AMIR KHAN & ORS. vs MR. AZIZ UR REHMAN

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: January 30, 2026 % Pronounced on: February 18, 2026 + RC. REV. 219/2023 AMIR KHAN & ORS. ...Petitioners Through: Mr. Ameit Andlay, Mr. Arun K. Sharma, Mohd. Anis Ul Rehman and Ms. Jhuma Bose, Advocates Versus AZIZ UR REHMAN ...Respondent Through: None. + RC. REV. 220/2023 SAJID KHAN & ORS. ...Petitioners Through: Mr. Ameit Andlay, Mr. Arun K. Sharma, Mohd. Anis Ul Rehman and Ms. Jhuma Bose, Advocates Versus INAM-UL-HAQ (DECEASED) THR LRS ...Respondent Through: Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners/ landlords1 are all family members who filed two Eviction Petitions, E. Nos.288/2013 and 289/2013 under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 seeking vacation of the First and Second 1 Hereinafter ‘landlords’ 2 Hereinafter ‘the Act’ RC. REV. 219/2023 & 220/2023 Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:18.02.2026 02:36:53 Floors of property bearing No.1763-1764, Hauz Sui Walan, Chandni Mahal, Delhi-110 0063 on the ground of paucity of residential accommodation for their family, since landlord no.1 in RC. REV.219/2023/ Mr. Amir Khan had a family of six people residing in a tin-shed in the house of his mother/ landlady no.2 and landlord no.1 in RC. REV.220/2023/ Mr. Sajid Khan had a family of four people residing in a rented single room, which were insufficient for the needs of their growing children. The landlords also averred that they had no alternative accommodation for their bona fide residential requirements. 2. Upon service, the respondent/ tenant4 in both the eviction petitions filed applications under Section 25B of the Act seeking leave to defend primarily disputing the title of the la