Smt Birmati And Ors vs Sh Girish Gupta
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 12.10.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 02.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010377652025
+ RC.REV. 189/2025, CM APPL. 36459/2025 (Stay), CM APPL.
36460/2025 (Dir.), CM APPL. 38043/2025 (Dir.), CM APPL.
38045/2025 (Dir.), CM APPL. 38584/2025 (U/O 1 Rule 10),
CM APPL. 38585/2025 (Dir.), CM APPL. 56560/2025 (Dir.) &
CM APPL.70933/2026 (Dir.)
SMT BIRMATI AND ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Suman Kapoor, Ms.
Garima and Mr. S.M. Prasad,
Advocates.
versus
SH GIRISH GUPTA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Petition, under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent
1
Control Act, 1958 , read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil
2
Procedure, 1908 , has been filed assailing the Order dated
3
20.11.2024 passed by the learned ACJ-CCJ-ARC, South-west
4
District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi , in E. No. 25/2022. By way of
1
DRC Act
2
CPC
3
Impugned Order
4
Learned ARC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 1 of 19
the Impugned Order, the learned ARC has rejected the Application
seeking leave to defend preferred by the Petitioners herein and has
passed an eviction order in favour of the Respondent.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts germane to the
institution of the present Petition are as follows:
a. As stated in the Eviction Petition, the Suit Premises, located at
Main Bazaar, Najafgarh, New Delhi, fall under Municipal Ward
No. 137 of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The
property is a non-residential unit let out initially in 1983 by the
previous owner, Late Shri Ram Nath, at a monthly rent of
Rs. 150/-, which was last increased to Rs. 377/-.
b. It is further stated that the Respondent herein inherited the
ownership through his father, Lt. Shri Satya Narain Gupta. It is
stated that the Subject Premises was bequeathed to the
Respondent herein through a registered Will, making him the
sole owner and landlord.
c. An Eviction Petition came to be filed by the Respondent herein
on the ground of bona fide need for his elder son to set up a
business.
d. Subsequently, the Respondent filed his Application seeking
leave to defend along with his detailed affidavit. The Petitioners
herein sought to challenge the Eviction Petition on the
following grounds:
i. The Petitioners herein challenged the Respondent’s
claim of ownership and status as a landlord on the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 2 of 19
ground that Lt. Shri Satya Narain Gupta passed away
issue-less.
ii. The Respondent had alternate suitable accommodation.
e. Upon hearing both the parties, the learned ARC proceeded to
dismiss the Application seeking leave to defend and passed an
Order of eviction in favour of the Respondent herein.
f. Aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioners have availed the
remedy of the present Revision Petition.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners would
seek to assail the Impugned Order mainly on the ground that there is
no landlord-tenant relationship between the parties herein, as the
Respondent herein is not the owner of the property and has no right or
title in the subject premises, and therefore he cannot seek the eviction
of the Petitioners herein. It would also be submitted that the
Petitioners never attorned to the Respondent as the landlord and
therefore, there is no existence of a landlord-tenant relationship.
4. He would also assail the Impugned Order on the ground that the
learned ARC erred in observing that the validity of the Will and the
question of title to the property are matters falling within the domain
of civil courts, without appreciating that, in a petition under Section
14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, the existence of a landlord-tenant
relationship and the requisite title of the landlord to the subject
property are also required to be established. Further, it would be
argued that the learned ARC has erred in ignoring the requirement that
the Respondent was supposed to prove on record that the alleged will
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 3 of 19
was propounded by the Respondent herein to show locus standi , since
the registration of a Will does not prove its authenticity.
5. It would further be argued that the learned ARC has erred in not
taking into consideration that the Petitioners herein had denied the
relationship of landlord and tenant in toto.
6. Secondly, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners
would also seek to assail the Impugned Order on the ground that there
was no bona fide need. He would submit that the learned ARC has
erred in holding that the bona fide need asserted by the Respondent
was genuine, insofar as the same was merely a desire. It would be
submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the bona fide
need urged by the Respondent herein was pertaining to his elder son;
however, the said need has been urged without giving the name and
occupation of the said son and that the same diminishes the bona fide
need because the same is unsupported by any material. In pursuance
thereof, it would also be submitted that the son of the Respondent is
incapable of carrying out a business as he is not in a fit state of mind.
7. Thirdly , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners
would further submit that subsequent developments have taken place
that are relevant to the present lis , inasmuch as the Respondent has
been carrying out construction of two new shops just in the opposite
lane, in the main bazar where the subject premises is located. It would
also be alleged that the Respondent herein is also negotiating the sale
of the newly constructed shops as well. In view thereof, it would be
submitted that the newly constructed shops and the attempt to sell
them extinguish any alleged bona fide requirement pertaining to the
eviction of the Petitioners from the subject premises since, upon the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 4 of 19
construction of the new shops, the Respondent now has suitable
alternate accommodation.
8. Per Contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent would seek to sustain the findings returned by the learned
ARC and submit that the first limb of the challenge sought to be
advanced in the present proceedings, pertaining to the landlord-tenant
relationship, is identical to the contention raised before the learned
ARC. It is contended that the learned ARC duly considered the said
contention, examined the same in its proper perspective, and rejected
it for reasons recorded in the Impugned Order.
9. As regards the second and third limbs of challenges raised
before this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent would submit that these are grounds that were never
raised before the learned ARC. More specifically, the challenge to the
bona fide need for the son of the Respondent was never raised before
the learned ARC and has not been pleaded in the present Petition as
well and it is only by way of an Application seeking to place on record
subsequent events that this ground has been raised. He would submit
that such a challenge, now, at this stage, cannot be permitted to be
urged.
10. Further, it would be argued by the learned counsel for the
Respondent that the submission pertaining to the new construction
carried out in other shops does not merit acceptance. It would be
submitted that those properties are the subject matter of another
litigation and there subsists a status quo order and the Court, before
which that matter is lis pendens, had granted permission to the
Respondent herein to carry out repair works. It would be submitted
that since there is a status quo order in place, the said properties could
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 5 of 19
not have been sold. It is also submitted that there exists a dispute
which is pending adjudication in respect of the said premises and
therefore, they cannot be considered as suitable alternate
accommodation.
11. Adverting to the assertion made pertaining to the incapability of
the son of the Respondent to carry out a business owing to him
allegedly being of an unsound mind, or that the need for the subject
premises for the son of the Respondent, learned counsel for the
Respondent would submit that these are mere bald assertions and
nothing has been placed on record to establish that the bona fide need
for the son is not genuine or that the son of the Respondent is of
unsound or unfit mind.
12. It is pertinent to note that no submissions, other than those
recorded hereinabove, were advanced by either of the parties.
Accordingly, the adjudication of the present matter shall be confined
to the contentions so urged by the respective parties.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
13. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the material on
record as well as the Impugned Order.
14. Before proceeding to examine the grounds of challenge urged
on behalf of the Petitioners, 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.
15. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 6 of 19
5
Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
6 7
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.
16. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
8
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
9
Grover .
17. 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 ARC 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
5
(1998) 8 SCC 119
6
(2014) 9 SCC 78
7
(2022) 6 SCC 30
8
2024:DHC:9322
9
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 7 of 19
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.”
18. 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
the learned ARC. 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.
19. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 8 of 19
20. It is within the aforesaid limited parameters of revisional
scrutiny that the grounds urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the
Petitioners against the Impugned Order are required to be examined.
21. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the
findings rendered by the learned ARC in the Impugned Order, which
read as under:
“58. The Respondent challenges the validity of the Will presented
by the Petitioner, questioning its authenticity. However, in the
context of an eviction proceeding under the Delhi Rent Control
Act, such a challenge is not directly relevant. The eviction petition
rests on the Petitioner's status as a landlord, which is prima facie
established by the payment of rent to the Petitioner. The validity of
the Will and the Petitioner's ultimate ownership of the property are
matters better suited for a civil title dispute and do not raise triable
issues that would impact the adjudication of the eviction petition.
59. The Respondent also disputes the Petitioner's relationship with
the deceased landlord, asserting that there was no formal adoption
and therefore no legal right to succeed to the deceased's interest in
the property. This defence, like the Will challenge, is irrelevant in
the context of the eviction proceeding, where the Petitioner's status
as the landlord is sufficient. The Respondent's payment of rent
acknowledges the landlord- tenant relationship, which suffices for
the purpose of establishing the Petitioner's entitlement to seek
eviction based on a bona fide need.
Landlord-Tenant Relationship
61. The petitioner claims ownership of the suit property and asserts
a landlord-tenant relationship with the respondents based on an
initial tenancy created with the respondents' predecessor, Late Sh.
Satya Narain Gupta. The petitioner contends that this relationship
was legally transferred to him through a registered will executed by
Late Sh. Satya Narain Gupta, establishing his rights as landlord
over the suit property.
62. The respondents, however, challenge this relationship, alleging
that Late Sh. Satya Narain Gupta was neither the owner nor a
legally recognized landlord of the property. They dispute the
authenticity of the will, labeling it as forged, and argue that the
petitioner holds no valid title to establish a landlord-tenant
relationship.
63. In assessing these claims, the court must consider the
documentary evidence provided by the petitioner, including the
registered will. The will's authenticity has not been formally
contested in any separate proceeding, and no evidence of forgery
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 9 of 19
or fraudulent conduct has been stated by the respondents at this
stage. Additionally, the respondents have continued to occupy the
premises as tenants and have not previously disputed the landlord-
tenant relationship in a formal capacity, nor have they ceased
paying rent.
64. Given the absence of contrary legal proceedings or clear
evidence disqualifying the petitioner's claim of inheritance, and the
respondents' continuous occupation under the terms of tenancy, a
presumption of a valid landlord-tenant relationship arises. The
respondents' conduct in accepting the authority of Late Sh. Satya
Narain Gupta as landlord further supports this presumption.
65. Therefore, based on the will and the respondents' continued
tenancy, the court holds that the petitioner's landlord-tenant
relationship with the respondents is legally substantiated. The
existence of this relationship provides a necessary foundation to
evaluate the petitioner's bona fide need and whether the
respondents have raised any triable issues”
(emphasis supplied)
22. Having delineated the scope of the revisional jurisdiction vested
in this Court under the proviso to Section 25B (8) of the DRC Act,
this Court shall now proceed to examine the grounds urged by the
Petitioners. The principal challenge pertains to the existence of a
landlord–tenant relationship between the parties, the genuineness of
the bona fide requirement pleaded by the Respondent, and the alleged
availability of alternate suitable accommodation. Each of these
grounds shall be examined within the confines of the limited
revisional jurisdiction exercisable by this Court.
23. At the outset, it is apposite to observe that the proceedings
under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act are
summary in nature, and the legislative scheme contemplates the grant
of leave to defend only where the affidavit filed by the tenant
discloses such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an
eviction order or otherwise raise a triable issue requiring adjudication.
The mere raising of a dispute, without a corresponding factual
foundation capable of displacing the landlord’s claim, would not, by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 10 of 19
itself, warrant the grant of leave to defend. The question before this
Court is, therefore, not whether the Petitioners can formulate an
alternative interpretation of the material on record, but whether the
learned ARC committed any material illegality, perversity or
jurisdictional error in rejecting the Application seeking leave to
defend.
24. The first limb of the challenge concerns the alleged absence of a
landlord–tenant relationship between the parties. Learned counsel for
the Petitioners has contended that the Respondent has failed to
establish any right or title in the Subject Premises, particularly in view
of the dispute concerning the Will purportedly executed by Late Shri
Satya Narain Gupta. It has further been urged that the Petitioners
never attorned to the Respondent as their landlord and that the learned
ARC erred in treating the Respondent’s claim to inheritance as
sufficient to establish the requisite relationship.
25. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention
advanced. It is well settled that, for the purposes of eviction
proceedings under the DRC Act, the landlord is not necessarily
required to establish an absolute and indefeasible title to the Subject
Premises in the manner required in an independent civil action for
declaration of title. It is also trite that in an eviction petition, the
learned ARC is not required to see whether the petitioner therein has
absolute ownership, but what is to be seen is whether the landlord has
a better title/interest than a tenant. The inquiry is confined to
determining whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists
between the parties and whether the person seeking eviction is entitled
to maintain the proceedings in that capacity. The question of absolute
ownership, particularly where it involves adjudication of the validity
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 11 of 19
of testamentary instruments or competing claims of succession, is
distinct from the inquiry contemplated under Section 14(1)(e) of the
DRC Act.
26. In the present case, the learned ARC has taken note of the
registered Will relied upon by the Respondent, the Petitioners’
continued occupation of the Subject Premises as tenants, and the
circumstances in which the tenancy originated. The learned ARC has
further recorded that the Petitioners had not placed any material on
record demonstrating that the Will was forged or that the
Respondent’s claim to the status of landlord was otherwise legally
untenable. On an examination of the findings reproduced hereinabove,
this Court finds that the learned ARC has not proceeded merely on the
basis of the Respondent’s assertion of ownership; rather, the claim has
been considered in conjunction with the material pertaining to the
subsisting tenancy and the Respondent’s asserted succession to the
interest of the previous landlord.
27. Undoubtedly, the registration of a Will, by itself, does not
conclusively establish its due execution or genuineness, nor does it
foreclose a challenge to its validity in appropriate proceedings,
however, the mere denial of the Will, unsupported by any particulars
or material capable of raising a substantial issue concerning the
Respondent’s entitlement to maintain the eviction proceedings, would
not necessarily constitute a triable issue warranting leave to defend.
The learned ARC has specifically recorded that no material
demonstrating forgery or fraudulent conduct had been placed before it
at the stage of consideration of the Application seeking leave to
defend. In the absence of any material demonstrating that this finding
is perverse or contrary to the record, this Court finds no justification to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 12 of 19
interfere with the same in the exercise of its limited revisional
jurisdiction.
28. The further contention that the Petitioners never attorned to the
Respondent as their landlord also fails to advance their case. The
absence of express attornment, in itself, cannot be treated as
conclusive of the non-existence of a landlord–tenant relationship,
particularly where the Respondent asserts that his interest in the
property devolved upon him by succession or testamentary disposition
from the previous landlord. The relevant inquiry is whether the
Respondent has sufficiently demonstrated his entitlement to maintain
the eviction proceedings, and not whether the Petitioners expressly
acknowledged him as landlord through a separate act of attornment.
The learned ARC has considered the circumstances surrounding the
subsisting tenancy and the Respondent’s claim to the interest of the
previous landlord. No manifest error in the approach adopted by the
learned ARC has been demonstrated before this Court.
29. Insofar as the Petitioners disputing the relationship of the
Respondent with Late Shri Satya Narain Gupta and questioning the
Respondent’s entitlement under the Will is concerned, this Court is of
the considered view that, effectively, the Petitioners are seeking an
adjudication upon the ultimate validity of the testamentary instrument
or the Respondent’s absolute title, which is not permissible in
proceedings under the DRC Act. This is not to suggest that a genuine
and adequately substantiated challenge to the Respondent’s status as
landlord must invariably be disregarded. However, in the facts of the
present case, the Petitioners have not demonstrated any material error
in the assessment undertaken by the learned ARC which would justify
interference with the Impugned Order.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 13 of 19
30. The second limb of the challenge relates to the bona fide
requirement pleaded by the Respondent for his elder son to establish a
business in the Subject Premises. Learned counsel for the Petitioners
has contended that the requirement is merely a desire and that the
Respondent has failed to disclose the name and occupation of his son
or place sufficient material on record to establish the genuineness of
the requirement. It has also been alleged that the son is not in a fit
state of mind to carry on a business.
31. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that, as recorded in the
submissions advanced on behalf of the Respondent, the challenge to
the bona fide requirement was not raised before the learned ARC in
the manner in which it is sought to be urged before this Court. A
revisional proceeding under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the
DRC Act cannot ordinarily be employed to introduce fresh factual
controversies which were not placed before the learned ARC for its
consideration, particularly where their adjudication would require an
inquiry into facts and evidence. The Petitioners cannot seek to fault
the learned ARC for failing to adjudicate upon a contention which was
not raised before the ARC. Further, this challenge was not raised in
the present Petition as well and came to be raised by way of an
Application filed during the pendency of the present Petition. It is also
pertinent to note that these grounds have been urged without placing
on record any material and are merely bald assertions.
32. Even otherwise, the mere fact that the Subject Premises is
required for the purpose of enabling the landlord’s son to commence a
business does not, by itself, render the requirement a mere desire or
deprive it of its bona fide character. The statutory inquiry is whether
the requirement pleaded by the landlord is genuine and whether the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 14 of 19
essential ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act stand
satisfied. A landlord is not required to demonstrate that the proposed
business has already commenced or that the person for whose benefit
the premises are sought is already carrying on an established
commercial activity. The requirement may legitimately relate to the
commencement of a business, provided the plea is genuine and is
supported by the requisite material.
33. The unfortunate allegation concerning the alleged incapacity of
the Respondent’s son to carry on business is equally devoid of any
demonstrated factual foundation in the material brought to the
attention of this Court. No material has been identified which
establishes that the son is incapable of pursuing the proposed
commercial activity or that the requirement pleaded by the
Respondent is a mere pretext to secure the eviction of the Petitioners.
A bald assertion concerning the mental fitness or capacity of a person,
unsupported by any material, cannot be elevated into a ground for
disturbing an eviction order in revisional proceedings. In any event,
the question whether the Respondent’s pleaded requirement is bona
fide must be assessed on the basis of the material properly placed
before the learned ARC and cannot be determined on the strength of
unsubstantiated allegations introduced at a subsequent stage.
34. Now adverting to the third limb of challenge pertaining to the
alleged construction of two shops by the Respondent in the opposite
lane of the main bazaar, as well as the alleged negotiations for their
sale. According to the Petitioners, the construction of the said shops
constitutes the availability of alternate suitable accommodation and
consequently extinguishes the bona fide requirement asserted in
respect of the Subject Premises.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 15 of 19
35. In this regard, learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted
that the properties in question are the subject matter of a separate
litigation, in which an order directing maintenance of status quo is
stated to be operating, and that the permission granted by the
concerned Court was confined to carrying out repair works. It has,
therefore, been contended that the alleged construction and
negotiations for sale do not establish the availability of any alternate
accommodation which is legally and practically available to the
Respondent for the purpose for which the Subject Premises are
sought.
36. This Court is of the view that the mere assertion that other
shops have been constructed or that negotiations for their sale are
allegedly underway cannot, without more, establish that the
Respondent is in possession of alternate accommodation which is
reasonably suitable for the bona fide requirement pleaded in the
eviction petition. The availability of alternate accommodation must be
examined with reference to its actual availability, the nature and
purpose of the requirement, and the relevant circumstances governing
its use. The mere existence of another property, without demonstrating
its availability and suitability for the purpose in question, would not be
sufficient to displace the landlord’s claim.
37. In the present case, the Petitioners have not demonstrated that
the two shops referred to in their submissions are available to the
Respondent in a manner which would render the requirement pleaded
in respect of the Subject Premises non-existent or no longer bona fide .
On the contrary, the Respondent has specifically disputed the
Petitioners’ assertion by referring to the subsisting litigation and the
order stated to be operating in respect of the properties concerned. In
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 16 of 19
the absence of material establishing that the alleged alternate
accommodation is legally and practically available to the Respondent
for the purpose of the pleaded requirement, this Court finds no
sufficient basis to conclude that the learned ARC’s decision warrants
interference on this ground.
38. It must also be borne in mind that the assessment of the
landlord’s bona fide requirement cannot be undertaken by substituting
the Court’s own preferences for those of the landlord. The tenant
cannot dictate the precise premises which the landlord ought to utilise
for his or his family member’s commercial needs. The relevant
consideration is whether the requirement pleaded is genuine and
whether the landlord has established the statutory conditions for
eviction. Unless the availability of alternate accommodation is shown
to materially undermine the pleaded requirement, the mere reference
to other properties cannot, by itself, defeat the claim for eviction.
39. Insofar as the Petitioners rely upon the alleged subsequent
developments concerning the two shops, this Court is conscious that a
genuinely material subsequent event may, in an appropriate case, have
a bearing on the relief sought by a landlord. However, the mere
allegation of such a development, without adequate material
establishing its nature, legal effect and relevance to the pleaded
requirement, cannot be treated as sufficient to displace an otherwise
sustainable eviction order. The Petitioners have not demonstrated that
the alleged subsequent developments render the findings of the
learned ARC manifestly erroneous or that the Respondent’s
requirement stands extinguished as a consequence thereof.
40. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court finds that
the principal grounds urged by the Petitioners are founded either upon
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 17 of 19
a challenge to the Respondent’s title which does not, in the facts of the
present case, disclose a demonstrated error in the assessment of the
landlord–tenant relationship, upon factual allegations concerning the
Respondent’s son which are unsupported by material, or upon the
alleged availability of alternate accommodation whose suitability and
actual availability have not been established. None of these grounds
demonstrates that the learned ARC has exercised jurisdiction not
vested in it, failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or committed a
manifest illegality or material irregularity in passing the Impugned
Order.
41. This Court is also unable to discern any perversity in the
decision-making process adopted by the learned ARC. The Impugned
Order reflects consideration of the principal objection concerning the
landlord–tenant relationship, the Respondent’s claim under the
registered Will, and the circumstances of the subsisting tenancy. The
Petitioners have not demonstrated that any material consideration
bearing upon the determination of the Application seeking leave to
defend was ignored or that the findings returned by the learned ARC
are such that no reasonable judicial authority could have arrived at
them on the material available on record.
42. It is reiterated that the revisional jurisdiction under the proviso
to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is not an appellate jurisdiction and
does not permit this Court to reassess the material as though the matter
were being adjudicated for the first time. The mere possibility of
another view on the facts, or the Petitioners’ disagreement with the
conclusions drawn by the learned ARC, cannot constitute a ground for
interference. In the absence of any jurisdictional infirmity, manifest
illegality, material irregularity or perversity, this Court would not be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 18 of 19
justified in substituting its own assessment for that of the learned
ARC.
43. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no ground
to interfere with the Impugned Order. The Petitioners have failed to
establish that the rejection of their Application seeking leave to defend
suffers from any infirmity warranting the exercise of revisional
jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.
44. Accordingly, the present Petition is dismissed. All pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
45. Before parting, it is made clear that nothing contained in this
Judgment shall be construed as an adjudication upon the ultimate
validity of the Will or the parties’ competing claims to absolute title
over the Subject Premises, which questions, if otherwise maintainable,
shall be determined in appropriate proceedings in accordance with
law.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 02, 2026/va
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:04.11.2026
09:01:25
RC.REV. 189/2025 Page 19 of 19