Anand Prakash vs Sohan Lal

Court
Delhi High Court

$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 04.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010319662020
+ RC.REV. 249/2020, CM APPL. 30338/2020 (Stay) & CM
APPL. 77978/2025 (Seeking permission to place on record
additional and subsequent facts)

ANAND PRAKASH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj,
Ms. Garima Bajaj, Mr. Kanav
Agarwal and Mr. Sajal
Awasthi, Advocates
versus

SOHAN LAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manish Phore, Advocate
(VC)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)

1. The present Petition, under Section 25(8) of the Delhi Rent
Control Act, 1958 [“ DRC Act” ], seeks to assail the Order dated
19.08.2020 [“ Impugned Order ”] by which the learned Rent
Controller [“ learned RC ”] had discussed the Application seeking
leave to defend and directed the possession of the subject premises to
the respondent herein.
2. Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner, would contend that the learned Rent
Controller has erred in passing the Impugned Order by failing to
examine a fundamental issue going to the root of the eviction
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:55:12
RC.REV. 249/2020 Page 1 of 9

proceedings, namely, the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship
between the parties. He would submit that, in the application seeking
leave to defend, the Petitioner had categorically disputed the existence
of any such relationship and had specifically contended that the
Respondent had failed to place on record any documentary evidence
to substantiate the assertion that the Petitioner was a tenant in respect
of the subject premises. Learned counsel would further contend that,
despite the aforesaid specific denial and the objections raised by the
Petitioner, the learned Rent Controller has neither examined nor
returned any finding on this material aspect, thereby rendering the
Impugned Order unsustainable.
3. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent would submit that the relationship of landlord-tenant is
clearly established in view of the fact that there was a survey
conducted by the MCD, and the report of that survey shows that the
father of the petitioner herein was a tenant in the subject premises. He
seeks to draw sustenance in this regard from the averment made in the
Reply filed to the present Petition.
4. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the parties were limited to those as recorded herein above. In
view thereof, this Court shall proceed to adjudicate the present lis on
the basis of the same.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
5. 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.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:55:12
RC.REV. 249/2020 Page 2 of 9

6. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
1
Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
2 3
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.
7. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
4
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
5
Grover .
8. 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 RC 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

1
(1998) 8 SCC 119
2
(2014) 9 SCC 78
3
(2022) 6 SCC 30
4
2024:DHC:9322
5
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:55:12
RC.REV. 249/2020 Page 3 of 9

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.”

9. 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 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.
10. 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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:55:12
RC.REV. 249/2020 Page 4 of 9

unconsidered, or the decision-making process otherwise discloses an
error apparent on the face of the record, exercise of revisional
jurisdiction may be warranted.
11. 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.
12. At this juncture, this Court deems it appropriate to reproduce
the relevant portion of the Impugned Order wherein the learned RC
has discussed the “landlord-tenant relationship”, which reads as under:
“7. In the present case, the respondent has sought leave to contest
the application for eviction mainly on two grounds i.e. (i) that
there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties
and (ii) that respondent is in adverse possession of the suit
premises since 1980.
(i) So far as the plea of the respondent that there is no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is
concerned, in para 4 of the affidavit (annexed with the
application under consideration), it is stated by the
respondent that neither he nor his father ever paid any rent
to the petitioner or his father and also that the petitioner has
not supplied the rent receipts and the rent receipts, if any
were forged and fabricated.
As per the documents placed on record by the petitioner,
the property in question is duly assessed in the name of the
father of the petitioner in records of the House Tax
Department of MCD.
It was held by the Hon'ble Apex. Court of Delhi in Rita
Lal Vs. Raj Kumar Singh AIR 2002 SC 3341 that “the
tenant having been induced by the landlord so long as he
remains in possession cannot deny the title of his landlord in
view of the rule of estoppel contained in Section 116 of
Indian Evidence Act. It was further held that the plea raised
in the affidavit seeking leave to defend does not amount to
raising a triable issue.”
It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sri Ram
Pasricha Vs. Jaganath & Ors. AIR 1976 SC 2335 that “in a
suit for eviction – the tenant is estopped from questioning the
title of the landlord.”
In Lado Vs. Nannu Ram 2015 (4) CLJ 364 Del , it was
held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that “mere denial of
ownership of the landlord does mean that every case must be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:55:12
RC.REV. 249/2020 Page 5 of 9

sent for trial involving years. It was further held that mere
denial of ownership is no denial at all and it has to be
something more.”
It is well settled law that bald allegations without any
material on record to substantiate the same could not be
looked into as mere bald allegations are not enough for
grant of leave to defend. It was held by the Hon'ble High
Court of Delhi in Rajender Kumar & Ors. Vs. Leela Wati &
Ors. 155 (2008) Delhi Law Times 383 that:
“..... only those averments in the affidavit are to be
considered by Rent Controller which have some substance in
it and are supported by some material.”
(ii) It is the second plea of the respondent that he is in
hostile, continuous and adverse possession of the suit
premises since 1980 and prior to 1980 since 1963, his father
was in possession of the same.
It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Ram
Chander Vs. Smt. Ram Pyari 2004 (72) DRJ 545 –

“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends vehemently
that once relationship of landlord and tenant is challenged,
tenant is entitled to leave to contest the eviction petition.
There is no dispute as to this proposition of law as it is the
owner of the premises who has right to seek eviction of the
tenant and none less on the ground of bonafide requirement
of the premises. In this case petitioner claims himself to be
the owner of the premises and not as a tenant. The authority
of the Supra Court relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Manoj Kumar Vs. Bihari Lal (Dead) by LRs 91
(2001) Delhi Law Times 25 (SC) is not at all applicable in
the given facts and circumstances of the case as any person
who denies to be a tenant and claim to be the owner of the
premises cannot claim to be granted leave to defend eviction
petition as eviction proceedings initiated under the Delhi
Rent Control Act cannot be converted into a title suit. The
title of the party is always decided through civil proceedings.
As such claim of the petitioner that he is the owner of the
premises and not the tenant could have been vindicated by
way of filing civil suit and not in the eviction proceedings.”
“4. The first and foremost requirement to become entitled to
leave to defend is that there should exist relationship of
landlord and tenant between the parties. By denying the
ownership or land lordship of the petitioner and claiming
himself as owner, the petitioner can not be granted leave to
defend the eviction petition.”

13. A perusal of the material on record would reveal that it is not in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:55:12
RC.REV. 249/2020 Page 6 of 9

dispute that there are no rent receipts or tenancy agreements which
were placed before the learned RC. The only point sought to be urged
relates to the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties.
14. The points sought to be urged before the learned RC in respect
of a landlord-tenant relationship are, firstly , that there was a book
maintained by the Petitioner’s father, which would evidence the
tenancy receipts as between the parties. Secondly , it is urged that there
is an MCD survey report, which evidences that the petitioner’s father
was a tenant in the subject premises.
15. As is apparent, the Petitioner herein had denied the existence of
any such book. Furthermore, there is no mention of any such MCD
survey report in the Eviction Petition or in the Impugned Order herein.
The said contentions seem to have been raised for the first time in the
reply to the revision Petition. There is absolutely no document in
support of the said contention which has been placed on record before
this Court.
16. This Court finds that the Impugned Order suffers from a
material infirmity inasmuch as the learned RC has failed to return any
categorical finding on the specific contention raised by the Petitioner
disputing the very existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between
the parties. A perusal of the Impugned Order would reveal that,
although the learned RC has noticed the objection raised by the
Petitioner in this regard, the same has not been examined in its proper
perspective. The learned RC has proceeded to reject the said objection
primarily by relying upon the municipal house-tax records reflecting
the assessment of the subject property in the name of the father of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:55:12
RC.REV. 249/2020 Page 7 of 9

Respondent, as well as certain judicial precedents dealing with the
principle of estoppel against a tenant from disputing the title of the
landlord. However, the question which arose for consideration was not
merely whether the Respondent or his predecessor-in-interest could
assert ownership over the subject premises, but whether the
foundational relationship of landlord and tenant, on the basis of which
the eviction proceedings had been instituted, stood established
between the parties. The distinction between the two aspects assumes
significance, particularly in view of the specific denial by the
Petitioner that neither he or his father had ever paid rent to the
Respondent or his predecessor-in-interest.
17. It was, therefore, incumbent upon the learned RC to examine
the material placed on record by the parties and determine whether the
plea disputing the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship was
merely a bald denial or was supported by circumstances warranting
consideration. It is also pertinent to note that the Respondent, in the
present proceedings, has sought to rely upon an alleged MCD survey
report to substantiate the existence of the tenancy. However, as
already noticed hereinabove, there is no reference to the said survey
report either in the eviction petition or in the Impugned Order, nor has
any such document been placed on record before this Court.
Consequently, the said plea, having been raised for the first time in the
Reply to the present Petition, cannot be relied upon to supplement or
cure the deficiency in the reasoning adopted by the learned RC.
18. This Court is conscious of the limited scope of its revisional
jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act and is
not undertaking an independent assessment of the existence or
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:55:12
RC.REV. 249/2020 Page 8 of 9

otherwise of the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties.
However, where a specific and material ground raised in the
application seeking leave to defend has not been adjudicated upon, the
omission goes to the root of the decision-making process and
constitutes an error warranting interference in the exercise of
revisional jurisdiction. The Impugned Order, therefore, cannot be
sustained and is liable to be set aside.
19. Accordingly, the matter is remanded to the learned RC for fresh
consideration, on the basis of the pleadings and material already
available on record, and in accordance with law.
20. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the rival claims, and the learned RC shall independently
consider the aforesaid objection without being influenced by any
observations made hereinabove.
21. Since the user and occupation charges have been paid during
the pendency of the present Petition before this Court, the Petitioner is
at liberty to take such steps as are available to him in law to recover
the same in the event that he succeeds before the learned RC.
22. List before the learned ARC on 20.11.2026.
23. The present Petition is disposed of, along with pending
Application(s), if any, in the aforesaid terms.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 04, 2026/ dy/va
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.11.2026
15:55:12
RC.REV. 249/2020 Page 9 of 9