Revision petitions challenging an ARC's rejection of tenants' leave to defend eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for a landlord's son's wholesale cloth showroom. Holding that Section 25B(8) jurisdiction is supervisory and restrictive, the Court found no jurisdictional error and dismissed all six petitions.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~10 to15
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 09.07.2026
SAT NARAYAN TAPARIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate.
versus
SULEKH JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate.
11
SAT NARAYAN TAPARIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate.
versus
SULEKH JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate.
12
SHYAM SUNDAR TAPARIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate.
versus
SULEKH JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate.
13
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 1 of 16 BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
APPL. 24896/2026 (Early Hearing) SRIKISHSAN TAPARIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate.
versus
KIRAN JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate.
14 + RC.REV. 263/2025, CM APPL. 54196/2025 (Stay) & CM APPL. 24894/2026 (Early Hearing)
SRIKISHSAN TAPARIA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate.
versus
SULEKH JAIN .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate.
15
PRAKASH TAPARIA
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kumar Vikram, Advocate.
versus
KIRAN JAIN
.....Respondent Through: Mr. Sidhant Dhingra, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 2 of 16 BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
Orders dated 25.02.2025, passed by Ms. Charu Asiwal, learned ARC, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi [ “learned ARC” ], in six distinct Eviction Petitions, whereby the respective Applications seeking leave to defend filed by the Petitioners were dismissed.
RC.REV. 263/2025
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 3 of 16 BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
subject premises; secondly, that material facts were concealed by the Respondent from the learned ARC; and thirdly , that the alleged bona fide requirement is incapable of being satisfied by the subject premises.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 4 of 16 BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
warrants no interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
ANALYSIS:
1 (1998) 8 SCC 119
2 (2014) 9 SCC 78
3 (2022) 6 SCC 30
4 2024:DHC:9322
5 2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 5 of 16 BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
an Order passed by the learned Rent Controller is conscious and deliberate. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is, therefore, one of superintendence over the decision-making process, including the legality and propriety thereof, and does not permit the High Court to substitute its own view for that of the learned Rent Controller merely because another view on the material available on record may be possible. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under:
“ 23. The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance. Thus, the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted. The scope of interference by the High Court is very restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which would only mean that in the absence of any adjudication per se, the High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision. There is no need for holding a roving inquiry in such matters which would otherwise amount to converting the power of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, an act, totally forbidden by the legislature.”
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 6 of 16 BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
25B(8) of the DRC Act, this Court is neither required nor permitted to undertake a fresh appreciation of the material on record with a view to arrive at an independent conclusion on the merits of the dispute. Interference would be warranted only where the Impugned Order suffers from a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity or perversity, or where the conclusion arrived at by the learned ARC is wholly unreasonable or founded upon an erroneous premise of law. Equally, where a material plea has been left unconsidered or the decision-making process otherwise discloses an error apparent on the face of the record, exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be warranted.
“ Petitioner Case
2. The petition Sulekh Jain, S/o Late Sh. M. P. Jain has filed the instant eviction petition to oust the respondent Sh. Krishan Taparia, S/o Late Sh. Ganpat Rai Taparia from the tenanted premises Shop No. 04 Ground Floor, IX/6379, Netaji Gall, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi110031 as the same is stated to be required for the bonafide need and requirement of himself and his younger son- Aman Jain. It is claimed that the the tenanted premises was purchased by the petitioner on 02.09.2002 from Smt. Vidhya Wanti, D/o Sh. Ram Lal, W/o Sh. Jaswant Rai and Sh. Darshan Lal, So Sh. Sukh Dayal by way of sale deed. It is averred that the respondent was inducted in the tenanted premises at a monthly rent of Rs.440/- per month excluding electricity charges.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 7 of 16
3. Petitioner avers that his family comprises of his wife, two sons two daughters in law and two minor grand daughter and minor grand son. It is claimed by the petitioner that his younger son Sh. Aman Jain is completely unemployed and it is for the purpose of his financial well being that the tenanted. premises is required for establishing the wholesale cloth showroom.
4. Petitioner also avers that respondent is also repeatedly guilty of defaulting in payment of rent w.e.f. April, 2017 despite multiple requests to clear the rental dues, however to no avail. Compelled by the non payment of rent, petitioner also issued legal notice dated 11.02.2019 urging the respondent to pay the arrears of rent from 01.04.2017 to 31.01.2019 along with the enhanced rent at the rate of 10% (revised every three years, however, despite receiving the notice and replying to it, respondent failed to tender rent to the petitioner.
5. It is the version of the petitioner that he is not in possession of any other suitable commercial accommodation for setting up a wholesale cloth business for his son Amar Jain ,hence the present petition.”
“ Finding and Analysis
16. In order to succeed in a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (“DRC”) the landlord is required to establish three conditions:-
i. There must be a relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant
ii. The tenanted premises must be bonafidely required by the landlord either for himself or for his family members
iii. There is no other alternate suitable accommodation available with the landlord.
17. The nub of the issue in the entire leave to defend application is the allegation that the supposed bonafide requirement of the son of the petitioner is a sham as Aman Jain is profitably engaged with his own business. Furthermore, the petitioner and his family members are owners of as many as twenty immovable properties and therefore even favourable alternate accommodation is readily available with them.
18. It is no longer res integra that the petitioner / landlord in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) DRC has merely to
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 8 of 16
show that he is something more than a tenant. Thus, the existence of landlord tenant relationship, is to be ascertained by applying the well settled and time tested propositions that (i) for the purpose of establishing landlord-tenant relationship, the onus of proof on the landlord is not akin to a title suit; (ii) as long as it is established that a landlord has a better title than that of a tenant, a tenant cannot resist a plea of existence of a landlord tenant relationship. In view of the same therefore, this Court finds favor with the assertions of the petitioner on this count. In addition the tenancy in the present case is categorically admitted by the respondent hence there does not even remain an iota of doubt that the petitioner has a better title to show as compared to the respondent.
19. With regards testing the bonafide need of the petitioner to obtain possession of the tenanted premises, it is well settled that the Court must presume the bonafide requirement of the landlord. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,” [(1998) 8 SCC 119] observed that:
“14. The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the Act is that! the requirement of the landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his building for his own occupation, the rent Controller shall not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case, it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often said by courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.”
20. The landlord is only required to show that the requirement of the tenanted premises is a bonafide requirement and not merely a whimsical or a fanciful desire by him . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of “Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal"[(2001) 5 SCC 705] observed that:-
“15...The statutory mandate is that there must be first a requirement by the landlord which means that it is not a mere whim or a fanciful desire by him; further, such requirement must be bona fide which is intended to avoid a mere whim or desire. The “bona fide requirement” must be in present and must be manifested in actual need .which would evidence the court that it is not a mere fanciful or whimsical desire.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 9 of 16 BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
21. In the present case as well, once the landlord has stated that he requires the tenanted premises for a particular use, the Court is required to believe the statement to be true and genuine, unless and until it is shown by the tenant through cogent material that the requirement is fanciful or whimsical. Examining on the said touchstone , this court is of the view that the petitioner has manifested a bonafide requirement of his son Aman Jain for opening wholesale cloth showroom. To refute such bonafide requirement, respondent has contended that the son of the petitioner is gainfully employed as a Director in three companies namely M/s Olive Infratech Pvt. Ltd., M/s Milestone Creators Pvt. Ltd. And Ms/ Olive Solution Pvt. Ltd. Having office at H-32/38, Sector-3, Rohini, Delhi and H. No. 318, Sector-3, Rohini Delhi. To substantiate such averments, respondent has filed company master data of the aforesaid companies as per which Aman Jain is named as one of the Directors along with the petitioner himself. On perusal of the companies master data filed by the respondent, it is found that two companies ie. Ms/ Olive Solution Pvt. Ltd. and Milestone Creators Pvt. Ltd. have been struck off from the Registrar of Companies therefore it is clear that the two companies are no longer active and generating any revenue to the benefit of Aman Jain. Regarding M/s; Olive Infratech Pvt. Ltd., it is seen from the company master data that the company status is “active”. However, to discredit the viability and profitability of M/s Olive Infratech Pvt. Ltd. petitioner has filed company information along with Indian Income Tax return acknowledgment for the assessment year 2024-2025 wherein the reverie generated by the company is shown to be nil rather profits before remuneration is shown to be minus Rs.649/- Thus, it is clear that neither of the three companies is a profit making entity so as to conclude that Aman Jain is gainfully employed or running a profitable business along with the petitioner. 22. In addition, respondent also claims that Aman Jain is also running a business bearing GSTIN 24ABEFA8739RIZR namely Ashu Hosiery. Admittedly the said business established, in Surat, Gujarat wherein it is contended that the said business is run independently by Aman Jain. To emphasize the same, respondent has filed goods and service tax details of the aforesaid business in the form of Annexure-III. On perusal of Annexure-III, it is found that the aforesaid entity is constituted as a partnership, however, Annexure-III does not disclose the name of its partners, it is only by way of leave to defend that it is contended that it is run by Aman Jain. No other document has been put forth to prove or to even indicate that the aforesaid business is independently run by Aman Jain. Per contra, petitioner has denied such contention, it is claimed that business is not run by Aman Jain, rather during the course of arguments, it was submitted that the said business is run by the petitioner and his elder son namely Ashwini Jain.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 10 of 16
Furthermore, it was also submitted that the aforesaid business is being run in the State of Gujarat and therefore even from the standpoint of geographical viability , said business is not suitable or feasible for the bonafide requirement of Aman Jain. On perusal of the entire factual matrix and material placed on record, it has come to pass that respondent has not provided sufficient material so as to cogently conclude that the business in the name of Ashu Hosiery is run by Sh. Aman Jin. Even for the sake of arguments if is assumed that the said business in Gujarat does belong to Aman Jain it would not satisfy the bonafide requirement of starting a business in Delhi. Hence the assertion of respondent as to gainful employment of Aman Jain remain uncompelling.
23. Another issue vehemently pressed by the respondent is regarding the dimension of the space in the tenanted premises i.e. 8X5.5 sq. feet being insufficient for running a wholesale cloth showroom. To this, it is submitted by the petitioner that petitioner and his family members have filed multiple petitions U/s 14(1)(e) of DRC Act before Rent Controllers and in the event all the adjoining shops are vacated, the entire space shall be utilized for the purpose of starting a wholesale cloth showroom. On perusal of record, it is found that petitioner and his family members have filed as many as six petition U/s 14 (1)(e) of DRC Act seeking vacation of adjoining premises which is pending adjudication before this court, all 06 petitions are running simultaneously on same date, wherein argument on leave to defend were also advanced on same date. Accordingly, there is merit to the assertion of the petitioner that the entire space can be effectively used for the purpose of running a wholesale cloth showroom. Further, it also could not be shown that the space of the tenanted premises would not supplement in starting a wholesale cloth showroom. Therefore the contention of the respondent that the space of an individual shop is insufficient is found to be immaterial against the bonafide need of the petitioner.
24. Considering the same, it is held that the petitioner has successfully shown his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises for his son Aman Jain and there is nothing on the record to suggest otherwise. However, at the stage, it is pertinent to record that though the petition speaks of bonafide requirement of the petitioner as well as his son Aman Jain, however, petitioner has not made a compelling case to showcase his own bonafide requirement. 25. With regards the requirement of there being alternative accommodation being available with the petitioner, it is to be noted that it has been repeatedly held that the Courts are not to sit in the armchair of the landlord and dictate as to how the available property of the landlord is to be best utilised by him. The landlord is the absolute owner of his property and the best person to decide which property is to be utilised in what way is the landlord himself. In addition, the respondent also cannot dictate as to how the
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 11 of 16
landlord is to utilise his property. The landlord possesses the prerogative to determine their specific requirements, exercising full autonomy in this regard. It is not within the purview of the courts to impose directives on the landlord regarding the nature or quality of their chosen usage of the tenanted premises. Essentially , the courts should refrain from prescribing any standard or guidelines for the landlord's residential/commercial choices. In “Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co.” [(2000) 1 SCC 679] the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that:-
“10...It is true that the plaintiff landlord in his evidence stated that there were a number of other shops and houses belonging to him but he made a categorical statement that his said houses and shops were not vacant and that the suit premises is suitable for his business purpose. It is a settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. (See Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan [(1996) 5 SCC 353] .) In the case in hand the plaintiff landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted.”
26. The respondent has stated that in paragraph No. 10 above, that the petitioner and his family members are owners of as many as 20 immovable properties in the country out of which seven properties are stated to be owned by Aman Jain himself and three properties are owned by the petitioner. It is worth noting that except for the aforesaid list, respondent has not filed any title documents so to substantiate that the aforesaid properties are owned by the petitioner and his son Aman Jain. It is wroth pointing out that during the course of arguments, respondent was given multiple opportunities to bring on record the title documents of the aforesaid properties allegedly in the name of the petitioner, however, such opportunities remained unavailed. It is contended that the respondent has generated the aforesaid list by a simple search with the name of the family members of the petitioner and the properties as populated in the list pertains to other persons. bearing the same names as the petitioner and his family members. During the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner had submitted that except for one, the petitioner and his family members have no relations whatsoever with any of the properties mentioned in the list. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner had argued that the property at plot No. 304, GIDC, Pandesara, Surat, Gujarat belongs to the elder son of the petitioner i.e. Ashwini Jain and such ownership does not qualify as an alternate accommodation for the bonafide need of the petitioner and his younger son Aman Jain. The above observation and argument shows that the aforesaid list is merely a list and does not in any shape or form prove that the 20 immovable properties as contended by the respondent is owned by the petitioner or his son
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
12 of 16
Aman Jain. It is a matter of record that opportunities were granted to the respondent to furnish the title documents of the aforesaid properties, however, despite the title documents being a public record, respondent could not furnish the same. Therefore, it cannot be held that the filing of list of immovable property would ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the properties are owned by the petitioner and in turn manifest a triable issue. Further owning of an immovable properties by the other son of petitioner cannot deem to be an alternate accommodation to fulfill bonafide requirement of Aman Jain. All in all, more attending details were required to be furnished by the respondent with regards the same which have not been furnished discussed above therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner landlord has successfully shown that the tenanted premises is best suitable accommodation for petitioner needs and that he is the landlord of the same. Accordingly, application seking leave to defend is dismissed and eviction order with regards property bearing no. Shop No. 04, Ground Floor, IX/6379, Netaji Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031 (shown in red in site plan) is passed in favor of the petitioner and against the respondent.
27. The petitioner landlord shall not be entitled to get possession of the tenanted premises before the expiry of six months from today as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 13 of 16
the tenanted premises for his son.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 14 of 16 BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
RC.REV. 248/2025, RC.REV. 251/2025, RC.REV. 256/2025, RC.REV. 262/2025, RC.REV. 268/2025
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 15 of 16 BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
submissions in all the present connected Revision Petitions.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 09, 2026/nd/DJ
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:HARVINDER KAUR RC.REV. 248/2025 & connected matters Page 16 of 16 BHATIA Signing Date: 14.0 7.2026 11:21:15
2 issues framed by the court
What is the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act over an ARC's dismissal of leave to defend?
Did the learned ARC's dismissal of the leave to defend applications disclose any jurisdictional error, manifest illegality or error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Relied on¶12
(1998) 8 SCC 119 · Who else cites this
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar SinghRelied on¶12
(2014) 9 SCC 78 · Who else cites this
Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain DuaRelied on¶12
(2022) 6 SCC 30 · Who else cites this
Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors.Relied on¶13
2024:DHC:9322
Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny GroverRelied on¶13
2025:DHC:11285
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sat Narayan Taparia
Shyam Sundar Taparia
Srikishsan Taparia
Prakash Taparia
Sulekh Jain
Kiran Jain
Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
