Rakesh Jain vs. Harpal Singh Chowdhary
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
The present petition under Section 25(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short, ‘DRCA’) read with Section 151 of the CPC seeks the following prayers: -
“(i) Pass an Order allowing the present revision petition and quash and set aside Impugned Order dated 29.10.2025 passed by LD. ACJ cum- CCJ-cum-ARC in eviction petition titled “Harpal Singh Chowdhary vs. Rakesh Jain” being RC/ARC No. 345 of 2024;
(ii) Pass any other such Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to pass in the interest of justice.”
By way of the present petition, the petitioner seeks setting aside of impugned order dated 29.10.2025 passed by the learned ARC, whereby application seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioner/tenant was dismissed and an eviction order was passed against him. 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 01/06/2026 at 07:29:53
In the eviction petition filed at the instance of the respondent herein, eviction of the petitioner from tenanted premises described as the entire upper story consisting of one room, open space, balcony and roof thereof with respect to property No. 3873, Gali Kasai Wali, Gali No.3, Mori Gate, Delhi, more specifically shown in red colour in the site plan was sought. It was the case of the respondent-landlord that he was self-employed and was running his firm in the name and style of Lemon Tree Solution and since, he did not have any commercial space in Delhi, he had to register his aforesaid proprietorship firm from a rented premises at shop no.4, DS Tower, Sikandarpur, Metro Pillar No. 58, Gurugram Haryana. It was stated that the respondent/landlord had to travel a distance of almost 30 kms, and therefore, he had vacated the said rented accommodation, and is presently running his business from his residence. On this account, it was stated that respondent- landlord required the demised premises bonafidely to run his business from the same. The tenanted premises are situated in the commercial hub of Delhi and more suitable to satisfy the bonafide need of the petitioner. Alongwith the petition, amongst other documents, the respondent-landlord has filed a copy of the GST registration form and copy of Income Tax Returns.
It is also stated in the petition that he had already sold the ground floor of the subject premises in the year 2013 for his personal exigencies.
Upon notice being issued, petitioner entered appearance and filed leave to defend application before learned ARC, which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, draws attention of this Court to the following paragraphs in the eviction petition:- “13. That since the petitioner was not having any commercial space 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 01/06/2026 at 07:29:53
in Delhi, the petitioner had to register his proprietorship firm Lemon Tree Solution from a tenanted premises at Shop No. 4, DS Tower, Sikandarpur, Metro Pillar no.58 Gurugram, Haryana, the premises which was on rent from landlord namely Puneet Yadav.
That the petitioner had to travel everyday from his residence at Rajouri Garden Delhi to Gurugram which incurs a lot of expenses and is time consuming and on account of advancement of age, it is also very difficult for the petitioner to travel a long distance of almost 30 kms. up and down.
That the petitioner who is the owner of the tenanted premises wants to shift his business as he has already vacated the tenanted premises at Sikandarpur Gurugram and is currently running the business from his residence i.e. J-7/100, 2nd Floor, Rajouri Garden Delhi which is to the annoyance to his family members and the petitioner is occupying the space at his residence for running his office and also storing the components / goods as mentioned above which is also causing space scarcity in the residence of the petitioner wherein the entire family is residing and his relatives come and stay also.
That the tenanted premises is suitable for carrying on the business of the petitioner as it is situated in the commercial hub of Delhi and tenant / respondent is enjoying the property at a meager rent of Rs.80/- per month for area of approximately 21 sq. yds. in Central Delhi to the annoyance of the petitioner.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in paragraph 16 thereof of the eviction petition filed by the respondent, the real intention of the petitioner has come forth inasmuch as his grievance was that the petitioner herein was paying a meagre rent of Rs. 80/- per month for the area of approx. 21 sq. yds. in Central Delhi to the annoyance of the respondent. It is further submitted that no time period had been specified by the respondent- landlord as to when he had taken the tenanted premises in Gurugram and when he had vacated the same. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that GST registration form would not be sufficient to demonstrate as to when and how the respondent-landlord had taken the tenanted premises 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 01/06/2026 at 07:29:53
and vacated the same. This, as per learned counsel for the petitioner, is a triable issue, and ought to have been appreciated by the learned ARC.
Attention of this Court has been drawn to Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2021-22 filed on behalf of the respondent to show that he was receiving a salary, and, his contention that he was running his business is, therefore, false.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner had handed up in Court the status of the GST number of the respondent-landlord wherein, it’s status is shown as “suspended” w.e.f 20.11.2025. The said document is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent- landlord did not place on record any document to show that he was actually running his business either from Gurugram or from his residential premises as claimed by him No documents in terms of any invoices or such material was placed on record to show that he was actually conducting any business. It is further contented on behalf of the petitioner that the bonafide need as claimed by the respondent-landlord was also not genuine inasmuch as the demised premises are situated in a narrow lane on the first floor and would be too small for the proposed business of the respondent-landlord for using it in his dealing in electrical parts and components of television, LED, LCD etc. Lastly, it was contended that the respondent-landlord had already sold one floor of the subject premises in 2013, and therefore, the bonafide need as projected in the eviction petition was artificial in nature.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, who appears on an advance notice, submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned ARC and all the contentions raised by 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 01/06/2026 at 07:29:53
the present petitioner have been duly examined and adjudicated upon. Learned counsel for the respondent during the course of proceedings has handed up in Court Tax Invoices from December, 2021 till May, 2023 showing the sale of various products on behalf of the proprietorship firm, i.e., Lemon Tree Solutions. The said Tax Invoices are taken on record.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
Learned ARC in the impugned order dated 29.10.2025, while dealing with bonafide requirement of the respondent-landlord, has observed and held as under:-
“14) Moving forward, in order to succeed in his petition, petitioner is required to establish his bonafide need. Petitioner has averred that he requires the tenanted premises for the purpose of his business. However, it is contended on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has not vacated the premises at Gurugram and he is already running his business from the said premises. But mere assertion on the part of the respondent by itself does not amount to any triable issue. The Hon’ble also made to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s A.K. Woolen Industries and Ors. Vs. Shri Narayan Gupta RC Rev. 495/2017 dated 31.10.2017 in which the following was held: -
“19.The law to be applied in this regard has been laid down Machinery & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679, Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimlabai Prabhulal (2005) 8 SCC 252 and Anil 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 01/06/2026 at 07:29:53
eviction and the Courts cannot intervene in the same.
15) Hence, in the light of the said principles of law, even if, petitioner is still running his business at Gurugram, there is no bar upon the petitioner to start independent business in Delhi. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that a person cannot be expected to sit idle and reach a state of starvation before his need is considered bonafide. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath G. Panhale Vs. M/s Chaganlal Sunderji & Co. AIR 1999 SC 3864 wherein it was observed that :
“A landlord need not lose his existing job nor resign it nor reach a level of starvation to contemplate that he must get possession of his premises for establishing a business.”
16) Further, in this regard, the provision of Section 19 (2) of DRC Act is to be emphasized which protects a tenant in case the landlord recovers possession of any premises and the premises are not occupied by the landlord or by the person for whose benefit the premises are held within two months of obtaining such possession or having obtained the possession, the same are re-let to any other person within three years from the date of obtaining the possession. Thus, the said contention is also devoid of merits.
17) Secondly, it is contended that the tenanted premises is not suitable for the projected requirement of the petitioner as it is situated in a narrow lane and on first floor. However, it is the prerogative of the landlord to determine which premises best suits his requirements. In the case titled as Ragavendra Kumar Vs. Firm Prem Machinery 2000 SC 534, it was observed as under:-
"It is settled position of law that the landlord is best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter, (See: Prativa Devi (Smt.) v. T.K Krishnan, [1996] 5 SCC 353. In the case in hand the plaintiff landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
A perusal of the aforesaid would reflect that it was the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant before the learned ARC that the respondent-landlord has not, in fact, vacated the premises in Gurugram, and 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 01/06/2026 at 07:29:53
was only running his business from the said premises.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant that the respondent-landlord had not placed any document to show that he was doing business from his tenanted premises before this Court is contrary to the stand taken by him before the learned ARC. In the leave to defend application filed on behalf of the petitioner it was stated as under:-
“8. That the deponent submits that, though the petitioner is not, the owner /landlord qua the respondent/ deponent, but, assuming for the sake , of arguments even then the petitioner is running' his business at Gurugram, as stated in the petition GST number,,is also at the address of Gurugram and the petitioner still running his business in the same premises, as he has not filed any document on record that he has vacated the said accommodation, in which he is running the business.”
Thus, before learned ARC, the stand of the petitioner-tenant was that the respondent-landlord had not vacated the Gurugram premises, which is totally contrary to the stand taken before this Court inasmuch it is contended before this Court that the petitioner was never doing any business from Gurugram and the entire story of doing a business had been created as a pretext to file the present eviction petition. The respondent-landlord has placed on record his GST certificate showing his Gurugram address. Even otherwise, the bonafide requirement of the respondent was to set up the business from his own property situated in the commercial hub of Delhi. Further, use of word ‘Annoyance’ cannot undermine the bonafide requirement shown by the respondent-landlord. The sale of ground floor of the subject property No.3873, Gali Kasai Wali, in 2013 has itself been disclosed in the eviction petition by the respondent, and it is pertinent to note that the present petition was filed on 04.06.2024. The learned ARC has rightly 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 01/06/2026 at 07:29:53
concluded that no triable issue could be raised and that protection of Section 19 (2) of the DRC Act is available to the petitioner.
The powers of this Court under Section 25-B(8) of the Act are not as wide as those of Appellate Court, and in case, it is found that the impugned orders are according to law and do not suffer from any juri ictional error, this Court must refrain from interfering with the same. The power under this provision is limited and supervisory in nature. Only when, it is evident that the Rent Controller has committed grave illegality or came to a conclusion which was not possible, based on the material produced, should this Court interfere in the order passed by the Rent Controller. In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119: AIR 1999 SC 100, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed and held as under: -
“8. …… The satisfaction of the High Court when perusing the records of the case must be confined to the limited sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is “according to the law.” In other works, the High Court shall scrutinize the records to ascertain whether any illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in passing the order under Section 25B. It is not permissible for the High Court in that exercise to come to a different fact finding unless the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller on the facts is so unreasonable that no Rent Controller should have reached such a finding on the materials available.”
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30 : (2022) 3 SCC (Civ) 287 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 419, with respect to scope of revision under DRCA, had observed and held as under: -
“Scope of revision
We are, in fact, more concerned with the scope and ambit of the proviso to Section 25-B(8). The proviso creates a distinct and 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 01/06/2026 at 07:29:53
unequivocal embargo by not providing an appeal against the order passed by the learned Rent Controller over an application filed under sub- section (5). The intendment of the legislature is very clear, which is to remove the appellate remedy and thereafter, a further second appeal. It is a clear omission that is done by the legislature consciously through a covenant removing the right of two stages of appeals.
The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance. Thus, the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate juri iction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted. The scope of interference by the High Court is very restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which would only mean that in the absence of any adjudication per se, the High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision. There is no need for holding a roving inquiry in such matters which would otherwise amount to converting the power of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, an act, totally forbidden by the legislature.”
The juri iction of the present petition is confined to examining whether the impugned order suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Revisional Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view, unless the impugned order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or vitiated by material impropriety. In the absence of such infirmities, there remains narrow scope for interference with the impugned order.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, no interference with the impugned order dated 29.10.2025 passed by learned ACJ-cum-ARC, Patiala House Courts, Delhi, in RC ARC No.345/2024 is called for, and the same is accordingly upheld.
The present petition is dismissed and disposed of.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 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 01/06/2026 at 07:29:53
Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned Execution Court/learned CCJ-cum-ARC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, for necessary information and compliance.
Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J MAY 11, 2026/nk/ns
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 01/06/2026 at 07:29:53
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.