RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 1 of 19

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 17

th

February, 2026

Pronounced on: 15

th

April, 2026

+ RC. REV. 200/2023

SMT NATHO DEVI .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Manu Sishodia and Ms. Hina

Rajput, Advocates.

versus

PADAM SINGH .....Respondent

Through: Mr. Amit Bardhan Mohanty, Mr.

Sagar, Ms. Nilakshi Chaudhary and

Ms. Rubi Kumari, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control

Act, 1958

1

, has been filed seeking the following prayers: -

“In view of the above said facts and submissions, it is, therefore, most

respectfully prayed that in the interest of justice, this Hon'ble Court may

be pleased to :

1

For short, ‘DRCA’

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 2 of 19

a) call for records of Eviction Petition No.E-123/14/10 titled as

'Smt.Natho Devi vs Padam Singh' from Ld.Trial Court;

b) set-aside the impugned Order dated 24.2.2021 passed by Shri Ajay

Nagar, Ld.ARC (Central) Tis Hazari, Delhi in Eviction Petition No. E-

123/14/10 titled as 'Smt.Natho Devi vs Padam Singh' and allow the

petition of the petitioner, as prayed for, in the interest of justice

c) pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper

in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and

against the respondent..”

2. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-landlord

assailing the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 passed by learned ARC,

Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Eviction Petition No.E-123/14/10 qua

the premises comprising one room and balcony on the First Floor at Property

No.10528, Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi,

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘demised premises’). By way of the impugned

judgment, learned ARC has dismissed the eviction petition filed on behalf of

the petitioner-landlord.

3. The petitioner had filed subject eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e)

of the DRCA seeking eviction of the respondent from the demised premises.

It was stated that the premises were let out by the petitioner to the respondent

for residential purposes and the latter has been residing there along with his

family members. In the eviction petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the

owner/landlady of the demised premises and same was purchased by her vide

usual document, i.e., Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Will, etc., all

dated 27.12.1990, from the grandfather of her husband, namely, Bholu Ram.

It is further stated that, even otherwise, the grandfather of her husband was

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 3 of 19

the owner of the demised premises. It is further stated that after death of the

father-in-law of the petitioner, the subject property default on all the legal

heirs of her father-in-law which included five other brothers, besides her

husband. All six brothers are residing in the property bearing No.10525-27,

and all six brothers are having their own family members. Five brothers of

petitioner’s husband were residing on the ground floor and first floor of the

property along with their respective family members. It is further stated that

legal heirs of three deceased brothers of her husband were residing in ground

floor of the aforesaid property, whereas two brothers and their family

members were residing on the first-floor portion of the said property. It is the

case of the petitioner that she is staying on the second-floor portion of the

property and is having one room and one tin shed only which is not habitable

and cannot be counted as a room. The family of the petitioner comprised of

her husband, her three daughters, and herself. The petitioner and her husband

are senior citizens and their one daughter is married and other two unmarried

and are staying with the petitioner in the said one room with great difficulty.

It was further stated that their married daughter visits the petitioner along with

her husband and due to lack of accommodation, the petitioner cannot

accommodate her married daughter owing to the insufficient space available

with her, and therefore, requires the demised premises bonafidely for herself

as well as for the benefit of her other family members who are dependent

upon the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that staying in

aforesaid one room at the second floor of the property along with her two

daughters and husband is very difficult. It is further stated in the eviction

petition that, in fact, the petitioner is having virtually one room in the entire

property and the said property also belongs to other legal heirs of her father-

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 4 of 19

in-law. Further, the petitioner wanted to stay on the first-floor portion of the

property where the respondent is staying and her need is genuine and bonafide

as she is a senior citizen and is having health problems due to which she is not

in a position to climb every time to the second floor of the property. It is the

case of the petitioner that the said property was purchased in 1990 and after

purchasing the same, the petitioner renovated the property and started doing

business from the ground floor of the property. In fact, husband of the

petitioner was stated to be doing labour job from the said shop and the

petitioner is also assisting her husband in doing the said job work.

4. It is further stated that the petitioner is the owner/landlord of the

demised premises and the respondent is a tenant of the said premises. Further,

the petitioner has no other reasonably suitable accommodation in Delhi or

elsewhere and as such her need qua the suit premises is genuine and bonafide

for the benefit of her own family members and herself. It is further stated that

one sister of the petitioner due to matrimonial dispute with her husband had

started staying with the petitioner and subsequently, petitioner along with her

sister had purchased one plot in Palam, New Delhi and one room has been

constructed on the said plot by petitioner’s sister. It is further stated that

though the petitioner and her sister are owners of the said property in Palam;

however, her sister is staying in the said property and the same is very far

from the demised premises and the property in Palam is not reasonably

suitable for residential requirement of the petitioner. The property in Palam

was primarily purchased to accommodate petitioner’s sister and in any event,

said property does not solely belong to the petitioner.

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 5 of 19

5. It is further stated that it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that

respondent has also acquired some accommodation in Ghaziabad. However,

he is not shifting there and not vacating the demised premises, and besides

that, the respondent has also acquired another premises situated at 10539,

Manak Pura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, and, he sometimes

stays there. Lastly, it was the case of the petitioner that she has no reasonable

alternative suitable residential accommodation in Delhi or elsewhere except

the demised premises to fulfil her requirement.

6. In the present case, application seeking leave to defend filed on behalf

of the respondent was allowed vide order dated 24.03.2015. In leave to

defend, it was stated that the need of the petitioner is not bonafide inasmuch

as the petitioner is not the owner of the premises in question. The respondent

stated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties,

and in view of the same, the subject eviction petition was not maintainable.

Respondent at no point in time had admitted the petitioner as owner or

landlady of the premises in question. It was further stated that the petitioner

had intentionally and wilfully concealed the accommodation available with

her and wrongly alleged the same is insufficient for her requirement for

residence of her family members dependent upon her. It was submitted that

there were 12 rooms in the said property and the petitioner also own a

residential property bearing No.412, Gali No.4, Raj Nagar-II, Palam, New

Delhi, consisting of two rooms, washroom and kitchen, etc. Further, the

petitioner has four storey property bearing No.10528 and two rooms on the

ground floor of the side property are lying vacant. It was further stated that

the petitioner is claiming ownership of property No. 10528, Manak Pura,

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 6 of 19

Karol Bagh, New Delhi, allegedly purchased by her from Bholu Ram and

Kharati sons of Gopal Singh on 27.12.1990. It was the case of the respondent

that Kharati Ram and Bholu (sons of Gopal Singh-grandfather of her

husband), the alleged sellers and from whom the petitioner allegedly claims to

have purchased the subject property were not the owner of the said property

and the alleged sale documents were forged, fabricated and manipulated

documents and were not trustworthy. It was further the case of the respondent

that he had already filed two cases, one for permanent injunction wherein

Hon’ble Court had granted injunction against the husband of the petitioner

and second, all deposit of rent against the husband of the petitioner, and both

the said cases were pending disposal before the Court of learned ARC, Delhi.

It was further the case of the respondent that the subject property No. 10528

was owned by Shri Manak Chand who had died issueless and he had not sold

his property to anyone during his lifetime. It was pointed out that the

petitioner on the one hand that stated that she has purchased the property from

grandfather of her husband on 27.12.1990 and on the contrary in para (n), it

was stated that she has purchased the property from her father-in-law. It was

stated that alleged agreement to sell was executed by Bholu and Kharati on

27.12.1990; however, Bholu had died before 1988 and Kharati had died

before 1985, which clearly shows that the documents were forged and

fabricated. It was further stated that the thumb impression of the seller and

witnesses in the agreement to sell were forged and the petitioner has not filed

any documentary evidence with respect to property in question. It was also

stated that the site plan filed by the petitioner along with the eviction petition

was not correctly demonstrating the position of the property. In view of these

grounds, learned ARC was of the view that, prima facie, triable issues were

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 7 of 19

raised by the respondent/tenant and leave to defend was granted on

24.03.2015.

7. Respondent filed written statement dated 09.04.2015 in pursuance of

the grounds raised in the leave to defend application making similar

averments. During the course of trial, the petitioner examined herself as PW-1

to prove her case. Petitioner tendered evidence by way of affidavit and relied

upon several documents. Respondent also led evidence by examining himself

as RW-1 and relied upon several documents.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the entire

written statement, the respondent had only alleged that petitioner is not owner

of the tenanted premises and there is no relationship of landlord and tenant

between the parties; however, he has failed to bring on record any evidence to

prove his allegations. It is further submitted that learned ARC gave

contradictory findings by holding that there existed landlord and tenant

relationship between the parties; however, due to minor discrepancies in the

cross-examination of the petitioner, the subject eviction petition was

dismissed. It is further submitted that the respondent had not approached the

Court with clean hands and had concealed the previous litigation between

husband of petitioner and him, where he had admitted that the husband of the

petitioner is landlord. It is further submitted that learned ARC failed to

appreciate the cross-examination of the respondent wherein, he had

deliberately concealed the material fact regarding landlord and tenant

relationship and even deliberately did not identify his signature on the petition

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 8 of 19

under Sections 27 and 45 of the DRCA filed by him against the husband of

the petitioner.

9. It is the case of the petitioner that learned ARC that site plan placed on

record by the petitioner clearly show the extent of accommodation available

in both the properties. The respondent raised objection with respect to the site

plan filed by the petitioner; however, he did not file any site plan in support of

his contentions. It is further submitted that the petitioner and her husband are

senior citizens and it is very difficult for them to climb up to 2

nd

floor and

therefore, due to this reason they wanted to shift to the first floor. It is further

submitted that husband of the petitioner is pursuing his job work on the

ground floor and there is no space to live on the ground floor.

10. It is further submitted that learned ARC has not considered the

bonafide requirement of petitioner and had dismissed her petition in

mechanical manner. The respondent has not brought on record anything to

show that the petitioner is having alternative accommodation as alleged by

him. It is the case of the petitioner that she has duly described the

accommodation available with her including alternative accommodation but

the same are not suitable for residence and requirement of the petitioner

considering her age and health issues of her husband. It is further submitted

that the respondent while cross-examining the petitioner had only confronted

her with respect to ownership of the subject premises and nothing else.

11. It is further submitted that after passing of the impugned judgment, the

old structure of the subject property was demolished and new construction

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 9 of 19

was raised by all co-owners/ co-sharers and the petitioner, as was earlier

residing in second floor of this property, is still residing on the second floor of

the said property and the bonafide requirement of the petitioner is still the

same. It is further submitted that the petitioner had stated in eviction petition

that husband of the petitioner was doing labour job work from ground floor of

the portion of property No.10528 and due to old age, petitioner and her

husband were not able to carry on said job any further and in order to meet

their daily basic needs, the petitioner let out one portion of the property to

Anganwadi and another small store to one tenant. It is further submitted that

due to her bonafide need and requirement, the petitioner sold tin shed portion

on the third floor in 2022 as she and her husband have no source of income

and are solely dependent upon their rental income. It is, therefore, prayed that

the impugned judgment be set aside and eviction petition filed on behalf of

the petitioner be allowed.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the

petitioner had never disclosed the true facts before learned ARC and had filed

the eviction petition solely with intent to dispossess the respondent from the

property on the basis of false and frivolous grounds. It is submitted that the

subject eviction petition was filed by the petitioner alleging bonafide

requirement comprising of one room each for petitioner, her husband, two

unmarried daughters, one married daughter, and one guestroom. It is

submitted that in the present case, the petitioner has alternate suitable

accommodation on the ground floor of the subject property and the same has

also been admitted by the petitioner in her cross examination dated

06.02.2017. It is further submitted that the petitioner had categorically stated

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 10 of 19

that two rooms on the ground floor lying in property No.10528 and only one

of the said rooms is sealed by MCD. It is, therefore, the case of the respondent

that petitioner had intentionally and deliberately concealed the material facts

in subject eviction petition and an attempt was made to mislead learned ARC.

It is further submitted that it is highly unlikely to believe that a person who

claimed himself to be owner of a property does not have knowledge whether

property owned by him is sealed or de-sealed. It is further pointed out that

there is a categorical admission on part of the petitioner in paragraph 9 of the

present petition that she had let out said two rooms situated on the ground

floor to property to Anganwadi and to some other tenant. Therefore, if the

petitioner bonafidely required space for residential purposes then, she should

have satisfied her requirement from the space available at the ground floor of

the subject property. It is further submitted that in contrast to her own case,

the petitioner had not utilised the accommodation available on the ground

floor and rented out the same to different tenants instead of satisfying her

requirement.

13. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in habit of making false

statements as in her cross-examination dated 06.02.2017, she had stated that

she has been residing on the third floor of the subject property; however, the

petitioner never resided on the third floor of the property at any point in time.

It is further pointed out that in the memo of parties of the eviction petition as

well as in the present Revision Petition, petitioner had mentioned her address

as H.No.10525-10527, Second Floor, Hari Chand Chowk, Delhi. It is further

submitted that the petitioner has alternative suitable accommodation in the

form of property No.412, Gali No.4, Raj Nagar-II, Palam, New Delhi, and

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 11 of 19

one daughter of the petitioner has been residing there and the same has been

admitted by the petitioner in her cross examination. It is further pointed out

that no separate space is required by the petitioner as all her daughters have

now been married and the same has also been stated by her in her cross

examination. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment has been

passed by learned ARC after duly appreciating all the facts as well as the

grounds raised by the respondent in the written statement. Lastly, it is prayed

that the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 does not require any

interference and the present petition may be dismissed.

14. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.

15. Learned ARC has dismissed the eviction petition filed on behalf of the

petitioner vide impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 only on the ground that

the petitioner had an alternate accommodation available and her requirement

was not even Bonafide. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under: -

“19. I have gone through the entire testimonies of all the witnesses

on record, documents and the entire material on record. Perusal of

testimony of PW1 shows that she has deposed that "it is correct that

there are two rooms on the ground floor are lying vacant in

property no. 10528. Vol. The same are already sealed with the seal

of MCD. Again said only one room is sealed. Vol. The another one

is a small room, which is being used as a store. It is wrong to

suggest that MCD sealed all the portions on the ground floor in

property no.10525 to 10527. Vol. Only one room was sealed by

MCD one of the said property no.10525 to 10527. I am not aware if

the aforesaid seal was got de-sealed on an affidavit given to MCD

in the year 2016 from property no.10525 to 10528.......

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 12 of 19

..... it is correct that there are two rooms on the second floor and

one hall on the third floor lying vacant. Vol. The same are in

dialapidated condition".

20. Perusal of testimony of PW1 clearly shows that petitioner is

having alternative reasonably suitable residential accommodation to

satisfy the bonafide requiremnt as raised in the present petition.

Moreover, several material facts as disclosed during the cross-

examination were concealed by the petitioner and she has merely

stated in the petition that they are accommdating themselves only in

one room. Moreover, during the cross-examination, PW1 has

admitted that she is not having any other tenant except the

respondent.

21. It is well settled that the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court

should place himself in the place of landlord to determine whether

in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the premises by the

landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and honest. And the

concept of bonafide need or genuine requirement needs a practical

approach instructed by the realities of life. It is well settled that the

need/requirement of a landlord/petitioner should be bonafide,

genuine, honest and conceived in good faith.

22. Though the choice and the proclaimed need cannot be

whimsical or merely fanciful yet a certain amount of discretion has

to be allowed in favour of the landlord also and the courts should

not impose their own wisdom forcibly upon the landlord/petitioner

to arrange his/ her own affairs according to their perception carried

away by the interest or hardship of the tenants and the

inconvenience that may result to him in passing an order of

eviction.

23. I have placed myself in the place of landlord to determine

whether in the given facts on record, the need to occupy the

premises by the landlord can be said to be natural, real, sincere and

honest. And I have also applied a practical approach instructed by

the realities of life on the concept of bonafide need or genuine

requirement. In view of discussions as earlier and well settled

proposition of law, I am of the considered view that the

need/requirement of a landlord/petitioner in the present case is not

bonafide, genuine, honest and conceived in good faith.

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 13 of 19

24. In my considered view, in view of the discussions earlier, the

petitioner is having the alternative reasonably suitable residential

accommodation with her to satisfy the bonafide need as mentioned

in present petition. In other words, the respondent has been able to

prove on record that the petitioner is having malafide and

alternative reasonably suitable residential accommodation with her

to satisfy the requirement as raised through present petition.

25. Perusal of record shows that the respondent as well as

petitioner have relied upon a number of judgments of Hon'ble High

Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court.

However, the case law relied upon by the petitioner do

not assist the petitioner in view of the exhaustive discussion as

earlier, peculiar facts of the case, settled law and material on

record.”

16. At this stage, it will be apposite to reproduce the site plan (Ex. PW-1/7)

with respect to the aforesaid property filed along with the eviction petition by

the petitioner, which depicts the structure and area of the subject

property/premises as under: -

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 14 of 19

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 15 of 19

17. The tenanted premises as encircled in red rectangle as shown in the

aforesaid picture was one room on the first floor of the property bearing No.

10528, Manak Pura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The

petitioner in her eviction petition had clearly disclosed that the ground floor

rooms were being used by her husband, who was running his business of

labour from the same, and she was assisting him in the same. Thus, the said

rooms were not available to the petitioner with respect to her bonafide

requirement. The relevant averments made by the petitioner in the eviction

petition read thus: -

“(b) That the said property measuring 35 sq. yds. was purchased in

the year 1990 and after purchasing the said property, the petitioner

has also renovated the said property and immediately thereafter has

started doing his business from the ground floor portion of the said

property. In fact, the husband of the petitioner is doing labour job

from the said shop and the petitioner is also assisting her husband

in doing the said job work.

(c) That the respondent/tenant is occupying one room in the

property bearing No. 10528, Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol

Bagh, New Delhi-110005, as shown in red colour in the site plan

attached herewith, whereas the petitioner is keeping some goods in

a small situated at the first floor and also keeping some equipment

on the barsati floor of the aforesaid property.”

18. In evidence filed on behalf of the petitioner by way of affidavit dated

06.06.2016, she re-affirmed the aforesaid stand/averment on the similar lines.

The relevant statement on oath stated by the petitioner has been reproduced as

under: -

“3. The deponent affirms that the said property measuring 35 sq.

yds. was purchased in the year 1990 and after purchasing the said

property, the deponent has renovated also the said property and

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 16 of 19

immediately thereafter has started doing her business from the

ground floor portion of the said property. In the husband of the

deponent is doing labour job from the said shop and the deponent is

also assisting her husband in doing in the said job work.

4. The deponent affirms that the respondent/tenant is Occupying

one room in the property bearing No.10528, Manakpura, Chowk

Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005, as shown in red

colour in the site plan, whereas the deponent is keeping some

goods in a small room situated at the first floor and also keeping

some equipments on the barsati floor of the aforesaid property. The

said room and the Balcony which is under the possession/occupied

by the respondent in respect of the said property No. 10528 is

hereinafter referred to as the "suit property" and has been

delineated in Red Colour in the site plan. The said site plan is

exhibited as Ex. PW-1/7 which has been prepared at the instance of

the deponent and the same is in accordance with the site and is

correct.”

19. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, during the

course of the arguments, had pointed out that in the present revision petition

in paragraph 9, there has been a categorical admission on the part of the

petitioner that, she had let out two portions on the ground floor of the subject

property (10528, Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi).

The paragraph 9 of the present petition has been reproduced as under: -

“9. That in the eviction petition, the petitioner has stated that

husband of the petitioner was doing labour job from floor portion of

property No. 10528, Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh,

New Delhi. Now due to old of the petitioner and her husband, they

are not able to carry on any work, therefore, in order to meet their

basic needs, the petitioner let out one portion at ground floor to at a

monthly per floor to another tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.2000/-

per month. Due to her bonafide need and requirement, the

petitioner also sold tinshed portion at third floor in the year 2022.

The petitioner and her husband have no source of income and they

are solely dependent upon the rental income.”

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 17 of 19

20. It is a well-settled law that the tenant cannot dictate the use of premises

available to the landlord. Admittedly, in the eviction petition, it had been

stated that two rooms on the ground floor are being used by the petitioner and

her husband for running their livelihood. Moreover, the learned ARC without

examining the averments or any other material on record has come to the

conclusion that the concept of bonafide requirement of genuine requirement

needs a practical approach, and in the present case, bonafide requirement as

averred is not genuine, honest and conceived in good faith. As noted

hereinbefore, the aforesaid observations of the learned ARC, on examination

of the material on record, are bereft of merits. Learned ARC has ignored the

fact that it was the case of the petitioner that the ground floor was being used

by her and her husband to earn their livelihood, and therefore, availability

thereof or letting out the same, cannot be a ground for disentitling the

petitioner from seeking eviction of the respondent from the subject premises

that was necessarily and bonafidely required by her for her residence. The

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Savitri Sahay v. Sachidanand Prasad

2

, has

observed and held as under: -

“9. The next question which, however, arises is whether the

conclusion of the High Court that the findings of the trial court

were perverse can be said to be correct. Under normal

circumstances if a landlord during the trial gets vacant possession

of some other premises which are equally suitable and chooses to

let them out on higher rent then it may be arguable that the need of

the landlord, made out in the eviction petition, was not reasonable

or in good faith. However, as seen above, the said Act provides

specifically, in Explanation II, that even though a landlord may

have two or more premises which have been let out, it is for the

landlord to choose which one would be preferable to him or her and

2

(2002) 8 SCC 765

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 18 of 19

the tenant could not question such preference. In this case, the

appellant had indicated a preference for the flat occupied by the

respondent. She had given a reason why she preferred this flat. She

was an old lady. She therefore could not climb to the first floor and

thus the two flats on the first floor were not suitable to her. The

other flat on the southern side of this building faced a road which

was a very busy road and would therefore be noisy. This particular

flat faced the bungalow in which she has been residing for so many

years and also faced an open piece of land belonging to her

husband. The trial court accepts these reasons. The High Court has

merely set aside the decree on the ground that the appellant had

chosen not to occupy the three other flats which became available

in the same building. In our view, Explanation II to Section

11(1)(c) permitted the landlord to ignore other premises and to

prefer a particular premise. The appellant having made a preference

cannot be forced to occupy other premises which may become

available. Further, the appellant was not required to keep those

premises vacant because her eviction suit was pending, nor was

there any duty cast on the appellant, under any provision of law, to

offer those other premises to the respondent. If the respondent had

so desired, he could have offered to vacate the flat preferred by the

landlady and move into one of those other premises. If the appellant

had refused to accept such an offer, it possibly could have been said

that the landlady was merely seeking to get vacant possession in

order to get higher rents. In that case it could have been inferred

that the need of the appellant was not genuine and/or in good faith.

No such case has been made out. In view of the specific provision

in the said Act the reasoning of the High Court cannot be sustained.

21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, the

present petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

22. The impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 is set aside. The petitioner

has been able to make out her case under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section

25B of the DRCA, and therefore, an eviction order is passed in her favour and

against the respondent with respect to the demised premises comprising of

RC. REV. 200/2023 Page 19 of 19

one room and balcony on the First Floor at Property No.10528,

Manakpura, Chowk Hari Chand, Karol Bagh, New Delhi . The

respondent/tenant is directed to vacate, and hand over quite, vacant, peaceful,

and physical possession of the demised premises to the petitioner/landlady,

albeit, after availing the benefit of six months period from today in terms of

Section 14(7) of the DRCA. No order as to costs.

23. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

24. Copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned learned ARC, Central

District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, for necessary information and compliance.

25. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA

(JUDGE)

APRIL 15, 2026/kr/ns