Suraj Prakash vs Jugal Kishore
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 14.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010499132026
+ RC.REV. 395/2026, CM APPL. 71846/2026 (U/O XXXII Rule
1 & 4), CM APPL. 71847/2026 (Ex. From filing the certified
copy of the annexures), CM APPL. 71848/2026 (Ex. From
filing certified copy of the impugned judgment dt. 16.09.2026)
& CM APPL. 71849/2026 (Stay)
SURAJ PRAKASH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashutosh Rana, Advocate.
versus
JUGAL KISHORE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. M. Qayam Ud Din, Mr.
Sudhir Kumar, Mr. Anurag
Rawat, Mr. Shubham Tyagi,
Mr. Manish Kumar, Ms. Neha
Sharma and Ms. Chanchal,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Revision Petition, filed under the proviso to Section
1
25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , seeks to assail the
2
Judgement dated 16.09.2026 passed by the learned ACJ-cum-
1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Judgement
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 1 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
3
ARC, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi , Eviction Petition, being
4
RC/ARC 26 of 2025 , titled “Jugal Kishore v. Suraj Prakash” .
2. By way of the Impugned Judgement, the learned ARC
dismissed the Petitioner’s Application seeking Leave to Defend and,
consequently, passed an Eviction Order in respect of the tenanted
premises, being the First Floor of property bearing No. R-111 (Old
5
Plot No. 39-A), Rishabh Nagar, Model Town-III, Delhi .
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the outset,
confines the challenge to the impugned Judgement to the findings
concerning the bona fide requirement espoused by the Respondent in
the Eviction Petition.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the bona fide
requirement set up by the Respondent before the learned ARC was
neither genuine nor substantiated by the material on record. With
respect to the bona fide requirement, he trifurcates this challenge as
follows: first, that the Respondent has placed no documentary material
in support of the alleged professional engagement of his son; second ,
that the asserted requirement of a separate room for his daughter is
unfounded, particularly when the existing accommodation is stated to
be sufficient to cater to her needs; and third , that the Respondent’s
decision to let out the Second Floor of property bearing No. R-111
6
(Old Plot No. 39-A), Rishabh Nagar, Model Town-III, Delhi , i.e. ,
the Second Floor of the very same property in which the Subject
3
ARC
4
Eviction Petition
5
Subject Premises
6
Property No. R-111
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 2 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
Premises is situated, shortly before instituting the Eviction Petition,
casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the requirement now sought
to be projected.
5. Elaborating upon the first limb of the challenge to the finding
on bona fide requirement the learned counsel submits that insofar as
the requirement projected for the Respondent’s son is concerned, the
Respondent did not place on record any documentary material to
establish that his son is engaged in the professional activity, as was
asserted in the Eviction Petition. It is contended that, in the absence of
such material, the requirement of a separate room to be used as a
home office is unsubstantiated and cannot form the basis for
sustaining the Impugned Judgement.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, adverting to the second limb
of the challenge, submits that the requirement of a separate room for
the Respondent’s 22-year-old daughter is equally untenable, inasmuch
as provision for her stay has already been made in the existing
accommodation. It is, therefore, contended that the requirement
projected in this regard does not disclose any genuine inadequacy in
the accommodation presently available to the family.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits, with regards
to the third limb of the challenge, that the letting out of the Second
Floor of Property No. R-111 shortly before the institution of the
Eviction Petition is inconsistent with the plea of bona fide requirement
and, at the very least, raises a triable issue warranting grant of Leave
to Defend to the Petitioner.
8. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent submits that the grounds urged on behalf of the Petitioner
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 3 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
before this Court are a mere reiteration of the objections raised before
the learned ARC, each of which has been duly considered and dealt
with in the Impugned Judgement. It is contended that the learned
ARC, upon due consideration of the rival submissions and the
material placed on record, has returned reasoned findings rejecting the
Petitioner’s objections to the bona fide requirement set up by the
Respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC
Act is circumscribed and does not extend to a reappraisal of the matter
as in an appeal. It is contended that the Petitioner, under the guise of
challenging the Impugned Judgement, seeks to invite this Court to
revisit the findings returned by the learned ARC on the basis of the
same objections which already stand considered.
10. Learned counsel for the Respondent, therefore, submits that the
Impugned Judgement does not suffer from any infirmity warranting
interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction and that the
present Petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS:
11. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and, with
their able assistance, perused the material available on the record,
including the Impugned Judgement.
12. 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, sought to be invoked by way
of the present Petition, vested in this Court under the proviso to
Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 4 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
13. The contours of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B
of the DRC Act are well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sarla
7
Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum
8
Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh , and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-
9
Islam v. Inder Sain Dua , has consistently held that the jurisdiction
exercised by this Court under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the
DRC Act is supervisory and revisional in character and cannot be
equated with the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
14. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
10
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
11
Grover .
15. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
elucidating the legislative intendment 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
7
(1998) 8 SCC 119
8
(2014) 9 SCC 78
9
(2022) 6 SCC 30
10
2024:DHC:9322
11
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 5 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
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.”
16. 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 25-B(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.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, the position which emerges
is that, while exercising jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25-
B(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
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 6 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
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.
18. At this juncture, before adverting to the facts of the present
case, this Court deems it apposite to reproduce the relevant paragraphs
of the Impugned Judgement which relate to the challenge laid by the
Petitioner before this Court to adjudicate the present Petition in proper
perspective. The same read as under:
“ 28. The argument qua induction of a new tenant is not supported
by any documentary material such as rent agreement, rent receipts,
or any other cogent evidence. The allegation remains a mere
assertion without particulars. Even otherwise, it is a settled
principle of law that the landlord has the prerogative to choose
which premises are most suitable for his requirement, and the
tenant cannot compel the landlord to occupy a different portion or
to adjust in some other manner. The mere fact that a portion of the
property may have been let out does not, by itself, negate the bona
fide requirement, particularly when the suitability of
accommodation is to be assessed from the standpoint of the
landlord.
*
44. The respondent has argued that no documentary proof has been
filed by the petitioner to establish the employment of his son, such
as employment records, client agreements, foreign remittance
details, or any online presence. This contention is without merit. It
is settled law that in proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the
DRC Act, the landlord is not required to prove his requirement with
the same rigour as in a civil trial. The bona fide requirement is to
be assessed on the basis of the averments made and the overall
circumstances. The petitioner has clearly pleaded that his son is
engaged in digital graphic designing work from home, catering to
clients in different time zones, and requires a separate room for
carrying out his office work. The absence of formal documents of
employment or business does not negate the requirement,
particularly when no material has been placed by the respondent to
disprove the same.
45. The respondent has also contended that the requirement is
speculative in nature, as one of the rooms may be used as a dining
room or pooja room in future after the marriage of the petitioner’s
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 7 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
daughter. This argument is misconceived. The requirement of a
landlord cannot be termed speculative merely because it takes into
account prospective future family needs. The landlord is entitled to
plan for reasonable future requirements of his family. The
petitioner has explained that the room is presently required for the
daughter’s use and may later be utilized differently depending on
family circumstances. Such explanation does not render the
requirement imaginary or fanciful.
46. It has also been argued that the petitioner has not specifically
rebutted the grounds raised in the leave to defend. This contention
is also not tenable. The record reflects that the petitioner has
categorically denied the allegations and has explained his
requirement in detail, including the need for separate rooms for his
son, daughter-in-law, daughter, and for other purposes such as
home office, guest accommodation and pooja space. The petitioner
has also relied upon photographs (Annexure P-5) to demonstrate
the congested nature of the existing room. The respondent has not
been able to refute these averments by any substantive material.
47. The plea of artificial scarcity is also without substance. Even if
it is assumed that some portion was let out, it is settled law that the
landlord is the best judge of his requirement and cannot be
compelled to utilize a particular portion or to organize his affairs in
a manner suggested by the tenant. The Rent Controller or the tenant
can not sit in the armchair of landlord and decide on his behalf as to
which of the accommodation is to be utilized in what manner.
48. The explanation furnished by the petitioner regarding the
professional requirements of his son, including working during
night hours due to foreign clients and the consequent
inconvenience caused in a shared space, appears plausible and has
not been effectively rebutted. Similarly, the requirement of a
separate guest room for visiting relatives and in-laws cannot be said
to be unreasonable.
*
54. In the present case the respondent has not been able to show
how the need of petitioner is not genuine and bonafide and has also
failed to show any reasonable alternative suitable accommodation,
hence in such circumstances second and third ingredient of sec
14(1)(e) DRC are also fulfilled by petitioner.”
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Adverting to the facts of the present case, the challenge, as
noticed hereinabove, is confined to three aspects of the bona fide
requirement pleaded by the Respondent. Each of these grounds shall,
therefore, be examined within the limited contours of the revisional
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 8 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
jurisdiction exercisable by this Court in the ensuing discussion.
20. The first objection raised by the Petitioner concerns the absence
of documentary material establishing the professional engagement of
the Respondent’s son. The submission proceeds on the premise that, in
the absence of employment records, client agreements, details of
foreign remittances or other documentary evidence, the asserted
requirement of a separate room to be utilised as a home office remains
unsubstantiated.
21. This Court finds no merit in the aforesaid contention. As
noticed by the learned ARC in Paragraph No. 44 of the Impugned
Judgement, the Respondent had specifically pleaded that his son is
engaged in digital graphic designing work from home, catering to
clients situated in different time zones, and consequently requires a
separate space to carry out his professional activities. The learned
ARC has also taken note of the explanation that the son’s work during
night hours causes inconvenience when undertaken in a shared living
space.
22. The absence of formal documentary evidence of employment or
business, by itself, does not render the pleaded requirement inherently
implausible. The question before the learned ARC was not whether
the Respondent’s son had established his professional engagement in
the manner required in a civil trial, but whether the material placed
before it disclosed a bona fide requirement warranting consideration
under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The learned ARC considered
the specific averments made in the Eviction Petition, the explanation
furnished by the Respondent and the material relied upon to
demonstrate the congested nature of the existing accommodation.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 9 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
Upon such consideration, it accepted the requirement as genuine and
plausible.
23. The Petitioner’s objection, in substance, invites this Court to
draw an adverse inference solely from the absence of formal
documentary proof, notwithstanding the explanation recorded and
accepted by the learned ARC. The Petitioner has not produced any
material to rebut the son’s bona fide requirement. The Petitioner seeks
that the Respondent place on record material to substantiate the same.
The law requires that a rebuttal or denial by a tenant would require
more than mere assertions and pleadings with some material to
substantiate the same to prima facie lend some credence to the
objections. In the absence of any material demonstrating that the
finding returned by the learned ARC is perverse, founded upon an
erroneous premise, or arrived at by disregarding a material
circumstance, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the
same in the exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction.
24. The second objection concerns the requirement of a separate
room for the Respondent’s 22-year-old daughter. Learned counsel for
the Petitioner contends that, since provision for her stay has already
been made in the existing accommodation, the requirement projected
by the Respondent does not disclose any genuine inadequacy in the
accommodation presently available to the family.
25. This contention, too, does not warrant interference. The learned
ARC has dealt with the objection in Paragraph No. 45 of the
Impugned Judgement, observing that the Respondent had explained
the present requirement of a room for his daughter and its possible
utilisation for other purposes, including as a dining or pooja room,
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 10 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
depending upon the family’s future circumstances. The learned ARC
found that the contemplation of such prospective use did not, by itself,
render the requirement speculative or imaginary.
26. The mere assertion that the existing accommodation makes
some provision for the daughter’s stay does not, without more,
establish that the requirement of a separate room is not bona fide . The
assessment of residential requirement necessarily involves
consideration of the family’s circumstances and its reasonable need
for accommodation. The Petitioner’s disagreement with the manner in
which the Respondent proposes to organise the available space cannot,
in itself, displace the finding returned by the learned ARC. No
manifest illegality or perversity in the aforesaid finding has been
demonstrated so as to warrant interference. Furthermore, the law does
not require that the need as espoused has to be in praesenti and
legitimate and reasonable prospective uses can always form a valid
basis. Furthermore, the law does not require that the landlord cannot
assert a need till such a need actually presents itself, especially in view
of the practical considerations in respect of eviction proceedings.
27. The third and final objection concerns the letting out of the
Second Floor of Property No. R-111, situated a floor above the
Subject Premises, shortly before the institution of the Eviction
Petition. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent’s decision to let
out another portion of the same building, in close proximity to the
institution of the Eviction Petition, is inconsistent with the assertion
that the accommodation available to the family is insufficient and, at
the very least, raises a triable issue.
28. The learned ARC dealt with this objection in Paragraph No. 28
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 11 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
of the Impugned Judgement, observing that the letting out of a portion
of the property does not, by itself, negate a landlord’s bona fide
requirement. The learned ARC further observed that the suitability of
accommodation has to be assessed from the standpoint of the landlord
and that the tenant cannot dictate the manner in which the landlord
ought to utilise the available premises.
29. This Court is conscious that the Petitioner has specifically relied
upon a Rent Agreement in support of the aforesaid objection.
Accordingly, the challenge cannot be disregarded merely by
reiterating the observation of the learned ARC that no documentary
material was produced. The material question is whether the
circumstance relied upon by the Petitioner, even when considered in
the context of the other findings recorded in the Impugned Judgement,
is sufficient to warrant interference with the rejection of the
Application seeking Leave to Defend.
30. In this regard, the mere fact that another portion of the building
was let out shortly before the institution of the Eviction Petition
cannot, in isolation, be treated as conclusive proof that the
requirement pleaded by the Respondent is not bona fide. The
circumstance of letting must be considered in the context of the
requirement actually pleaded and the suitability of the accommodation
in question. The existence of another tenanted portion does not,
without a corresponding basis to establish its availability and
suitability for the requirement pleaded, necessarily displace the
Respondent’s claim to require the Subject Premises for his family.
31. The Petitioner’s contention, as advanced before this Court, is
founded principally upon the proximity between the letting of the
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 12 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
Second Floor and the institution of the Eviction Petition. However, the
circumstance of such proximity, by itself, does not establish that the
Respondent’s stated requirement is a mere pretext. The learned ARC
has, in the Impugned Judgement, considered the Respondent’s pleaded
requirements, including the need for separate accommodation for his
son and daughter-in-law, a room for his daughter and a separate space
for the son’s professional activities. The findings in this regard have
not been shown to suffer from such infirmity as would justify their
displacement in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
32. This Court is, therefore, unable to accept that the circumstance
relied upon by the Petitioner, considered in the manner urged,
necessarily renders the Respondent’s requirement mala fide or
compels the conclusion that Leave to Defend ought to have been
granted. The objection does not, in the circumstances of the present
challenge, establish a ground warranting interference with the
Impugned Judgement.
33. It bears reiteration that the jurisdiction of this Court under the
proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is not an appellate
jurisdiction enabling a fresh assessment of the bona fide requirement
merely because a different view is sought to be urged by the
Petitioner. The supervisory inquiry is directed towards the legality of
the decision-making process adopted by the learned ARC. Having
examined the three grounds raised by the Petitioner, this Court finds
no sufficient basis to conclude that the learned ARC’s findings suffer
from a manifest illegality, perversity or an error apparent on the face
of the record warranting revisional interference.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 13 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17
DECISION:
34. Accordingly, this Court finds no sufficient basis to conclude
that the learned ARC’s findings, taken as a whole, warrant any
interference.
35. Accordingly, the present Petition, being sans merit, is
dismissed.
36. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in aforementioned terms.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 14, 2026/
v/DJ
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 395/2026 Page 14 of 14
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:24.10.2026
16:14:17