Mohd Yakub Through Legal Heirs Mohd Haroon & Ors. vs Sh. Nawal Kishore Decesaed Through Legal Heir Smt Sarita & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

$~5 to 7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010062822024
+ RC.REV. 48/2024, CM APPL. 8818/2024 (Stay) & CM APPL.
49869/2026 (Permission to open and use of the tenanted
premises)

MOHD YAKUB THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS MOHD
HAROON & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr.
Manu Nayar, Mr. Gaurav
Sindhwani, Mr. Nitin Kumar
and Mr. Vaibhav Kush,
Advocates.
versus

SH. NAWAL KISHORE DECESAED THROUGH LEGAL
HEIR SMT SARITA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ram Kishan Saini and Mrs.
Neelam Saini, Advocates for
R-2 and R-3.
6
# CNR No. DLHC010014382026
+ RC.REV. 19/2026, CM APPL. 3691/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL.
3692/2026 (Ex.)

MOHD YAKUB SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL
HEIRS MOHD HAROON & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr.
Manu Nayar, Mr. Gaurav
Sindhwani, Mr. Nitin Kumar
and Mr. Vaibhav Kush,
Advocates.
versus

SH NAWAL KISHORE DECEASED THROUGH LRS
SARITA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ram Kishan Saini and Mrs.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
17:07:01
RC.REV. 48/2024 and connected matters Page 1 of 9

Neelam Saini, Advocates for
R-2 and R-3.
7
# CNR No. DLHC010014282026
+ RC.REV. 20/2026, CM APPL. 3693/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL.
3694/2026 (Ex.)

MOHD YAKUB SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL
HEIRS MOHD HAROON & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr.
Manu Nayar, Mr. Gaurav
Sindhwani, Mr. Nitin Kumar
and Mr. Vaibhav Kush,
Advocates.
versus

NAWAL KISHORE DECEASED THROUGH SARITA &
ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ram Kishan Saini and Mrs.
Neelam Saini, Advocates for
R-2 and R-3.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)


RC.REV. 48/2024
1. The present Revision Petition, filed under Section 25-B(8) of
1
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , seeks to assail the Order dated
2
11.01.2021 passed by the learned SCJ-cum-RC, Central District,
3
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in the Eviction Petition, being E-
4
78979/2016 , titled “Sh. Nawal Kishore v. Mohd. Yakub through
legal heirs” .

1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Order
3
learned RC
4
Eviction Petition
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
17:07:01
RC.REV. 48/2024 and connected matters Page 2 of 9

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the Petitioner confines his
challenge to the limited question as to whether the Impugned Order
can be sustained upon the demise of the original landlord, Sh. Nawal
Kishore, in respect of whom the bona fide requirement had been
pleaded, particularly when the requirement so asserted is stated to
have been extinguished upon his demise and no subsisting
5
requirement of the legal representatives has been pleaded or
established.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the eviction
proceedings were instituted on the basis of the personal bona fide
requirement of the original landlord. It is contended that the very
foundation on which the Impugned Order came to be passed has
ceased to exist with the demise of the original landlord.
4. He submits that, in the absence of any independent or surviving
requirement being asserted on behalf of the legal representatives, the
Impugned Order cannot be sustained merely because the proceedings
had culminated in an order of eviction during the lifetime of the
original landlord.
5. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel places
reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sheshambal (Dead) through LRs v. Chelur Corporation Chelur
6
Building and Ors . , particularly paragraph nos. 17 and 18 thereof.
6. It is submitted that the aforesaid decision recognises the
significance of the demise of the landlord where the eviction
proceedings are founded upon his personal requirement, and that the
continuation of the proceedings by the LRs cannot, by itself, establish

5
LRs
6
MANU/SC/0115/2010
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
17:07:01
RC.REV. 48/2024 and connected matters Page 3 of 9

the continued existence of the requirement which formed the basis of
the eviction petition.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further relies upon the
7
Judgments of this Court in Bipin Jain v. Abhey Kumar Jain and
8
Gurinder Singh v. Jasjit Kaur to contend that the effect of the
landlord’s demise must be examined with reference to the nature of
the requirement originally pleaded and whether such requirement
survives in the facts of the case.
8. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the demise of the original landlord does not,
by itself, extinguish the bona fide requirement forming the basis of the
eviction proceedings. In support of this contention, reliance is placed
upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamleshwar
9
Prasad v. Pradumanju Agarwal (Dead) by LRs . and the Order dated
03.09.2025 passed in Civil Appeal No. 11354 of 2026, arising out of
SLP (C) No. 5010 of 2025, in Lakshmi Devi Sharma and Anr. v.
Pankaj Kumar Ahuja and Anr.
9. Learned counsel further relies upon the Judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Burhan & Ors. v. Shri
10
Triloki Nath (Since Deceased) Through LRs & Ors. , particularly
paragraph nos. 31 and 32 thereof, and submits that the Impugned
Order does not warrant interference in the exercise of the limited
revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
10. In Rejoinder , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners submits that the Judgment in Mohd. Burhan (supra) has

7
MANU/DE/1526/2015
8
MANU/DE/3975/2019
9
(1997) 4 SCC 413
10
2026:DHC:24
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
17:07:01
RC.REV. 48/2024 and connected matters Page 4 of 9

been challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 5285/2026 and vide Order dated 12.02.2026
the operation of the said judgment has been stayed. He further submits
that the Judgment in Kamleshwar Prasad (supra) was considered in
the subsequent Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sheshambal (supra), wherein the consequences of the demise of the
original landlord upon the subsistence of the bona fide requirement
were specifically considered.
11. Learned counsel submits that, in the present case, the original
landlord had passed away and the bona fide requirement pleaded in
the Eviction Petition was for his own benefit.
12. Learned counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the
application filed by the Respondents under Order I Rule 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and submits that the circumstances
surrounding the said application further demonstrate the absence of
any surviving requirement on the part of the LRs. It is, therefore,
urged that the Impugned Order cannot be permitted to survive when
the requirement forming its foundation has ceased to exist.
13. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and, with their able assistance, perused the material available
on record, including the Impugned Order.
14. The controversy, as raised by the Petitioner, requires this Court
to examine the effect of the demise of the original landlord upon the
sustainability of an Impugned Order founded upon his bona fide
requirement. The issue is not answered merely by noticing that the
original landlord has passed away. Similarly, the fact that an eviction
order was passed during his lifetime cannot, by itself, render the
subsequent event irrelevant to the adjudication of the present revision
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
17:07:01
RC.REV. 48/2024 and connected matters Page 5 of 9

Petition. The question must be examined with reference to the nature
of the requirement originally pleaded, the stage at which the
subsequent event has occurred, and the legal consequences flowing
therefrom.
15. At the outset, it is necessary to appreciate that a claim founded
upon bona fide requirement is not divorced from the person and the
circumstances in which the requirement is asserted. The genuineness
of the requirement is examined with reference to the need pleaded by
the landlord and the purpose for which possession of the tenanted
premises is sought.
16. In this regard, the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sheshambal (supra) assumes significance. In the said decision, the
eviction proceedings were founded upon the personal requirement of
the original landlords, and no requirement of any dependent family
member had been pleaded. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in
those circumstances, the demise of the landlords extinguished the right
to seek eviction on the basis of the personal requirement asserted by
them. The principle emerging therefrom is that the continuation of
proceedings by LRs cannot, in itself, preserve a requirement which
was personal to the deceased landlord and which no longer subsists.
17. The aforesaid principle, however, does not imply that the
demise of a landlord invariably brings eviction proceedings founded
upon bona fide requirement to an end. In Kamleshwar Prasad (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to treat the landlord’s demise as
extinguishing the requirement, inter alia , because the premises had
been sought for commencing a business which could be carried on by
his widow or elder son. The Court also emphasised the relevance of
the date of institution of the eviction petition in assessing the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
17:07:01
RC.REV. 48/2024 and connected matters Page 6 of 9

requirement. The decision, therefore, does not dispense with an
examination of the nature of the requirement in the case at hand;
rather, it illustrates that a requirement may survive where its
underlying purpose is capable of being carried forward by the LRs.
18. The reliance placed by the Respondents upon the Order in
Lakshmi Devi Sharma and Anr. (supra) must likewise be considered
in the context of the issue arising herein. The general proposition that
the demise of a landlord does not, by itself, extinguish a claim
founded upon bona fide requirement does not resolve the present
controversy. The material question remains whether the requirement
forming the basis of the Impugned Order was confined to the personal
need of the original landlord or was otherwise capable of surviving his
demise.
19. The Respondents have also relied upon the judgment of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohd. Burhan (supra) . The
Petitioners submit that the operation of the said judgment has been
stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in proceedings arising
therefrom. This Court need not rest its determination upon the effect
of the said stay, as the controversy can be examined in the light of the
principles emerging from the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court discussed hereinabove and their application to the facts of the
present case.
20. In the present case, the Eviction Petition was instituted on the
basis of the bona fide requirement of Sh. Nawal Kishore, and the
Impugned Order was passed upon that foundation. The Petitioners
contend that the requirement was personal to the original landlord and
that no independent or surviving requirement of the LRs has been
pleaded or established. The Respondents, on the other hand, rely upon
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
17:07:01
RC.REV. 48/2024 and connected matters Page 7 of 9

the continuation of the proceedings and contend that the demise of the
original landlord does not, by itself, defeat the eviction order.
21. The distinction between the right of LRs to continue the
proceedings and the existence of a requirement capable of sustaining
eviction is material. The former is procedural; it does not, without
more, establish the latter. Accordingly, the fact that the Impugned
Order was passed during the lifetime of the original landlord cannot,
by itself, conclude the question arising from his subsequent demise.
The Court must examine whether the requirement accepted by the
learned RC was personal to him or whether the record discloses a
requirement capable of continuing notwithstanding his demise.
22. The Petitioners have also relied upon the application filed by
the Respondents under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC, as a circumstance
bearing upon the existence of any surviving requirement. The said
application cannot, in isolation, determine the controversy. Its
significance, if any, must be assessed alongside the nature of the
original requirement and the other material on record.
23. In the facts of the present case, the requirement forming the
basis of the Impugned Order was that of the original landlord. The
record does not disclose any independent or surviving requirement
capable of sustaining the eviction order notwithstanding his demise.
The case is, therefore, distinguishable from Kamleshwar Prasad
(supra), where the purpose for which possession was sought was
capable of being pursued by the landlord’s LRs. The principle in
Sheshambal (supra), on the other hand, directly addresses the
consequence of the cessation of a personal requirement upon the
demise of the person for whose benefit eviction was sought.
24. In these circumstances, the Impugned Order cannot be sustained
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
17:07:01
RC.REV. 48/2024 and connected matters Page 8 of 9

merely on the basis of the personal requirement which existed during
the lifetime of the original landlord. The challenge, to this limited
extent, merits acceptance.
25. Accordingly, the Impugned Order, passed by the learned RC in
Eviction Petition No. E-78979/2016, is set aside and the present
Petition, RC.REV. 48/2024, is allowed.
26. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in the above terms.

RC.REV. 19/2026 and RC.REV. 20/2026
27. In view of the Judgment passed in RC.REV. 48/2024, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, on instructions,
submits that the Petitioners do not wish to press the present Petitions,
being RC.REV. 19/2026 and RC.REV. 20/2026, and seek leave of this
Court to withdraw the same.

28. Leave, as prayed for, is granted.
29. Accordingly, RC.REV. 19/2026 and RC.REV. 20/2026, along
with pending Application(s), stand dismissed as withdrawn.
30. A photocopy of this Order be placed in the connected matters.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 14, 2026/tk/jk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
17:07:01
RC.REV. 48/2024 and connected matters Page 9 of 9