Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs Balbir Singh Bhatia

The present Rent Control Revision Petition, under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, has been filed assailing the Order dated 04.05.2026 [ “Impugned Order” ], passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in RC ARC No. 1036/2018.

¶11

By way of the Impugned Order, the learned ARC has allowed the Respondent’s Application seeking leave to defend, inter alia , holding that a triable issue arises with regard to the availability of alternate accommodation.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the aforesaid finding of availability of alternate accomodation, being property No. 424, Gali No. 13, Joshi Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi [ “said premises” ], is erroneous, inasmuch as it does not belong to the Petitioners alone.

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:37:19

¶15

Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in this regard, submits that the said premises had been jointly purchased by the Petitioners’ father and the wives of the Petitioners, and upon the demise of the Petitioners’ father, devolved upon all his legal heirs and not exclusively upon the Petitioners.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the said premises are, in any event, not suitable and available for carrying on the business for which the tenanted premises are bona fide required. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, in view of the settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, the landlord is the best judge of his requirement, including the manner in which the business is to be carried on and the premises from which the same is to be conducted. She, therefore, submits that the finding returned by the learned ARC with regard to the availability of alternate accommodation is unsustainable.

¶17

This Court is of the considered view that the Impugned Order is merely an interlocutory Order whereby the learned ARC has granted leave to defend upon being satisfied that a triable issue arises. The correctness or otherwise of the rival contentions shall necessarily fall for adjudication during the course of trial, before the learned ARC. At this stage, no case for interference is made out.

¶18

Accordingly, the present Petition, along with all pending Application(s), if any, stands dismissed.

¶19

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J

¶20

JULY 17, 2026/rk/dj

¶21

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 20/07/2026 at 11:37:19

Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. Balbir Singh Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. Balbir Singh Bhatia

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaspreet Singh Anand & Anr. Vs Gudev Singh Anand & Ors.

Trilok Chand & Anr. Vs Bhagwat Prasad Rustagi & Ors.

Priyanka Kumari Vs Ajay Kumar

Ranbir Singh and Anr. & Anr. Vs Sardar Hardeep Singh Safri & Ors.

Rajesh Kumar & Anr. Vs Sanjeev Kumar

Dr. Achintya Sharma Vs Dr. Sitanshi Sharma