VINOD SAXENA & ANR. vs ANJANA

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: December 09, 2025 + RC.REV. 161/2025, CM APPL. 30816/2025 VINOD SAXENA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Munish Chhoker, Advocate Versus ANJANA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akhil Verma, Advocate Mobile-9999086312 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE J U D G M E N T (ORAL) 1. By virtue of the present petition filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (DRC Act), the petitioners (tenants) seek setting aside of the order dated 27.01.2025 (impugned order) passed by the learned ACJ/CCJ/ARC, District Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (learned ARC) in case being RC ARC No.292/2018 filed by the respondent (landlady) under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for eviction of the tenant from the third floor in property bearing No. 26/107, Gali No.10, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110 032 (subject premises), whereby the learned ARC has dismissed the leave to defend application of the tenants and directed them to vacate the subject premises. 2. Though the tenants have raised various grounds in the present petition, however, Mr. Munish Chhoker, learned counsel for the tenants at the outset admits that since the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties is not in dispute, he does not wish to argue on the RC.REV. 161/2025 Page 1 of 6 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:10.12.2025 15:33:40 same. 3. However, regarding the alternative accommodations available with the landlady, Mr. Munish Chhoker, learned counsel submits that before the learned ARC the tenants were able to show that the landlady had as many as four alternative accommodations available with her, and after selling one of them, she was left with three alternative accommodations, namel