Ram Swaroop Jain & ANR v. Sanjeev Jain

$~5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 113/2019, CM APPL. 8683/2019, CM APPL. 613/2021 CM APPL. 38564/2022, CM APPL. 55201/2022, CM APPL. 9062/2023 & CM APPL. 10519/2025 RAM SWAROOP JAIN & ANR .....Petitioners Through:

Mr.

Yogesh Verma and Mr.

Bhavtosh Sharma, Advs. With petitioner no.2 in person.

versus SANJEEV JAIN .....Respondent Through:

Mr. Rajesh Sharma and Ms. Kavita Sharma, Advs. (M- 9211326600) (through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

O R D E R

% 08.12.2025 1.

For ease of reference, the order dated 24.11.2025 passed by this Court is reproduced herein as under:

"... ...2. However, this Court finds that considering that the aspect of landlord-tenant relationship between the parties has been adjudicated upon by the learned Additional Rent Controller (learned ARC) in detail as is clear from the findings recorded in paragraph nos.15 to 18 of the impugned order, as also the aspects of bona fide requirement as well as each of the alternative accommodation(s) raised before the learned ARC have also been decided by way of well-reasoned findings in paragraph nos.19 and 21 and paragraph no.22 thereof, prima facie, this Court is of the opinion that the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

impugned order has been passed in accordance with law, since all the requisites while dealing with an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) have been duly taken note of and addressed thereon. The impugned order, thus, does not require interference by this Court.

3.

Further, today, the tenant is only seeking to build his case on new/ fresh facts which have, admittedly, come into existence after passing of the impugned order by the learned ARC. The same, in view of the settled position of law laid down in Prithipal Singh vs. Satpal Sing (Dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 as also in Ms. Madhu Gupta vs. M/s Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd. ILR (2012) 1 DELHI cannot be permitted at this stage when this Court is dealing with the present revision petition.

4. Finding no merit in the present petition, this is, thus, a fit case for this Court to dismiss the same, finding no cause to exercise the limited and exceptional powers under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act. ... ..."

2.

In furtherance of the aforesaid order dated 24.11.2025, learned counsel for the tenant, today, only seeks to contend that the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 has been obtained by the landlord by concealment of facts, as also, he seeks to amend the present petition. 3.

Considering the issue of concealment was never raised by the tenant before the learned ARC and the permission sought to amend the present petition, being a new one, was never raised by the tenant in the present petition, they are both outrightly rejected by this Court. More so, considering that the very same tenant had earlier filed three applications one after the other, being CM APPL. 613/2021, CM APPL. 38564/2022 and CM APPL. 9062/2023, for bringing on record subsequent The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

developments and additional documents, however, despite pendency thereof and also the pendency of the present revision petition for the past six years, neither any such assertion nor any such argument was ever raised by the tenant. More so, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid arguments, having been raised belatedly, especially after the passing of the order dated 24.11.2025, it is nothing but a sheer delay tactic of the tenant. 4.

As such, in view of the findings recorded by this Court in the order dated 24.11.2025, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinabove, the present petition is dismissed and the impugned order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller is upheld. 5.

Considering the statutory period of six months granted to the tenant under the provisions of Section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 has already expired, and since the tenant was guilty of non-payment, the order dated 20.02.2019 has already been vacated on 17.02.2023, the tenant is liable to vacate the subject premises and handover physical and peaceful possession thereof to the landlord in compliance of the impugned order dated 28.11.2018.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J DECEMBER 8, 2025/bh The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.