Prakash Taparia v. Kiran Jain

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 09, 2026/nd/DJ

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 09.07.2026 + RC.REV. 248/2025, CM APPL. 51874/2025 (Stay), CM APPL. 51876/2025 (Delay of 98 days in Re-filing the petition) & CM APPL. 27177/2026 (Early Hearing) SAT NARAYAN TAPARIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate. versus SULEKH JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate. + RC.REV. 251/2025, CM APPL. 52233/2025 (Stay), CM APPL. 52235/2025 (Delay of 98 days in Re-filing the petition) & CM APPL. 22479/2026 (Early Hearing) SAT NARAYAN TAPARIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate. versus SULEKH JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate. + RC.REV. 256/2025, CM APPL. 53198/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 27540/2026 (Early Hearing) SHYAM SUNDAR TAPARIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate. versus SULEKH JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate. + RC.REV. 262/2025, CM APPL. 53991/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 24896/2026 (Early Hearing) SRIKISHSAN TAPARIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate. versus KIRAN JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate. + RC.REV. 263/2025, CM APPL. 54196/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 24894/2026 (Early Hearing) SRIKISHSAN TAPARIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate. versus SULEKH JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate. + RC.REV. 268/2025, CM APPL. 54370/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 26774/2026 (Early Hearing) PRAKASH TAPARIA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate. versus KIRAN JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (Oral) 1. The present Petitions, filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ["DRC Act"], seek setting aside of Impugned Orders dated 25.02.2025, passed by Ms. Charu Asiwal, learned ARC, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi ["learned ARC"], in six distinct Eviction Petitions, whereby the respective Applications seeking leave to defend filed by the Petitioners were dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that all the present Petitions arise in a substantially similar factual backdrop and involve issues of an identical nature, namely, the dismissal of the respective Applications seeking leave to defend. He submits that the distinction between the respective Petitions lies essentially in the fact that each pertains to a separate tenanted premises and has been instituted by different members of the same family, who are tenants in their respective premises. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, therefore, requests this Court that, from amongst the connected matters, RC.REV. 263/2025 be taken up first for consideration. Accordingly, at his request, RC.REV. 263/2025 is taken up for hearing and final disposal. RC.REV. 263/2025 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Application seeking leave to defend filed by the Petitioner came to be rejected by the learned ARC vide Order dated 25.02.2025 ["Impugned Order"], consequent whereto an Eviction Order was passed in favour of the Respondent and against the Petitioner in respect of Shop No. 4, IX/6379, Netaji Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi- 110031 ["subject premises"]. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner assails the Impugned Order primarily on three grounds, viz., firstly, that the Respondent has failed to establish the existence of a bona fide requirement in respect of the subject premises; secondly, that material facts were concealed by the Respondent from the learned ARC; and thirdly, that the alleged bona fide requirement is incapable of being satisfied by the subject premises. 6. Elaborating on the aforestated grounds, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the eviction of the Petitioner was sought on the ground that the subject premises were required for the son of the Respondent, whereas the said son was already a Director in three companies and was also engaged in the bu