RC.REV. 183/2018 Page 1 of 9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: September 10, 2025 + RC.REV. 183/2018 & CM APPL. 3720/2025 SANJAY PANDEY ...Petitioner Through: M r. A.K. Pandey, Advocate (Through VC) along with pet itioner in person. Versus LALITA ...Respondent Through: M r. Aditya Aggarwal Advocate. CORAM : HON'BLE M R. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJE J U D G M E N T ( Oral ) 1. The respondent/ landlord 1 filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ,2 before the learned Senior Civil Judge / Rent Controller , Shahdara, Karkardooma Court s, Delhi 3, seking eviction of the petitioner/ tenant 4 from property bearing no.D -243, New Sanjay Amar C olony, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi -110 032 5, for the bona fide requirement of the premises for her own residence as well as that of their family members , as there is no other suitable alternate acommodation available. 2. As per landlord, she was the absolute owner of the subject premises as she was having the General Power of Attorney, Agrement to Sell and 1 hereinafter referred to as “ landlord ” 2 hereinafter referred to as “ DRC Act ” 3 hereinafter referred to as “ RC ” 4 hereinafter referred to as “ tenant ” 5 hereinafter referred to as “ subject premises ” RC.REV. 183/2018 Page 2 of 9 receipt dated 23.07.2001 6 qua the subject premises in her favour from the erstwhile owner thereof, her brother M r. Amar Nath , and thus she was the landlord ther eof as well. Therefore, there was a landlord tenant relationship betwen the parties herein . Being 44 years old and having thre unmaried children, who all were residing with her @ D -235, New Sanjay Amar Colony, Vishwas Nagar, Delhi -110 032 admeasu x 15’ sq yds. , which had only two rooms , and as one of her sons was aged about 24 years , he was of mariageable age, the two rooms therein were insuficient. Therefore, the bona fide requirement had arisen qua her and for her family member s, more so, sinc e she did not possess any other suitable alternate accommodation in Delhi. 3. The landlord also submitted that in addition to the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, since the tenant stopped making payments despite several requests, a pet ition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act was also filed against him due to non -payment of rent . The same is curently pending adjudication before the learned ASCJ , Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. 4. Upon service, the tenant filed an application for leave to de fend under Section(s) 25(4) and (5) of the DRC Act , wherein, he relied upon a judgment and part decre dated 01.03.2014 passed by the learned JSC - ASCJ -GJ ( Shahdara ) Karkardo oma Courts, Delhi in a suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction in his favour since the landlord and others had ben directed not to dispossess him without following due process of law. It was also the case of the tenant that he had purchased the subject premises from the same M r. Amar Nath for a consideration of 6 hereinafter after referred to as “ Ownership documents ” RC.REV. 183/2018 Page 3 of 9 Rs.1,00 ,000/ - [Rupes One Lakh Only ] in the year 2007 by virtue of an oral agrement, for which no documents were prepared. As such, the tenant claimed to be the owner of the subject premises, as also that there was thus no landlord tenant relationship betwen th e parties . In fact, upon receipt of the landlord’s Legal Notice da , h e had replied thereto on 07.06.2013 stating that no landlord tenant relationship existed qua them . It was also his case that he had also let out one room on the ground floor therein to one M r. Dilip in November 2014 at a monthly rent of Rs.3,000/ - [Rupes Three Thousand Only ]. 5. In response thereto, the landlord submitted that the averments made by the tenant in the application for leave to defend were not coroborated, and, i n any event, the afidavit therewith was defective. Thus, it was the case of the landlord therein that the re were no triable issues raised therein. 6. Judging by the materials on record and based on the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for both the parties, finding there was/ were no triable issue raised by the tenant in the application for leave to defend, vide order dated 10.01.2017 7, the learned RC dismissed the application for leave to defend of the tenant and directed his eviction from the subj ect premises . 7. Aggrieved there by, the present revision petition by the tenant . 8. This Court on 01.05.2018, issued notice to the landlord and granted stay qua the impugned order. Subsequently, the landlord filed CM APPL. 3720/2025 to fix the user and ocupati on charges, where in this Court vide order dated 21.01.2025 , has issued notice and call ed upon the parties to 7 hereinafter referred to as “ impugned order ” RC.REV. 183/2018 Page 4 of 9 file reply / rejoinder as also their respective lease deds/ documents and photographs in support of their respective contentions. Since there i s nothing on record qua that, today the present petition is taken up for disposal. 9. M r. A.K. Pandey, learned counsel for the tenant, has raised similar arguments as were argued before the learned RC. He submits that the Ownership documents vide which the l andlord claims ownership of the subject premises are fabricated, and a criminal complaint under Sections 156(3) and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed by the tenant qua them is pending disposal against the landlord. He further submits that the tenant is the owner of the subject premises, which is fortified by the fact that he had let it out to one M r. Basant Jha on 08.08.2011 by a Rent Agrement , to which one M r. Amar Nath himself signed as a witness. He then submits that, in view of the impu gned order being against the judgment and part decree dated 01.03.2014 , the impugned order is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, M r. Aditya Aggarwal, learned counsel for the landlord submits that after due execution of the Ownersh ip documents in her favour , the landlord was not only the owner but also the landlord of the subject premises as she was having a better title than that of the tenant. He submits that although the tenant professes himself to be the owner thereof on the bas is of an averment qua an oral agrement and sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/ - [Rupees One Lakh Only ], however, the same is unsubstantiated and a mere bald statement . On the aspect of bona fide requirement of the subject premises, he submits that the land lord is 44 years old having thre unmaried children, who all are residing in two RC.REV. 183/2018 Page 5 of 9 rooms in a small accommodation ad ., and moreover , since her son is of a mariageable age , t he present acommodation is insufficient for her residence with her family members. Lastly , on the aspect of having an alternate acommodation available with her, he submits that the landlord is having no other accommodation within Delhi. All t he above, acording to him, are suficient grounds for upholding the i mpugned order and dismissal of the present petition. 11. This Court has h eard the learned counsel for the parties as also perused the documents on record as well. 12. W ith respect to existence of a landlord tenant relationship betwen the parties, on one hand th e landlord has filed a General Power of Attorney, Agrement to Sell and Receipt dated 23.07.2001 qua the subject premises executed by the erstwhile owner thereof, her brother M r. Amar Nath , however, to controvert them , the tenant has merely avered that he had purchased the subject premises vide an oral agrement from the very same M r. Amar Nath for a consideration of Rs.1,00,000/ - [Rupes One Lakh Only ] in the year 2007 , for which no documents were prepared. The same shows that the landlord was, based on t he documents, able to substantiate that she had a better title than that of the tenant. M oreover, the tenant merely made a bald assertion qua there being an oral agrement. In any event, the tenant was unable to give any details about the mode/ proof of su ch payment o f Rs.1,00,000/ - [Rupees One Lakh Only ] made by him, and/ or was unable to show/ bring on record any receipt qua the said amount, and/ or was unable to show/ bring on record any acknowledgement thereof by the said M r. Amar Nath. In view of the aforesaid, the alleged letting out by the tenant to one M r. Basant Jha RC.REV. 183/2018 Page 6 of 9 through a Rent Agreement could not be taken into consideration . It is trite that the tenant was required to show something worthy of merit/ credence, which was much more than mere bald a ssertions in the leave to defend [Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd 8., Dena Nath v. Pooran Lal 9]. 13. Thus, here is a case of the landlord who had primary/ documentary evidence with concrete basis supporting her version versus the tenant having me re secondary/ oral evidence with fictitious stories with mythical characters without any, much less, substantive proof thereof. No doubt, primary/ documentary evidence shall prevail over the secondary/ oral evidence . As such , the tenant was not able to rai se any triable issue qua non -existence of a landlord tenant relationship between the parties. It is trite that the landlord was/ is only required to show a better title than the tenant [ Smt. Shanti Sharma v. Smt. Ved Prabha 10 ], which onus was discharged by the landlord with respect to the subject premises . As per settled position of law, this was suficient for the learned RC to hold that there existed a landlord tenant relationship betwen the parties. 14. W ith respect to there being a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord, it has ben her case since beginning that she was a lady aged about 44 years old having thre unmaried children, of whom one of her son was of a mariageable age and that they were all residing together with her in a small accommodation admea comprising of merely two rooms. This, acording to the landlord, was not 8 (1998) 8 SCC 119 9 (2001) 5 SCC 705 10 1987 SCC (4) 193 RC.REV. 183/2018 Page 7 of 9 only insuficient but also inadequate for her residence with her family members. Nedless to say, the requirement(s) of a landlord a re ever changing, particularly, since when an issue of progenity like in the present case, is involved. Also, it is trite that the landlord was/ is the best judge for seeking the subject premises to su neds [ Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Behal 11 and Dwarkaprasad v. Niranjan and Anr. 12 ]. Interestingly , the tenant never raise d a dispute qua any of the above, as also never raised a dispute qua there being no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord. 15. Theref ore, the tenant was un able to raise any triable issue qua there being no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord . On the contrary, the landlord was able to show that she had genuine needs, not only for herself but also for her own fam ily members, especially for the new addition(s) to follow after mariage of her son. T hus, the above was suficient for the learned RC to hold that she had a bona fide requirement of the subject premises . 16. W ith respect to there being no suitable alternativ e acommodation available with the landlord, it has all along ben the case of the landlord that she has no other suitable alternative accommodation and is residing in her present accommodation which is too small and inadequate for her and her ever growing needs of the family members residing with her. Once again, the same was never denied by the tenant all throughout the course of procedings before the learned RC. 17. Consequently, the tenant was unable to raise any triable issue qua 1 (2002) 5 SCC 397 12 (2003) 4 SCC 549 RC.REV. 183/2018 Page 8 of 9 there being a suitable al ternative acommodation available with the landlord . As to the landlord , she was able to maintain right through pendency of the procedings before the learned RC that she, in fact, had no suitable alternative acommodation available with her, more so, sinc e there was no denial thereof by the tenant at any point of time. 18. The rest of the issues qua impact of the judgment and part decre dated 01.03.2014 on the present petition, the issue of the landlord having filed forged documents and its impact thereof and the impact of a pending Section 14(1)(a) petition of the DRC Act on the present petition, are, in the considered opinion of this Court , meritless and need not be considered in view of the aforesaid findings. Be that as it may, the impugned order has ben passed after following due procedure in acordance with law, and the tenant was unable to show/ prove anything qua the aspect of forgery, and the pendency of a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the DRC Act qua the same subject premises could not have come in the way of disposal of the present eviction petition under Section 14(1)( e) of the DRC Act . 19. At the end of the day, this Court being a revisional Court while dealing with a petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, which is confined to superintende nce with restricted interference , and that too only whence the impugned order sufers from an eror apparent on the face of the record, or the findings are perverse, or reflect a misapplication of statutory provisions [Sarla Ahuja (Supra) and Abid -Ul -Islam v. Inder Sain Dua 13 ], the same is not the case in these proceedings before this 13 (2022) 6 SCC 30 RC.REV. 183/2018 Page 9 of 9 Court. 20. Finding no infirmity, illegality or iregularity in the impugned order dated 10.01.2017 passed by the learned RC , there is no plausible reason for interfering with the same and the present revision petition along with the pending application(s) if any, is dismissed with no order as to costs . 21. In view thereof, the stay granted vide order dated 01.05.2018 stands vacated. SAURABH BANERJE, J . SEPTEM BER 10, 2025 NA