Delhi High Court - Orders
Yash Rai & Anr vs Rajeshwar Jain on 17 December, 2025
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 397/2025, CM APPL. 78603/2025, CM APPL.
78604/2025
YASH RAI & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Nikhil Palli, Mr. Satyam
Thakeja and Ms. Niyati, Advs.
versus
RAJESHWAR JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, Mr. Imran
Khan and Ms. Jahanvi Garg, Mr.
Yash Mittal and Ms. Aarushi Jain,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 17.12.2025
1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of the order dated 19.08.2025 (impugned order), passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (learned ARC) in RC ARC No. 344/2024 entitled "Rajeshwar Jain vs. Yash Rai & Anr." whereby the tenant's application seeking leave to defend came to be dismissed and consequently an eviction order was passed in favour of landlord.
2. Today learned senior counsel for the tenant has handed over a written synopsis which is taken on record.
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 22/12/2025 at 20:55:25
3. At the outset, learned senior counsel for the tenant fairly submits that since there is no dispute regarding the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the same need not be dwelled into by this Court.
4. Regarding the existence of bona fide requirement of the landlord, learned senior counsel has restricted his submissions to the extent that the alleged requirement of the subject premises by the landlord for the business of his son, Mr. Ayush Raj Jain, was not bona fide, since his son was already running a separate business under the name of M/s. Renu Jain Appetizers & Beverages. For this, he relies upon the screenshots of a webpage exhibiting that his son was indeed doing business in the aforesaid name from premises situated at 2490, Teliwara Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, as also few WhatsApp chats transcripts.
5. Based thereon, learned senior counsel submits that, since the son of the landlord was already carrying on his business, and that too from a different premises, there was no requirement for the landlord to file the Eviction Petition seeking eviction of the tenant from the subject premises.
6. Learned senior counsel further submits that since the very landlord who has professed his bona fide requirement for the subject premises, had already sold the properties/ shops in the year 2022, it cannot said to be genuine and sincere.
7. Lastly, regarding (non-)availability of alternative accommodation, learned senior counsel submits that the landlord has other alternative accommodations available with him in the form of property bearing no.4740/21, Deputy Ganj, Sadar Bazaar, Delhi (Deputy Ganj property), as also the shops on the mezzanine and first floor of the property no. 2490, 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 22/12/2025 at 20:55:25 Teliwara Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
8. Based on the aforesaid, learned senior counsel for the tenant submits that the tenant was able to raise triable issue before the learned ARC and leave to defend should have been granted to him.
9. In order to buttress the aforesaid contentions, learned senior counsel for the landlord has also relied upon Bharat Bhusan & Ors. vs. Atul Gupta: RCR No. 196/2023, Geeta Press vs. Madhu Rastogi: Civil Appeal No. 5591/2021, Mukesh Bansal vs. Madhu Gupta: SLP(C) No. 7489/ 2016 and Shanti Devi vs. Rajesh Kumar Jain: (2015) 2 SCC 158.
10. Issue notice.
11. Learned counsel for the landlord accepts notice. In contravention of the case set up by the tenant, he submits that all the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the tenant has already been duly dealt and rightly rejected by the learned ARC in the impugned order. As such, he submits that there is no occasion for interference by this Court, much less while exercising revisional jurisdiction.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties as also have gone through the records.
13. Inasmuch as the aspect of landlord tenant relationship has been unequivocally admitted by the tenant, the same is established and this Court need not traverse into the said aspect any further.
14. Since it has always been the consistent stand of the landlord that there is a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord since it was required for establishing a toys business for his dependent son. Such a genuine assertion/ claim of the landlord to discharge his filial obligations carries with itself a presumption of bona fide requirement, 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 22/12/2025 at 20:55:25 which is genuine, sincere, truthful, palpable and believable. For proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, commencement of any such business like what was projected by the landlord, factors like age, dependency or retirement of anyone like the landlord are irrelevant. Same is the position regarding educational qualification and/ or work experience possessed by the landlord for any proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. In such a scenario, the onus shifts upon the tenant to place on record some cogent/ substantial material to dislodge the said presumption. In other words, the tenant by merely pleading bald, vague and baseless assertions cannot expect to raise any triable issue.
15. Today, learned senior counsel has once again reagitated/ contended that the son of the landlord was running another business under the name M/s Renu Jain Appetizers & Beverages, however, as apparent from the record that the said business was already closed in the year 2019 on account of making losses. Moreover, so as to raise a triable issue, the learned senior counsel, barring the screenshots of webpages, has been unable to bring anything of credence on record. In fact, the WhatsApp chat transcripts of 11.10.2023 relied by the learned senior counsel itself supports the case of the landlord that his son was assisting him to carry on the toy business under the name M/s Renu Raj & Company. Even otherwise, as held in Smt. Ramkubai (since deceased) through LRs & Ors. vs. Hajarimal Dhokalchand Chandak & Ors.: 1999 (6) SCC 540 and Sait Nagjee Purushotam & Co. Ltd. vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal: (2005) 8 SCC 252, merely because the landlord and/ or his family members were engaged in other business activities at the time of filing, and/ or during the pendency, of the Eviction Petition, the same cannot be construed as a 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 22/12/2025 at 20:55:25 ground precluding the landlord from seeking eviction of the tenant from the subject premises by way of an eviction petition.
16. In so far as selling of other properties by the landlord is concerned, admittedly, the said properties were sold by the landlord in the year 2022 and the Eviction Petition was filed much later in the year 2024. Considering that the requirement of a landlord can never be static and it naturally evolves with time and circumstances, selling, buying, leasing, licensing or like of a property by the landlord is not itself enough for giving advantage to the tenant by concluding that the same was enough for him having raised a triable issue.
17. Regarding availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodations with the landlord, it is trite law the mere fact the landlord has other premises in his possession is itself not sufficient to rule out the genuineness of the requirement of the landlord. It is not a thumb rule for the landlord to be shunted out from filing an Eviction Petition for vacation of any subject premises. A landlord being a master of his requirement has complete liberty to choose any accommodation in his possession once his bona fide requirement is established, more so, when there are various factors like the size, location, placement, address or like have to be taken into consideration, especially whence the purpose professed by the landlord is 'commercial'. In the present proceedings also, the landlord had professed his need for carrying out a 'commercial' activity from the subject premises. The tenant, has negligible role to play in any of the above, unless he is able to show/ substantiate how the other premises/ properties in possession of the landlord are suitable to him so as to raise a triable issue.
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 22/12/2025 at 20:55:25
18. Be that as it may, since it is an admitted position that the landlord was only a co-owner of the Deputy Ganj property along with his brothers, the same could never be considered as an alternative accommodation when compared to the subject premises of which the landlord is the sole owner. In any case, as apparent from the record, the landlord had categorically stated in his Eviction Petition that the shops in the said property are already occupied by tenants namely Shri Manoj Jain and Shri Praveen V. Shah and he cannot independently deal with these shops due to joint ownership. For these, the tenant has merely made bare, vague and unsubstative assertions without any substance to show that the same was available as well as suitable.
19. Similarly, regarding the shops available in property no.2490, Teliwara, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, once again it is an admitted position that the said shops were on the mezzanine and first floor whereas the subject premises was on the ground floor. This, by no stretch of imagination, can be considered as reasonable/ suitable/ convenient and/ or alternative. More so, since the need of the landlord was to open a toy shop, for which ground floor is best suited.
20. Moreover, in the considered opinion of this Court, under the given circumstances the alternative accommodations in the present proceedings, at best, could be held as 'additional' accommodation, but certainly not alternative accommodation available with the landlord. Since the parameters for reckoning both the aforesaid are different, they cannot always be the same. By treating them alike, the tenant herein cannot make a case for denying the relief sought by the landlord in an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
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 22/12/2025 at 20:55:25
21. In view of the aforesaid reasoning and analysis, alas, finding this no merit therein, the present revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
22. Needless to say, the tenant shall be accorded the benefit of remaining period of six months in terms of Section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) as already granted to him by the impugned order dated 19.08.2025.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J DECEMBER 17, 2025/Ab 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 22/12/2025 at 20:55:25