ANIL KUMAR JAIN vs SUBHASH CHAND CHAWLA ALIAS SUBHASH CHANDER CHAWLA

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: December 04, 2025 % Pronounced on: January 09, 2026 + RC.REV. 252/2023 ANIL KUMAR JAIN .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Swadha Gupta, Mr. Tejasvi Kalra, Mr. Jatin, Mr. Ayush Singh, Advocates Versus SUBHASH CHAND CHAWLA ALIAS SUBHASH CHANDER CHAWLA .....Respondent Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr. Arpit Sharma and Mr. Anant Sharma, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition being RC ARC 5509/2016 entitled ‘Anil Kumar Jain vs. Subhash Chand Chawla’ under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19582 against the respondent/ tenant3 seeking eviction of Shop being No.N- 18, Munshi Lal Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110 0014, before the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts5. 2. Briefly put, it was the case of the landlord before the learned RC that the subject premises being the most suitable was bona fidely required by 1 Hereinafter ‘landlord’ 2 Hereinafter ‘DRC Act’ 3 Hereinafter ‘tenant’ 4 Hereinafter ‘subject premises’ 5 Hereinafter ‘learned RC’ RC.REV. 252/2023 Page 1 of 19 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:09.01.2026 17:39:31 him for himself and his family members dependent upon him for commercial purposes of carrying on a business as neither him nor they had any reasonably suitable alternative commercial accommodation in the Connaught Place area. Further, it was stated that the properties belonging to him in Munshi Lal Building, Connaught Place wherein the subject premises was situated was long in occupation of various tenants, and no portion thereof was in his self-occupation. Though the lan