the ownership thereof and are indeed still the landlords therein, in the considered opinion of this Court, there is no reason for interfering with the impugned judgment.
15. Lastly, the judgement in Adil Jamshed (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this Court. Though it was observed therein that the documents sought to be produced by the tenants are material and if substantiated, would have a material bearing on the case set up by the landlords qua their bona fide need of the suit premises, however, it was only since the landlord therein had entered into negotiations with M/s. Godrej & Boyce Co. Ltd. for selling or use by them of the property. It was under those circumstances that it was held that the need of the landlords cannot be said to be genuine. The present, admittedly, was/ is not the case herein as there were actually no such documents in existence, and the transactions, if any, by the landlords for selling their subject premises transpired during the pendency of the eviction petition.
16. Moreover, the agreement so mentioned was only, at best, according to the tenants an oral agreement wherein the landlords were not even a party to the proceedings therein. That it is not in dispute that the landlords have remained as such till to-date, is a vital factor for consideration in the eviction proceedings under the DRC Act. Even otherwise, a failed attempt, if any, by the landlords herein which did not fructify and the pendency of the Eviction Petition filed by them all throughout is another reason for their having a genuine, honest and bona fide requirement for the subject premises. The tenants, under such circumstances, cannot be allowed to try and take undue benefit of the landlords. In any event, it was/ is open for RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 14 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11 the tenants to take recourse of the appropriate proceedings under a separate provision as provided in the DRC Act.
17. This Court is in complete agreement with the categorical findings rendered by the learned RC, after due appreciation of the records in the impugned judgment wherein all the essential requirements of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act have been dealt with and answered in detail by the learned RC. In fact, Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel for the tenants has only reargued the very same issues with a new vigour before this Court, which have already been duly negated by the learned RC. As such, in view of what has been held in Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua: (2022) 6 SCC 30 and Kusum Lata Sharma vs. Arvind Singh: 2023 SC Online SC 488, this Court is estopped from reappreciating the evidence in the present revision petition. Therefore, finding no reason for interfering in the impugned judgment, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
18. However, at this stage, learned senor counsel for the tenants seeks, and is granted, a period of two weeks to seek instructions, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the tenants and as a matter of abundant caution, qua the feasible time period within which the tenants would vacate the subject premises and hand over peaceful possession thereof to the landlords, along with the terms of payment qua user and occupation charges for the aforesaid period.
19. Renotify on 16.12.2025 at 02:30 P.M. SAURABH BANERJEE, J NOVEMBER 26, 2025/bh RC.REV. 447/2017 Page 15 of 15 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 01/12/2025 at 21:24:11