* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: December 15, 2025
% Pronounced on: January 15, 2026
+ [Link]. 600/2018, CM APPL. 23769/2023
RAGHUABIR SARAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Gurnani, Mr. Manish
Aggarwal, Mr. Mukesh Kr. Gupta,
Mr. Amit Ambawat, Mr. Abhishek
Singh and Ms. Shilpa Kumari, Advs.
Versus
JAI BHAGWAN & ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr. Sahil
Monga, Mr. Nitin Kumar and Ms.
Esha Goyal, Ms. Harshita Pal and
Ms. Rudrakshi Gautam, Advs. for
respondents.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner/ landlord1 filed an Eviction Petition being E.
No.77513/2016 entitled ‘Raghubir Saran vs. Jai Bhagwan & Anr.’ under
Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act,
19582 against the respondents/ tenants3 seeking eviction of Shop No.502,
Main Bazar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-1100074, before the learned Senior Civil
1
Hereinafter ‘landlord’
2
Hereinafter ‘DRC Act’
3
Hereinafter ‘tenants’
4
Hereinafter ‘subject premises’
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 1 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi5.
2. Briefly put, as per landlord therein his wife, Smt. Laxmi Devi,
became the owner of the subject premises by virtue of the registered Sale
Deed dated 24.02.1969, whereafter she executed a Will dated 08.03.1989,
prior to her demise on 23.08.1989, bequeathing the property wherein the
subject premises was situated in favour of the landlord. Initially Sh. Mool
Chand and Sh. Rameshwar Das were inducted as joint tenants in the subject
premises and after their demise, the tenancy devolved upon the present
tenants, who thereafter attorned the landlord as such. The landlord had a
bona fide requirement for the subject premises for himself as well as for his
two grandsons namely Sh. Vijay Kumar and Sh. Gaurav, for the purpose of
establishing and carrying on their business.
3. The landlord’s father was earlier carrying on his business from a
tenanted premises bearing Shop No.362-A, Main Road, Subzi Mandi,
Delhi6 and after his death on 06.03.2005, the landlord himself along with
his son namely Sh. Pawan Kumar was operating therefrom. Thereafter, the
landlord handed over vacant and peaceful possession of the said tenanted
premises in February, 2008 to the owner thereof. After vacating the said
tenanted premises, his son expired on 27.05.2008, which left his grandsons
dependent upon him. The landlord had no other place of business/ suitable
alternative accommodation available for fulfilling the intended bona fide
requirement.
4. Upon being served, the tenants filed an application under Section
25B(4) of the DRC Act seeking leave to defend, which was though
5
Hereinafter ‘learned RC’
6
Hereinafter ‘property No.362-A’
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 2 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
dismissed vide order dated 29.11.2011, but overturned by this Court vide
order dated 24.09.2012 in a challenge thereto in [Link]. 51/2012.
5. In their joint written statements, it was the case of the tenants that the
landlord was merely satisfying his greed as there was no bona fide
requirement and at best a mere desire, and that property No.362-A was
vacated by the landlord only after receiving a pagri amount of about Rs.20
lakhs from the landlord therein. This was because only his late father and
his grandson were running the business of ‘atta chakki’ therefrom, and
after expiry of his father since his son was medically suffering, and the
landlord himself never participated therein at any time whatsoever.
Moreover, the landlord, about 75 years of age, was residing separately from
his son Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel and his grandsons at [Link].503, Main
Bazar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, and was earning substantial rental income, and
had no intention to start any business. His relationship were strained with
his grandsons and daughters-in-law, as he had initiated proceedings against
his grandsons and their mother Smt. Brij Bala, only to withdraw it later to
succeed in the Eviction Petition filed qua the present subject premises. His
grandsons were neither financially dependent upon the landlord nor in need
of any commercial accommodation as they were residing separately and
independently carrying on their respective businesses. Also, an earlier
Eviction Petition filed by his wife, Smt. Laxmi Devi, had been set aside in
appeal.
6. Based on the above, the learned RC passed a judgment dated
31.07.20187 dismissing the Eviction Petition of the landlord on the count
that he failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the
7
Hereinafter ‘impugned judgment’
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 3 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
DRC Act.
7. Hence, the present revision petition by the landlord for setting aside
the impugned judgment 31.07.2018 passed by the learned RC.
8. Of the many grounds raised herein by the landlord, Mr. Ashok
Gurnani, learned counsel for the landlord primarily submitted that the
landlord had duly proved his ownership of the subject premises and that, as
per settled law, he was/ is fully entitled not only to carry on his own
business but also to associate his grandsons with him for the purpose of
establishing their future. The learned counsel submitted that the bona fide
need projected by him was for himself as well as for his two grandsons,
who were dependent upon him for commercial accommodation to establish
their business, as also that after the demise of his son, the responsibility of
settling and establishing his grandsons squarely fell upon the landlord.
Thus, under such circumstances, the need projected by the landlord was
genuine and bona fide and not a mere desire.
9. As per Mr. Ashok Gurnani, learned counsel, the age of the landlord
or that he had never carried upon any business being wholly untenable and
contrary to the scheme and spirit of the DRC Act and were of no
consideration as they were not themselves reasons for barring a landlord to
carry on business. The landlord’s grandsons were financially independent
and earning handsomely was of no credence as there was no evidence to
that effect by the tenants. In fact, one of his grandson Sh. Vijay Kumar
(PW4) deposed in his cross-examination that he and his brother were
compelled to work as drivers and were earning only about Rs.5,000/- to
Rs.7,000/- per month. This, according to the learned counsel, clearly
established their dependency upon the landlord.
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 4 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
10. In between, since the landlord himself expired on 11.03.2022,
leaving behind a Will dated 21.07.2015, by virtue whereof he bequeathed a
measured strip of the subject premises in favor of his two grandsons and
the remaining portion to his other son, Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel and
subsequently one of his grandsons namely Sh. Vijay Kumar also expired on
30.06.2024, leaving behind his only surviving grandson Sh. Gaurav, during
the pendency of the present petition, as per Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, learned
counsel for the tenants, the same was another reason for dismissal of the
present petition as, according to the tenants, there was no bona fide
requirement surviving.
11. To counter the aforesaid, Mr. Ashok Gurnani, learned counsel
submitted that none of the aforesaid were material as once the bona fide
requirement, even if only qua a limited portion is established and still
survived, as per settled law, eviction of the entire subject premises is
legally permissible, especially, whence there is/ are no objections raised by
Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel, another son of the landlord, qua any of the
aforesaid.
12. In light of the aforesaid, Mr. Ashok Gurnani, learned counsel prayed
that the present petition be allowed and the impugned judgment be set
aside.
13. Per contra, Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw learned counsel for the tenants
submitted that since the grandsons of the landlord were not ‘family
members’, the landlord had no bona fide requirement within the ambit of
Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The landlord’s grandsons were not
dependent upon the landlord as he was admittedly residing separately with
his son, while the grandsons were residing separately along with their
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 5 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
mother. The mere relationship of grandfather and grandsons does not ipso
facto establish dependency, and the Court is required to examine whether
the alleged dependency is genuine as also whether cordial relations
subsisted between the parties.
14. Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, learned counsel submitted that the grandsons
of the landlord were/ are both financially independent and gainfully
engaged in their respective businesses earning substantial sums per month.
As such, the grandsons of the landlord cannot be said to be dependent upon
the landlord in any manner. The learned counsel further submitted that the
landlord, being more than 75 years of age (as of the year 2010) and having
never carried on any business, neither had the intention nor the capacity to
start any business at such an advanced stage of life, more so, when his
livelihood and day-to-day needs were being met by his son. The learned
counsel then submitted that the landlord has failed to place on record any
material to show existence of any partnership firm or past business activity
so as to substantiate the plea of his bona fide requirement. The learned
counsel also submitted that as evident from the fact that the landlord
himself had instituted a suit for recovery of money/ rent against his
grandsons, only to withdraw it after filing of the Eviction Petition for
vacation of the subject premises, the relationship between them were
strained.
15. Lastly, relying upon the tenants’ application being CM APPL.
23769/2023 seeking consideration of fresh developments/ subsequent
events, Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, learned counsel submitted that the Eviction
Petition was originally filed on the ground of bona fide requirement of the
landlord and his two grandsons, and both the landlord and one of his
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 6 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
grandsons for whom eviction of the subject premises was sought had both
expired, and in fact he had by way of a Will dated 21.07.2015 bequeathed
the remaining portion in favour of his son, Sh. Sanjay Kumar Goel, the
paternal uncle of the said grandsons, and who was not a party to the
eviction proceedings and never professed his bona fide need. Moreover,
since the grandsons did not have any ownership rights over the entire
subject premises, they could not claim any relief and/ or seek eviction of
the tenants in respect of the portion of the premises bequeathed to Sh.
Sanjay Kumar Goel.
16. In light of the aforesaid, Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, learned counsel
prayed that the present petition be dismissed and the impugned judgment
be upheld.
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties, as also gone through the
documents and pleadings on record.
18. It was always the case of the landlord right from the very beginning,
in his Eviction Petition that he required the subject premises for his own
self and his grandsons, Sh. Vijay Kumar and Sh. Gaurav.
19. A perusal of the impugned judgment reflects that the findings
rendered by the learned RC are based on the order dated 24.09.2012 passed
by this Court whereby the initial order dismissing the application for leave
to defend of the tenants was set aside since there was nothing on record
regarding the landlord having suffered losses in business, the existence of
cordial relations between the landlord and his grandsons and the earlier
litigation inter se them, and based thereon that the tenants were able to
make out a case for dismissal of the Eviction Petition filed by the landlord,
as also since the landlord was unable to bring any document(s) regarding
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 7 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
any loss in business suffered by him as he did not maintain any accounts.
20. At the outset, though the learned RC has held that the landlord was
unable to prove the Will dated 08.03.1989 executed by his wife, however,
the fact that there was a registered Sale Deed dated 24.02.1969 and that the
landlord was one of her legal heirs have been ignored, and not given any
weightage by the learned RC. In such a scenario, the Will was a secondary
document and the primary document being the Sale Deed and the relation
of husband and wife could not have been ignored as the same stood proven.
Moreover, there was/ is no denial of the fact that after the demise of Sh.
Mool Chand and Sh. Rameshwar Das, the erstwhile tenants of the subject
premises, the tenants herein attorned the landlord as such. Resultantly, the
landlord tenant relationship between the parties stood proven and the
finding qua that by the learned RC need no interference.
21. Regarding the landlord suffering losses, and/ or that he was unable to
show so, neither of them were simpliciter ground(s) for dismissal of an
eviction proceeding under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act filed by the
landlord as the landlord may be (un)employed, he may (not) be carrying on
any business, he may (not) be financially sound, he may (not) be having
other premises available with him, he may be of frail and/ or old age, but
there was/ is no bar for the landlord to have sought eviction of the tenants
from his own subject premises. Also, and in any event, the impugned
judgment does not reflect any plausible reason(s) for the learned RC to
have given weightage to the landlord being unable to show that he was
suffering losses. As such, since this could not have been a reason for
dismissal of the Eviction Petition of the landlord, the aforesaid findings
rendered by the learned RC are liable to be set aside.
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 8 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
22. Similarly, a perusal of the record also reveals that another reason for
dismissal of the Eviction Petition of the landlord recorded by the learned
RC is relating to the relations of the landlord with his grandsons not being
cordial, and further that he later withdrew a suit instituted by him against
them, more so, since he failed to give any reasons for having done so and
the timeline between filing of the Eviction Petition by him, filing of the
application seeking leave to defend by the tenants and the withdrawal of
the said suit instituted by him against his grandsons, were all coinciding to
a large extent. The learned RC has, on his own, deduced the same and held
that “… …the situation which has arisen is that previous civil suit for
recovery of rent was filed by petitioner, prior to filing application for leave
to defend and after getting to know the contents of application for leave to
defend on 10.01.2011, the said previous suit was withdrawn by petitioner.
It is not the case of petitioner that he has forgone his right to recover rent
from his grandsons. In such circumstances, the only possibility which
remains is that petitioner withdrew previous suit bearing no. 333/09 once
she came to know that respondents have taken the ground of absence of
cordial relations between him and his grandsons, in their application for
leave to defend. If that is so, then conduct of petitioner did not reflect that
he has a bonafide behind filing of this petition. Coupled with the same, the
aspect of absence of cordial relations between petitioner and his grandsons
is reflected from the fact that his grandsons are not residing with him. …
…”. This, despite the landlord having filed the Property Tax receipt
(Ex.PW1/4) qua the premises wherein his grandsons were residing simply
by holding that “… …It does not explain as to why petitioner is not residing
with his grandsons.” and that “… … Had relations between petitioner and
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 9 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
his grandson Vijay been cordial, it should have noted that petitioner's
address is H. No. 503, Main Bazar. So, overall, petitioner failed to place on
record any possibility, which can be believed, to the extent that he had
cordial relations with his grandsons. His testimony as such did not
probabilize that factum. … …”. In fact, the learned RC has discarded the
Marriage Card dated 21.02.2009 (Ex.PW1/11) as being irrelevant since the
cordial relations between them had to be seen only on 15.09.2010 when the
Eviction Petition was filed. Not only that, the learned RC has further
(wrongly) held that Sh. Vijay Kumar (PW4) “… …should have explained
as to what were the terms of compromise between him and petitioner. He
should have explained as to why relations were not cordial earlier and why
those relations became cordial now.”. It was not for the learned RC to
render such speculative and/ or presumptive findings based on
hypothecations and/ or find faults in deposition of a witness, while dealing
with an eviction proceeding under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. These,
once again, are also liable to be set aside.
23. Since there is no denial about the grandsons being from the same
lineage of the landlord and it is only their case that their relations were not
cordial, it did not stop the landlord from performing his filial duties for
their betterment. Since the learned RC was not acting as a Civil Court, he
was not required to venture into the aspect of nature of relations between
them. Estranged relations are certainly not a reason for denial of eviction of
a tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The landlord was/ is not to
give any reasonings of his withdrawal of the suit instituted against his
grandsons. The aforesaid findings are against the very tenets of the DRC
Act, more so, since they cannot be a plausible reason for sustaining the
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 10 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
impugned judgment.
24. Similarly, not divulging the reasons/ circumstances for vacation of
another premises by the landlord or the details of his proposed business
with his grandsons have led the learned RC to conclude that the landlord
“… …failed to probabilize his case”, as also to hold that Sh. Vijay Kumar
(PW4) “… …did not explain as to what business he and his brother wanted
to run in shop in question. He did not explain the infrastructure and modus
operandi of running said business in shop in question.”, and these have
been taken as grounds for refusal by him. The same are not the
considerations/ requirements in an Eviction Petition filed by the landlord
under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The learned RC could not have
based his findings on probabilities and/ or deductions and/ or conjectures,
more so, whence there are no reasoning given for placing reliance on them.
25. Moreover, merely because his grandsons were gainfully employed,
and that too, elsewhere, could not preclude the landlord from seeking
eviction of the tenants from the subject premises to bring them to his own
fold by performing his own filial duties. Employment of a landlord or his
relatives for which he is seeking eviction of a tenant may be factors for
consideration but could not have been the governing factors for the learned
RC to pass the impugned judgment.
26. Based on the above, it can be safely inferred that the impugned
judgment rendered by the learned RC is based on assumptions as to what
the landlord could/ ought to have done in a civil proceedings, merely
because the trial has been held even though the learned RC was sitting in a
rent jurisdiction dealing with an eviction proceeding of the landlord for
eviction of the tenants from the subject premises under Section 14(1)(e) of
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 11 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
the DRC Act. The learned RC clearly transgressed his jurisdiction by
assuming the role of a Civil Court. The same were beyond the contours of
an eviction proceedings.
27. Further, that the landlord did not examine a Doctor or produce a
medical certificate to show that he was physically and mentally healthy,
merely since he was more than 80 years of age, were not sufficient for the
learned RC to hold that “… …possibility of running business similarly with
the same enthusiasm as person of young age, ordinarily is not seen.”, based
whereon he has “… …discarded his testimony being untrustworthy.”. This
is because age of a landlord seeking eviction of a tenant in an Eviction
Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act is not a determining factor
for seeking eviction. All the more, whence it was all throughout the case of
the landlord that he wanted the subject premises for his own self and his
two grandsons, as also since there were/ are more than one way(s) for him
to carry on his business. None of these were within the realm of the learned
RC.
28. Lastly, with regard to the issue raised by the tenants on account of
subsequent developments, though, it is not in dispute that the landlord and
his grandson, Sh. Vijay Kumar Goel, expired on 11.03.2022 and
30.06.2024 respectively, i.e., during the pendency of the present revision
petition, however, this Court is of the considered view that, in terms of the
settled position of law, the death of a/ the landlord during the pendency of
the present revision petition, will have no bearing on the outcome of the
present petition as his legal heirs are fully entitled to prosecute and defend
his estate. Furthermore, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 12 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
Shakuntala Bai & Ors. vs. Narayan Das & Ors.8 and Kamleshwar Prasad
vs. Pradumanju Agarwal9 as also followed by this Court in judgment dated
05.01.2026 passed in [Link]. 213/2023 entitled ‘Mohd Burhan & Ors.
vs. Shri Triloki Nath (Since Deceased) Through Lrs & Ors., it is well
settled that the bona fide requirement of the landlord is required to be
assessed as on the date of institution of the Eviction Petition, which, in the
present case, was asserted for his own use and for the use of his two
grandsons. Even otherwise, since it is an admitted fact that one of the
grandsons, Sh. Gaurav is very much alive, the bona fide requirement
insofar as he is concerned, continues to subsist. Moreover, the subsequent
events highlighted by the tenants herein, are not of such nature and/ or
dimension that the need propounded by the landlord should have been
completely eclipsed by such subsequent event(s), which as observed
hereinabove still subsists. In any event, accepting subsequent events such
as the death of the landlord at every stage of the proceedings would lead to
interminable litigation, which the law does not sanction.
29. Pertinently, in view of the aforesaid analysis and findings as also in
view of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh10,
wherein it is well-settled that while acting in supervisory jurisdiction under
Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, this Court can test whether the impugned
judgment/ order suffers from any arbitrariness, perversity, illegality,
impropriety or the like, it becomes the bounden duty of this Court to invoke
its powers under revisional jurisdiction, the present revision petition is
allowed and the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2018 passed by the
8
2004 (5) SCC 772
9
(1997) 4 SCC 413
10
(2014) 9 SCC 78
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 13 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51
learned RC is set aside.
30. Resultantly, an order of eviction is passed in favour of the landlord in
respect of property being Shop No.502, Main Bazar, Subzi Mandi, Delhi-
110007 and the tenants are directed to handover vacant, peaceful physical
possession of the subject premises to the landlord in compliance thereof,
albeit, only after expiry of six months’ period from today in terms of
Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.
31. The present petition along with the pending application is allowed
and disposed of in terms of the above, with no order as to costs.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
JANUARY 15, 2026/bh/DA
[Link]. 600/2018 Page 14 of 14
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:15.01.2026
16:50:51