G.Selvi & Ors. vs Ramesh Chand Sharma

Court
Delhi High Court

$~10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13.10.2026

# CNR No. DLHC010959192024
+ RC.REV. 390/2024 & CM APPL. 75110/2024 (Stay)

G.SELVI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rishabh Kapur and Ms.
Priyanshi Goel, Advocates.
versus
RAMESH CHAND SHARMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. G.P. Sharma and Mr.
Kartikaiya Sharma, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)


1. The present Rent Control Revision Petition has been filed under
Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking the
following reliefs:
“(i) Set aside the Impugned Judgment dated 10.09.2024 passed by
the Ld. SCJ-cum-RC, South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in
Ramesh Chand Sharma v G. Selvi & Ors., RC ARC 15/2023 for
the reasons stated hereinabove; and
(ii) pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and appropri
ate in the facts and circumstances of
the present case.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner confines his
challenge to the judgment to the following:
I) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as is
apparent from the legal notice dated 18.01.2023, the monthly
rent of the premises, which is stated to be the ground floor and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 390/2024 Page 1 of 9

first floor, when taken collectively, exceeded the limit of Rs.
3,500/- as has been prescribed for the learned Rent
1
Controller to assume jurisdiction.
He submits that the bifurcation of the two floors was mala fide
and was only for the purpose of ensuring that the same does not
fall foul of the provisions of the DRC Act.
II) Secondly, he submits that the bona fide requirement of
the Petitioner is not made out since the bona fide requirement,
as stated in the eviction petition, encompasses both residential
and commercial need and such a mixing of the two stated
requirements cannot be done in an eviction petition.
III) He further submits that Respondent has an alternate
accommodation, as he owns another property in Janakpuri. He
submits that this alternate accommodation is evident from the
affidavit that is filed in support of the eviction petition. He
submits that the stated premises situated at WZ-76, Possangi
Pur Village, Janak Puri, New Delhi–110058, comprises a four-
storey building and, therefore, constitutes sufficient and suitable
alternate accommodation, which has not been disclosed by the
Respondent herein.
3. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the Respondents
submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the
learned RC.
4. It is further submitted that the points that are sought to be raised
before this Court were never raised in the application for leave to
defend or the affidavit in support thereof; therefore, he submits that

1
Learned RC
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 390/2024 Page 2 of 9

these cannot be raised today as grounds for challenging the impugned
judgment.
5. It is apposite to note herein that no further grounds were urged
by the parties and were only confined to the grounds recorded
hereinabove.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and, with
their able assistance, perused the material on record along with the
Impugned Judgement.
7. Before proceeding to examine the grounds of challenge urged
on behalf of the Petitioner, it would be apposite to advert to the scope
and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court under the
proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.
8. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in S arla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
2
Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
3 4
Singh , and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua , has
consistently held that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court
under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is supervisory
and revisional in character and cannot be equated with the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.
9. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
5
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny

2
(1998) 8 SCC 119
3
(2014) 9 SCC 78
4
(2022) 6 SCC 30
5
2024:DHC:9322
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 390/2024 Page 3 of 9

6
Grover .
10. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
elucidating the legislative intent underlying Section 25(B) of the DRC
Act, observed that the omission of an appellate remedy against 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.”

11. In Pankaj Pahwa (supra) , a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
upon considering the principles enunciated in Abid-Ul-Islam (supra) ,
reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under the
proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is limited in scope and that
this Court is not expected to substitute or supplant its view for that of

6
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 390/2024 Page 4 of 9

the learned RC. The revisional scrutiny is confined to examining the
decision-making process and determining whether the Impugned
Order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or an
absence of adjudication warranting interference.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the position which emerges
is that, while exercising jurisdiction under the proviso to Section
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 Judgment
suffers from a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material
irregularity or perversity, or where the conclusion arrived at by the
learned RC 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.
13. It is within the aforesaid limited parameters of revisional
scrutiny that the grounds urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the
Petitioner against the Impugned Order are required to be examined.
14. At the outset, this Court notes that the first contention advanced
on behalf of the Petitioner, premised on the legal notice dated
18.01.2023 and the alleged collective rent of ₹4,900/- in respect of the
ground floor and the first floor, does not find mention either in the
grounds pleaded in the present Revision Petition or in the application
for leave to defend or the affidavit filed in support thereof before the
learned RC. The Petitioner, therefore, seeks to assail the Impugned
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 390/2024 Page 5 of 9

Judgment on a ground which was neither pleaded in the present
proceedings nor urged before the learned Rent Controller at the
appropriate stage.
15. Insofar as the first contention, pertaining to the alleged
discrepancy between the rent stated in the legal notice dated
18.01.2023 and the manner in which the two floors of the subject
premises have been treated for the purposes of the eviction
proceedings, is concerned, this Court finds that no such objection was
raised before the learned Rent Controller in the application for leave to
defend. Neither is there a whisper about the same in the present
Revision Petition. In the absence of any such plea having been raised
at the appropriate stage, the Petitioner cannot seek to introduce the
same for the first time through oral submissions before this Court,
particularly when the contention involves an examination of the
factual circumstances surrounding the letting of the premises and the
institution of the eviction proceedings.
16. It is pertinent to note that Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act
contemplates the disclosure, by the tenant, of the facts on which the
tenant seeks to contest the eviction petition, through an application for
leave to defend supported by an affidavit. The statutory scheme,
therefore, requires the tenant to specifically disclose the grounds on
which the landlord's claim for eviction is sought to be contested. A
ground which was neither raised before the learned RC nor pleaded in
the present Revision Petition cannot ordinarily be permitted to be
introduced at the stage of oral arguments, particularly when its
consideration would entail an examination of factual issues that did
not form part of the controversy before the learned RC.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 390/2024 Page 6 of 9

17. The second contention urged on behalf of the Petitioner,
concerning the alleged absence of bona fide requirement on the
ground that the premises were stated to be required for both residential
and commercial purposes, suffers from the same infirmity. This
objection too was neither raised in the application for leave to defend
nor specifically pleaded as a ground in the present Revision Petition.
Consequently, the learned RC had no occasion to examine the issue in
the manner in which it is now sought to be projected before this Court.
18. In any event, the mere assertion that the premises are required
for residential as well as commercial purposes does not, by itself,
establish any infirmity in the eviction proceedings or preclude the
Respondents from filing an eviction petition. In the absence of a
properly raised challenge demonstrating an error in the decision-
making process adopted by the learned RC, this Court, while
exercising its limited revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to
Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, cannot embark upon an independent
examination of the bona fide requirement on a ground which was not
urged before the learned RC.
19. The third contention, pertaining to the alleged availability of
alternate accommodation at WZ-76, Possangi Pur Village, Janak Puri,
New Delhi–110058, is similarly not borne out by the grounds pleaded
in the present Revision Petition or by any objection raised before the
learned Rent Controller in the application for leave to defend. The
Petitioner seeks to rely upon the description of the aforesaid premises
as a four-storey building and contends that the same constitutes
suitable alternate accommodation. However, the said assertion, in
itself, does not establish that the premises are available to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 390/2024 Page 7 of 9

Respondents and are reasonably suitable for their alleged requirement.
More importantly, no such specific challenge was placed before the
learned RC for consideration.
20. This Court is, therefore, not persuaded to undertake an inquiry
into the suitability or availability of the aforesaid premises at the
revisional stage. Such an exercise would necessarily require an
examination of factual matters which were not made the subject
matter of the proceedings before the learned RC and would be
contrary to the limited scope of scrutiny contemplated under Section
25B(8) of the DRC Act.
21. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also sought to contend
that the eviction proceedings were initially instituted on a consolidated
basis, whereafter the original petition was withdrawn and separate
petitions came to be instituted in respect of the two floors. In response,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that
the earlier petition was withdrawn on account of technical defects and
that the subsequent proceedings were instituted pursuant to the liberty
granted by the Court.
22. In this regard, this Court notes that the Petitioner has not
demonstrated that the aforesaid contention, similar to the others, was
raised before the learned RC or that any specific challenge founded on
this circumstance has been pleaded in the present Revision Petition. In
the absence of such a challenge, and without any material
demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record or an
infirmity in the decision-making process, this Court finds no occasion
to examine the factual circumstances surrounding the institution and
subsequent withdrawal of the earlier proceedings.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 390/2024 Page 8 of 9

23. It bears reiteration that the revisional jurisdiction vested in this
Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is not an
appellate jurisdiction permitting the parties to enlarge the scope of the
proceedings through oral submissions or to seek a fresh adjudication
of factual issues which were not placed before the learned Rent
Controller. The jurisdiction is intended to ensure that the decision-
making process is in accordance with law and does not suffer from
any patent illegality, jurisdictional infirmity or other error warranting
interference within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
24. In the present case, the contentions advanced on behalf of the
Petitioner neither form part of the grounds pleaded in the present
Revision Petition nor were they raised before the learned RC in the
application for leave to defend. Further, no infirmity in the decision-
making process adopted by the learned RC has been demonstrated so
as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its limited
revisional jurisdiction. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the
grounds sought to be urged on behalf of the Petitioner.
25. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition, along with all
pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 13, 2026/ v/va
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 390/2024 Page 9 of 9