Rajesh Kumar v. Jagesh & Ors

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 24, 2026/lp/DJ

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24.07.2026 + RC.REV. 256/2020, CM APPL. 32694/2020 (Stay), CM APPL. 46676/2022 (Delay of 75 days in filing the rejoinder), CM APPL. 46006/2023 (Dir.) & CM APPL. 58962/2023 (For deposit of use and occupation charges) RAJESH KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sahil Monga, Mr. Nitin Kumar, Ms. Rudrakshi Gautam and Mr. Vipul, Advocates. versus JAGESH & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vivek B. Saharya, Mr. Nishant and Mr. Mohd. Ameer, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (Oral) 1. The present Petition, filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581, seeks to assail the Order dated 06.07.20202 passed by the learned ACJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi3 in an Eviction petition, being E-78036/2016, titled "Sh. Jagesh & Others v. Sh. Rajesh Kumar", with respect to the tenanted premises bearing Municipal No. 1013, Ward No. 3, Katra Ghee, Tilak Bazar, Phatak Hafiz Khan, New Delhi4. 1 DRC Act 2 Impugned Order 3 learned ARC 4 subject premises SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES: 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner restricts the challenge to the Impugned Order on two grounds viz., firstly, that the Respondents 1, 2 and 4 were not the landlords of the subject premises and therefore could not have instituted the eviction proceedings against the Petitioner and secondly, that certain subsequent events, namely, the sale of two residential properties, in 2012 and 2014 respectively, prior to the institution of the eviction proceedings and the acquisition of another residential property during the pendency of the proceedings in 2017, demolish the Respondents' plea of bona fide requirement. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, elaborating the aforesaid first limb, contends that the relationship of landlord and tenant, if any, existed only between the husband of Respondent No.3, namely, Mr. Suresh Kumar, and the Petitioner and consequently with Respondent No.3, being the legal representative of Mr. Suresh, and not with Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Sale deed, in respect of the subject premises, relied upon by the Respondents reflects only the name of one Mr. Suresh Kumar and does not establish any title in favour of Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. 5. It is further submitted that Respondent No.3 did not step into the witness box to establish the alleged ownership of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4, nor was any Power of Attorney executed by her in favour of the witnesses who deposed on behalf of the Respondents. It is, therefore, contended that the Respondents failed to establish either their ownership or their status as landlords. 6. Further, on the second limb of the challenge, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that two residential properties situated in the vicinity of the tenanted premises were sold by the Respondents shortly before the institution of the eviction petition, while another residential property came to be acquired during the pendency of the proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, accordingly contends that these subsequent events demonstrate that the Respondents had sufficient alternate accommodation and that the plea of bona fide requirement no longer survives. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents supports the Impugned Order. He submits that the learned ARC has exhaustively considered the question of ownership and landlord-tenant relationship and has rightly held that, for the purposes of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the landlord is only required to establish a title better than that of the tenant. 9. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel places reliance upon the judicial precedents referred to by the learned ARC in the Impugned Order itself. The relevant portion of the Impugned Order is reproduced in Paragraph 22 herein below. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent