Naveen Chopra v. Sualeha Begum

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 13, 2026/v/va/ma

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13.07.2026 + RC.REV. 238/2022 & CM APPL. 39607/2026 (For vacation of the interim stay order dt. 25.05.2023 on behalf of the Respondent) NAVEEN CHOPRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. S.S Jain, Ms. Sneha Roy & Ms. Madhu Yadav, Advs. versus SUALEHA BEGUM .....Respondent Through: Mr. R.M. Bagai & Mohd. Yasin, Advs. 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, 19581, seeking to assail the Order dated 21.07.20222 passed by the Learned ARC-01, District Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi3 in Eviction Petition No. 1039/2014 titled Sualeha Begum v. Naveen Chopra in respect of Two Shops bearing no. 9004 and 9006, Ram Bagh Road, Pulbangash, Azad Market, Delhi - 1100064. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner assails 1 The DRC Act 2 Impugned Order 3 Learned ARC 4 Subject premises the Impugned Order principally on the following grounds: i. That the Eviction Petition ought not to have been instituted by only one of the co-owners/landlords, when the subject premises admittedly had two co-owners/landlords. ii. That no leave or waiver of the other co-owner/landlord was obtained before instituting the eviction proceedings individually. iii. He further submits that the Respondent/landlord had other reasonably suitable alternate accommodation, which was not disclosed before the learned ARC. iv. He further submits that the aforesaid aspect was not duly considered by the learned ARC and, therefore, the Impugned Order stands vitiated on account of such non-consideration. v. He lastly submits that with respect to the projected bona fide requirement, the same is merely a desire evinced by the Respondent/landlord and not a genuine necessity and though the desire as evinced claims that it is for the benefit of the Respondent/landlord's son to carry out certain business, the son is already carrying on business elsewhere and no evidence in support of the same has been led before the learned ARC. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent/landlord supports the Impugned Order passed by the learned ARC. 4. He submits that each of the aforesaid contentions which are sought to be raised in the present Revision Petition had specifically fallen for consideration before the learned ARC and have been dealt with in detail in the Impugned Order. The relevant findings read as under: "FINDINGS A. OWNERSHIP/RELATIONSHIP OF LANDLORD-TENANT 6. Petitioner claims to have derived title in the property through her parents who were owners of various properties. Among others, her father Abdul Mughni was the owner of properties bearing numbers 8997 to 9007, Pul Bangash, Ram Bagh Road, Azad Market, Delhi 110006 whereas her mother Chara Begum was the owner of properties bearing numbers 1136 to 1138, Mohalla Kishan Ganj, Azad Market, Delhi 110006. After their respective deaths, these properties devolved upon their three surviving children i.e. petitioner/daughter Sualeha Begum, son Mohd. Asif and another daughter Abida Begum. 7. In April 2001, petitioner and her brother Mohd. Asif filed a partition suit no. 760/2001 in the High Court against Abida Begum. The suit resulted in a compromise decree dated 13.08.2001 whereby petitioner and her sister Abida Begum became the joint owners of the properties mentioned above with certain other properties falling into the share of Mohd. Asif. Pursuant to this, petitioner and Abida Begum decided to further divide the above properties amongst themselves through an oral family settlement dated 01.01.2009 which was later on reduced into a written memorandum dated 21.08.2009 (copy filed). By virtue of the same, the petitioner became the exclusive owner of the tenanted premises. 8. Respondent has not denied the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties perse but agitates that Abida Begum is the co- owner of the property,