M/S Digjam Ltd. vs Nisha Arora

$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21.07.2026
+ RC.REV. 231/2026, CM APPL. 45852/2026 (Stay), CM APPL.
45853/2026 (Delay 139 days.) & CM APPL. 45854/2026 (Ex.)

M/S DIGJAM LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashish Dholakia, Senior
Advocate along with Mr.
Adarsh Priyadarshi, Ms.
Ananya, Ms. Sandhya and Mr.
Suchit, Advocates.
versus

NISHA ARORA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajiv Dutta, Senior
Advocate along with Mr.
Siddharth Dutta and Mr.
Pratyush Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR


% JUDGEMENT (Oral)


1. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section
1
25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , seeking to set aside the
2
Order dated 06.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Rent
3
Controller , New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts , Delhi , in
Eviction Petition No. 30 RCA RC 20/23, titled “ Kranti Arora vs. M/s
Digjam Ltd.”, whereby the learned Trial Court has been pleased to
pass an order of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act on

1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Order
3
ARC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.07.2026
19:14:09
RC.REV. 231/2026 Page 1 of 10

the ground that no application seeking leave to defend has been filed
on behalf of the Respondent.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submits that the learned ARC has erred in passing the Impugned
Order since the bona fide requirement pleaded by the landlord-late
Shri Kranti Arora did not survive during the pendency of the eviction
proceedings.
3. It is submitted that the eviction petition was principally founded
upon the personal requirement of late Shri Kranti Arora, who, during
the pendency of the said proceedings, unfortunately expired,
4. It is therefore contended that the very foundation of the eviction
petition consequently ceased to exist and the learned ARC failed to
appreciate the legal effect of the subsequent event.
5. In support thereof, he also draws attention of this Court to
Paragraph No. 19 of the eviction petition to submit that the
requirement pleaded therein was intrinsically linked with the medical
condition of late Shri Kranti Arora, who required the premises for his
residence in Delhi while undergoing treatment. Relevant portion of
Paragraph no. 19 of the eviction petition is reproduced hereinbelow:
“19. That the Petitioner is aged around 78 years and is having no
other accommodation for himself or his family even and owns
just the said impugned flat premises. The Petitioner is in need of
the said flat for his and wife's residence as he is suffering from
various ailments and needs treatment in Delhi regularly for which
at present he must undertake travel from Amritsar, despite having
his own house in Delhi, access to which is deprived to him by the
Respondent/Tenant. ………..”

6. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid subsequent
development, the learned ARC proceeded to hold that the requirement
survived in favour of the widow of the original petitioner without
there being any independent pleadings constituting such requirement.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.07.2026
19:14:09
RC.REV. 231/2026 Page 2 of 10

In this regard, learned senior counsel draws the attention of this Court
to paragraph no. 24 and paragraph no. 26 of the Impugned Order
which reads as follows:-
“24. The present petition has been filed by averring that
respondent is a tenant in Flat no. 12, Gauri Apartments, 3 and 4
Sourthend Lane, New Delhi-110001-1660Sg. Ft. + Servant Area
(130 Sq. Ft.) + Area of Terrace (290 Sq. Ft.) as shown in the site
plan annexed with the petition (hereinafter referred to as
tenanted premises). It is stated that the petitioner requires the
tenanted premises for the bonafide requirement of himself and
his wife for their residence in Delhi as they have to regularly
travel to Delhi from Amritsar as medical treatment is required in
Delhi for various ailments………..
xxxxxx
26. The respondent is deemed to have admitted the relationship
of landlord and tenant between. the petitioner and the
respondent. Moreover, findings given in this regard by the
Hon'ble High Court in previous litigation between the parties are
not in dispute. He is also deemed to have admitted that the
petitioner requires the tenanted premises for the bonafide need
of himself and his wife for residence and that no other
reasonably suitable accommodation is available to the petitioner.
Even though, the petitioner has demised during the pendency of
the petition, however, the need still subsists with respect to the
wife of the deceased petitioner who is pursuing the present case.
………….”

7. Per contra , learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent raises a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the
present Petition. It is submitted that admittedly no application seeking
leave to defend was ever filed by the Petitioner within the time
prescribed under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act. Consequently, the
averments contained in the eviction petition stood statutorily admitted,
and the learned ARC had no option except to pass an order of
eviction.
8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the requirement
pleaded in the eviction petition was never confined exclusively to late
Shri Kranti Arora. The pleadings, read as a whole, clearly disclose that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.07.2026
19:14:09
RC.REV. 231/2026 Page 3 of 10

the premises were required for the residence of both late Shri Kranti
Arora and his wife and, therefore, the demise of late Shri Kranti Arora
did not extinguish the bona fide requirement.
9. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and,
with their able assistance, perused the material available on record.
10. 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.
11. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in S arla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
4
Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
5 6
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.
12. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
7
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
8
Grover .
13. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
elucidating the legislative intendment underlying Section 25B of the
DRC Act, observed that the omission of an appellate remedy against
an Order passed by the learned Rent Controller is conscious and

4
(1998) 8 SCC 119
5
(2014) 9 SCC 78
6
(2022) 6 SCC 30
7
2024:DHC:9322
8
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.07.2026
19:14:09
RC.REV. 231/2026 Page 4 of 10

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.”

14. 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.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, the position which emerges
is that, while exercising jurisdiction under the proviso to Section
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.07.2026
19:14:09
RC.REV. 231/2026 Page 5 of 10

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.
16. It is within the aforesaid limited parameters of revisional
scrutiny that the grounds urged on behalf of the Petitioner against the
Impugned Order are required to be examined.
17. At the outset, it is an admitted position that no application
seeking leave to defend was filed by the Petitioner within the period
prescribed under Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act. The statutory
consequence flowing therefrom is explicit. Upon failure of the tenant
to seek leave to defend, the averments contained in the eviction
petition stand admitted by operation of law and the learned ARC
becomes entitled to proceed in accordance with the statutory mandate.
Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act reads as follows:-
“(4) The tenant on whom the summons is duly served (whether
in the ordinary way or by registered post) in the form specified
in the Third Schedule shall not contest the prayer for eviction
from the premises unless he files an affidavit stating the grounds
on which he seeks to contest the application for eviction and
obtains leave from the Controller as hereinafter provided; and in
default of his appearance in pursuance of the summons or his
obtaining such leave, the statement made by the landlord in the
application for eviction shall be deemed to be admitted by the
tenant and the applicant shall be entitled to an order for eviction
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.07.2026
19:14:09
RC.REV. 231/2026 Page 6 of 10

on the ground aforesaid.”

18. The statutory scheme embodied in the aforesaid provision is
couched in mandatory terms, as is evident from the use of the
expression " shall not contest " . The said expression must be accorded
its plain and ordinary meaning. Consequently, unless a tenant files an
application seeking leave to defend in the manner contemplated under
the statute, the tenant stands precluded from contesting the prayer for
eviction.
19. The said position was also affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme
9
Court in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh , wherein it has been
categorically observed that the procedure prescribed under Section
25(B) of the DRC Act constitutes a complete code in itself and that
the requirement of filing an application seeking leave to defend within
the prescribed period is mandatory. It has further been observed that,
upon failure to seek such leave, the tenant forfeits the right to contest
the eviction petition and the Controller is bound to proceed in
accordance with the statutory mandate.
20. In the present case, the principal submission urged on behalf of
the Petitioner is that, notwithstanding the fact that no leave to defend
was filed before the learned ARC, the bona fide requirement pleaded
by the Respondent in the eviction petition ceased to subsist upon the
demise of late Shri Kranti Arora during the pendency of the eviction
proceedings and therefore, the learned ARC erred in passing the
Impugned Order without taking into consideration the legal effect of
the said subsequent development.
21. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid submission. A plain

9
(2010) 2 SCC 15
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.07.2026
19:14:09
RC.REV. 231/2026 Page 7 of 10

reading of Paragraph No. 19 of the eviction petition, extracted
hereinabove, demonstrates that the requirement that was pleaded was
not confined exclusively to late Shri Kranti Arora. The pleadings
specifically disclose that the premises were required for the residence
of both the late Shri Kranti Arora and his wife. The medical condition
of late Shri Kranti Arora was undoubtedly one of the circumstances
pleaded in support of the requirement. However, the requirement itself
was not projected as being exclusively personal to him.
22. Once the eviction petition itself disclosed that the premises
were required for the residence of both late Shri Kranti Arora and his
wife, his subsequent demise, by itself, cannot be said to have rendered
the eviction petition infructuous or extinguished the bona fide
requirement pleaded therein.
23. It is also of significance that the Petitioner, despite being duly
served, consciously chose not to file any application seeking leave to
defend. Consequently, the averments contained in the eviction petition
stood admitted by virtue of Section 25(B)(4) of the DRC Act.
24. Having permitted the statutory consequence to ensue, it is no
longer open to the Petitioner, in exercise of the limited revisional
jurisdiction of this Court, to invite a factual re-appreciation of the
pleadings which stood admitted by operation of law.
25. Keeping in mind the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the learned ARC has rightly observed that
the bona fide requirement was not confined solely to late Shri Kranti
Arora but extended to his wife as well and the said conclusion neither
suffers from any jurisdictional error nor discloses any material
irregularity warranting interference by this Court.
26. Before adverting to the final conclusion, this Court, turning to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.07.2026
19:14:09
RC.REV. 231/2026 Page 8 of 10

the preliminary objection raised by the Respondent as regards the
maintainability of the present Petition, is of the considered view that
once a tenant has failed to avail the statutory remedy of filing an
application seeking leave to defend within the period prescribed under
Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act, cannot thereafter be permitted to
invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under the proviso to
Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act to assail the consequential order of
eviction. To hold otherwise would, in effect, amount to permitting the
tenant to indirectly challenge the eviction order despite having
consciously forfeited the statutory right to contest the eviction
proceedings.
27. The mandate of Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act is unequivocal.
The provision expressly stipulates that a tenant "shall not" contest the
eviction petition unless leave to defend is sought and granted in the
manner prescribed therein. It further provides that, upon failure to
obtain such leave, the statements made by the landlord in the eviction
petition “ shall be deemed to have been admitted” .
28. Once the statute itself attaches such consequences to the failure
of the tenant to seek leave to defend, permitting the tenant to maintain
a Revision Petition questioning the eviction order would defeat the
legislative scheme embodied under Section 25B of the DRC Act. The
revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court cannot be invoked to
circumvent the statutory consequences flowing from the tenant's own
omission.
29. Resultantly, this Court is of the opinion that entertaining the
present Petition would amount to permitting the Petitioner to achieve
indirectly what is expressly prohibited by the statute. Such an exercise
would not only dilute the summary procedure envisaged under Section
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.07.2026
19:14:09
RC.REV. 231/2026 Page 9 of 10

25B of the DRC Act but would also render otiose the mandatory
consequences contemplated under Section 25B(4) thereof.
30. The Court candidly admits that initially it was of the opinion
that the petition was maintainable, but upon closer scrutiny realized
that the statutory provisions would not permit the same.
31. Accordingly, de hors from the fact that this Court has
independently examined the submissions advanced on behalf of the
Petitioner on merits and found them to be devoid of substance, this
Court is also of the considered opinion that the present Petition is not
maintainable in law.
32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present Petition, being
devoid of merit and otherwise not maintainable, is accordingly
dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/-, to be deposited with the Delhi
High Court Bar Association within a period of one (01) week from the
date of this Judgment.

33. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.



HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
JULY 21, 2026/nd/jk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:30.07.2026
19:14:09
RC.REV. 231/2026 Page 10 of 10