M/S Digjam Ltd v. Nisha Arora

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 21, 2026/nd/jk

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 21.07.2026 + RC.REV. 231/2026, CM APPL. 45852/2026 (Stay), CM APPL. 45853/2026 (Delay 139 days.) & CM APPL. 45854/2026 (Ex.) M/S DIGJAM LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Adarsh Priyadarshi, Ms. Ananya, Ms. Sandhya and Mr. Suchit, Advocates. versus NISHA ARORA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Siddharth Dutta and Mr. Pratyush Singh, Advocates. 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, seeking to set aside the Order dated 06.01.20262 passed by learned Additional Rent Controller, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, Delhi3, in Eviction Petition No. 30 RCA RC 20/23, titled "Kranti Arora vs. M/s Digjam Ltd.", whereby the learned Trial Court has been pleased to pass an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act on 1 DRC Act 2 Impugned Order 3 ARC the ground that no application seeking leave to defend has been filed on behalf of the Respondent. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the learned ARC has erred in passing the Impugned Order since the bona fide requirement pleaded by the landlord-late Shri Kranti Arora did not survive during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. 3. It is submitted that the eviction petition was principally founded upon the personal requirement of late Shri Kranti Arora, who, during the pendency of the said proceedings, unfortunately expired, 4. It is therefore contended that the very foundation of the eviction petition consequently ceased to exist and the learned ARC failed to appreciate the legal effect of the subsequent event. 5. In support thereof, he also draws attention of this Court to Paragraph No. 19 of the eviction petition to submit that the requirement pleaded therein was intrinsically linked with the medical condition of late Shri Kranti Arora, who required the premises for his residence in Delhi while undergoing treatment. Relevant portion of Paragraph no. 19 of the eviction petition is reproduced hereinbelow: "19. That the Petitioner is aged around 78 years and is having no other accommodation for himself or his family even and owns just the said impugned flat premises. The Petitioner is in need of the said flat for his and wife's residence as he is suffering from various ailments and needs treatment in Delhi regularly for which at present he must undertake travel from Amritsar, despite having his own house in Delhi, access to which is deprived to him by the Respondent/Tenant. ……….." 6. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid subsequent development, the learned ARC proceeded to hold that the requirement survived in favour of the widow of the original petitioner without there being any independent pleadings constituting such requirement. In this regard, learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court to paragraph no. 24 and paragraph no. 26 of the Impugned Order which reads as follows:- "24. The present petition has been filed by averring that respondent is a tenant in Flat no. 12, Gauri Apartments, 3 and 4 Sourthend Lane, New Delhi-110001-1660Sg. Ft. + Servant Area (130 Sq. Ft.) + Area of Terrace (290 Sq. Ft.) as shown in the site plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as tenanted premises). It is stated that the petitioner requires the tenanted premises for the bonafide requirement of himself and his wife for their residence in Delhi as they have to regularly travel to Delhi from Amritsar as medical treatment is required in Delhi for various ailments……….. xxxxxx 26. The respondent is deemed to have admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant between. the petitioner and the respondent. Moreover, findings given in this regard by the Hon'ble High Court in previous litigation between the parties are not in disput