H S BANKA vs MOHAN LAL

Judgment text excerpt

* I N T H E H I G H CO U RT O F DE L H I AT NE W DE L H I Reserved on: September 18, 2025 % Pronounced on: October 08, 2025 + RC.REV. 49/2018 H S BANKA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ajaya Bhardwaj, Mr. Harshit Bhardwaj and Mr. Shubham, Advs. Versus MOHAN LAL .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj and Ms. Garima Bhardwaj, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition on dated 26.09.2011 being eviction petition no. E-25/2011 (RC/ ARC no. 206/2016) under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act2, 1958 against the respondent/ tenant3 seeking eviction of Shop No. 2 property No. F-171/4, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi4 as per the Site Plan, before the learned Additional Rent Controller, Karkardooma Court, Delhi5, as there was a bona fide requirement for his own commencing business. 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘landlord’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘DRC Act’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘tenant’ 4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘subject shop’ 5 Hereinafter referred to as ‘ARC’ RC.REV.49/2018 Page 1 of 10 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:08.10.2025 17:43:58 2. It was his case in the amended eviction petition that being a senior citizen with no other source of income, he required the subject shop for doing business so that he may get sufficient income. As per the landlord, the tenant was originally inducted by Smt. Shakuntala Devi6, by way of an oral agreement from whom the landlord herein purchased the property wherein the subject shop is situated. 3. In the application for leave to defend, the tenant claimed that the landlord had no bona-fide requirement for the subject shop and that the petition was per se not maintainable as the landlord was only an attorney of the erstwhile