R.N. Sharma (Since Deceased) Through Lr v. Neelam Khanna (Since Deceased) Through Lrs

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

JULY 13, 2026/nd/va/ma

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13.07.2026 + RC.REV. 124/2026 & CM APPL. 24341/2026 (Stay) R.N. SHARMA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LR. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vijay Kinger, Mr. Ashwani Gehlot, Ms. Roopa Nagpal and Mr. Himanshu Kinger, Advocates. versus NEELAM KHANNA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Abhishek and Mr. Zameer Ahmed, Advocates for Respondent No. 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (Oral) 1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to assail the Order dated 12.11.20252 passed by the learned Rent Controller, District- Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi3, in Eviction Petition bearing RC/ARC No. E-586/2016, in respect of the property bearing number B-165, MIG, DDA Flats, Second Floor, Loni Road, Shahdara, 1 The DRC Act 2 Impugned Order 3 Learned ARC Delhi4, wherein the learned ARC allowed the Eviction Petition. 2. The challenge to the Impugned Order is essentially founded on two grounds, i.e., firstly, that there existed no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties and secondly, that there was no bona fide requirement of the subject premises warranting eviction of the Petitioner. 3. In this regard, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the tenancy was originally created by the father of the Respondent and, therefore, no relationship of landlord and tenant ever came into existence between the parties. 4. Proceeding on the aforesaid basis, learned counsel for the Petitioner reiterates the submission urged before the learned ARC that, in the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the Eviction Petition itself was not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further submits that the learned ARC failed to appreciate that the relationship between the Respondent and her son was admittedly estranged and that they were not on speaking terms. Learned counsel for the Petitioner accordingly submits that this aspect has a direct bearing on the plea of bona fide requirement. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner further submits that the Respondent's daughter was already residing in sufficiently spacious accommodation and, therefore, no bona fide requirement in respect of the subject premises was made out on her behalf as well. It is, accordingly, submitted that the Impugned Order stands vitiated on both the aforesaid grounds. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 4 Subject Premises Respondent, supporting the Impugned Order passed by the learned ARC, submits that each of the aforesaid contentions has already been considered in detail by the learned ARC and, therefore, no interference is warranted in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent, in support of the foregoing submission, draws the attention of this Court to the relevant findings of the learned ARC while dealing with the aforesaid grounds, as raised by the Petitioner, which reads as under: "17) Whether there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?  Admissions made in written statement: As per para 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the written statement there is no specific denial that the petitioner is the landlord and respondent R.N. Sharma was the tenant on the tenanted premises. It is simply stated that the contents of para 3 (a) and 3 (b) are matter of record. Similarly, it is stated that the contents 8 to 11 whereby the details of tenancy are given are matter of record. Further, additionally it is stated that after the death of R. N. Sharma his daughter Savita is living in the tenanted premises being the LR. Hence, there is no dispute regarding the tenancy of the respondent on the tenanted premises.  It is already discussed above that the respondent/tenant