Baljeet Singh And Anr vs Santosh Bhutani
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 09.07.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 01.09.2026
+ RC.REV. 178/2022
BALJEET SINGH AND ANR .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Harsh Kumar, Advocate.
versus
SANTOSH BHUTANI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, Ms.
Himanshi Singh and Ms.
Monalisha Pradhan, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Rent Control Revision Petition, filed under Section
1
25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , read with Section 115
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assails the Judgement dated
2
22.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller,
3
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi , in the Eviction
4
Petition, being RC/ARC No. 961/2019 .
2. By way of the Impugned Judgement, the Application filed by
the Petitioners seeking leave to defend came to be dismissed and an
Eviction Order, with respect to Shop No. 4932/7, Fataknamak, Hauz
1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Judgement
3
Learned ARC
4
Eviction Petition
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 1 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
5
Quazi, Delhi-110006 , was consequently passed in favour of the
Respondent.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
6
3. Smt. Santosh Bhutani , the Respondent herein, instituted the
Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the
DRC Act, seeking eviction of the Petitioners from the Subject
premises, which was let out to the Petitioners.
4. In the Eviction Petition, the Respondent pleaded that she was
the owner of the Subject premises, having derived title thereto through
7
a registered Will dated 19.08.2000 , executed by her mother, Smt.
Vidyawati. It was further pleaded that the Subject premises had
initially been let out by the Respondent’s mother to the father of the
Petitioners, Late Sh. Rajinder Singh Jolly, and that the Respondent
had subsequently become entitled to the premises, after the demise of
their father.
5. It is stated that the Eviction Petition was allegedly founded
upon the bona fide requirement of the Respondent for the purpose of
settling her son, Sh. Pawan Bhutani, who, according to the
Respondent, did not have any other shop or business premises from
which he could carry on business and earn his livelihood.
6. The Respondent pleaded that she herself had no source of
income and that the Subject premises was required to enable her son
to commence/establish his business.
7. Along with the Eviction Petition, the Respondent placed on
record, inter alia , the documents relied upon in support of her alleged
5
Subject premises
6
Respondent
7
Will
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 2 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
bona fide claim, including a copy of the Will, site plan, certain
statements and Orders passed in earlier proceedings, as well as other
documents pertaining to the subject premises.
8. Upon receipt of summons in the Eviction Petition, the
Petitioners filed their Application seeking leave to defend,
accompanied by their respective affidavits, disputing the case set up
by the Respondent.
9. The Petitioners raised, inter alia , objections concerning the
Respondent’s title to the subject premises, the relationship of landlord
and tenant, and the bona fide requirement pleaded for her son. The
Petitioners also placed material before the learned ARC concerning
the alleged business activities of Sh. Pawan Bhutani and the
occupation and use of other portions of the property.
10. In particular, the Petitioners placed on record material relating
to the business being carried on by Sh. Pawan Bhutani under the name
and style of “Jai Durga Enterprises” from the first floor of the
Subject premises, and also referred to material concerning other
business activities carried on by members of the Respondent’s family.
The Petitioners accordingly sought leave to contest the Eviction
Petition on the basis of the grounds raised in their Application seeking
leave to defend and the material placed on record before the learned
ARC. Subsequently, a Reply to the leave to defend Application came
to be filed by the Respondent.
11. The learned ARC, after considering the pleadings and material
placed on record, proceeded to adjudicate the Application seeking
leave to defend and, vide Judgment dated 22.03.2022, i.e. , the
Impugned Judgement, the learned ARC dismissed the Application
seeking leave to defend and allowed the Eviction Petition filed by the
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 3 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
Respondent.
12. Consequently, an Eviction Order came to be passed in favour of
the Respondent, directing the Petitioners to hand over possession of
the Subject premises to the Respondent. The Petitioners, being
aggrieved by the Impugned Judgement, instituted the present Revision
Petition.
SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS:
13. On the first date of hearing of the present Petition, this Court,
vide Order dated 28.07.2022, issued Notice to the Respondent and, in
the interregnum , stayed the execution of the Impugned Order.
14. During the pendency of the present Revision Petition, the
Respondent passed away. Thereafter, the question of bringing her
legal representatives on record arose. The matter was also taken up in
connection with an Application seeking fixation of user and
occupation charges.
15. This Court, vide Order dated 10.12.2024, recorded that the
Respondent had passed away and that her son was the surviving legal
heir. The Court further directed the learned counsel for the Petitioners
to take appropriate steps for bringing the legal representative of the
Respondent on record.
16. By the same Order, this Court also dealt with the question of
user and occupation charges. The user and occupation charges were
fixed at Rs. 25,000/- per month for the period commencing from
22.09.2022 to 30.11.2024 and at Rs. 30,000/- per month from
01.12.2024 onwards.
17. Significantly, the interim protection granted by this Court on
28.07.2022 was directed to continue subject to payment of the said
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 4 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
charges, with the further stipulation that, in the event of default, the
interim protection would automatically stand dissolved.
18. Thereafter, despite opportunities having been granted on several
occasions, the Petitioners did not take steps for filing the Application
for impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased
Respondent.
19. Subsequently, on 26.02.2026, the learned Joint Registrar
(Judicial) passed an Order recording that the matter remained pending
for payment of costs of Rs. 2,000/- and for filing the Application for
impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased Respondent.
The Order further recorded that, despite repeated opportunities
granted vide Orders passed by learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) dated
11.02.2025, 05.05.2025, 28.08.2025 and 27.11.2025, the Petitioners
had failed to take steps for filing the aforesaid Application.
20. The aforesaid Order also records that the present Petition,
owing to the requirement of impleadment of the Legal Representative
of the Respondent, had not been placed before this Court for more
than a year and, consequently, directed that the matter be placed
before this Court on 07.04.2026 for further directions.
21. On 07.04.2026, when the present matter was taken up for
hearing by this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioners sought adjournment. Consequently, the matter was re-
notified to be listed on 09.07.2026 before this Court.
22. On 09.07.2026, the present matter was taken up for hearing and,
with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties,
was taken up for final disposal.
23. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to note that on
09.07.2026, the learned counsel appearing for the parties were
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 5 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
directed to file their respective Written Submissions, within a period
of seven (07) days therefrom. However, pursuant thereto, neither party
has filed any Written Submissions as yet.
24. Accordingly, the present matter is being considered and
adjudicated on the basis of the submissions advanced by learned
counsel during the course of hearing on 09.07.2026, the documents
placed across the Bar and the material available on record.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
25. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent would
submit that no surviving lis remains for adjudication in the present
proceedings since the Eviction Order under challenge has already
been executed in accordance with law.
26. Learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that vacant
and peaceful possession of the Subject premises has been handed over
to the Respondent on 13.10.2025 pursuant to the Warrants of
Possession issued by the learned Executing Court. It would, therefore,
be contended that the relief sought in the present Petition has already
been effectuated and nothing further survives for consideration.
27. Learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that it is no
longer res integra that where peaceful possession of the tenanted
premises has already been restored to the landlord in execution of the
Eviction Order, the Revision Petition challenging such Eviction Order
becomes infructuous.
28. Learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that the
aforesaid position of law stands squarely covered by the Judgment of
8
this Court in Gulzar Singh & Anr. v. Raj Rani & Ors. . The said
8
RC. REV. No.251/2017, decided on 29.08.2024
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 6 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
Judgment, according to learned counsel, is directly attracted to the
facts of the present case.
29. Learned counsel for the Respondent, to further substantiate the
aforesaid contention, would place reliance upon the subsequent
9
Judgment of this Court in Noor Ahmad & Anr. v. Mohd. Sadiq , to
submit that, in materially similar circumstances, the tenant’s Revision
Petition was dismissed as infructuous after the subject premises had
been restored to the landlord through execution proceedings.
30. It would be submitted that this Court in Noor Ahmad (supra)
specifically considered the contention that the Revision Petition ought
nevertheless be decided on merits and, after examining the Judgments
relied upon by the tenant, declined to undertake such an exercise once
possession had been recovered by the landlord in accordance with
law.
31. Learned counsel for the Respondent would, thereafter, draw the
attention of this Court to the Order dated 23.09.2025, whereby the
learned Executing Court issued Warrants of Possession, pursuant to
which the Bailiff executed the Warrants on 13.10.2025 and delivered
vacant and peaceful possession of the subject premises to the Decree
Holder. The said Order was placed across the Bar for perusal of this
Court.
32. Learned counsel would also draw the attention of this Court to
the Order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Executing Court,
whereby the execution proceedings were expressly recorded as having
been satisfied, and lawful and peaceful possession having been
transferred to the Respondent through her legal heir. The aforesaid
Order was also placed across the Bar for perusal of this Court.
9
2024:DHC:10077
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 7 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
33. Learned counsel for the Respondent would accordingly submit,
relying upon the aforesaid Decisions of this Court and in the backdrop
of the subsequent developments in the present case, that any
adjudication upon the merits of the grounds raised in the present
Petition would amount to an exercise in determining a purely
academic question.
34. Learned counsel for the Respondent would thus submit that the
Respondent, having already obtained possession, pursuant to the
Eviction Order, in accordance with law, no effective relief can now be
granted to the Petitioners in the present proceedings and, accordingly,
that the present Revision Petition be dismissed as having become
infructuous.
35. Per contra , learned counsel for the Petitioners would be
forthright in submitting that although vacant and peaceful possession
of the Subject premises has already been delivered to the legal heir of
the Respondent, however, the present Petition has not become
infructuous merely on account of possession of the Subject premises
having been obtained by the Respondent pursuant to the execution
proceedings.
36. Learned counsel for the Petitioners would contend that the
present Petition challenges the legality of the Eviction Order passed
by the learned ARC and that the grounds urged in the present Petition
raise substantive issues which warrant consideration by this Court
and, accordingly, would submit that the present Petition ought to be
considered on merits and the Impugned Judgement be set aside.
37. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, would
submit that the challenge on merits, is confined to the finding returned
by the learned ARC with respect to the bona fide requirement pleaded
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 8 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
by the Respondent.
38. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the
learned ARC has erred in concluding that the Respondent had
established a bona fide requirement, particularly since the case set up
in the Eviction Petition was founded upon bona fide requirement that
the Subject premises were required to enable the Respondent to settle
one of her sons, Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhutani, by facilitating the
commencement of business.
39. Learned Counsel would submit that the aforesaid basis of the
alleged bona fide requirement was subsequently departed from by the
Respondent in her Reply to the Application seeking leave to defend. It
would be submitted that the Petitioners had specifically brought to the
notice of the learned ARC, that Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhutani, for whose
benefit the bona fide requirement was originally pleaded, was already
carrying on business in the name and style of “Jai Durga
Enterprises” for the past 15 years, and that the said business was
being conducted from the first floor of the Subject premises itself.
40. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would further submit that
documents pertaining to the GST registration and returns of the said
firm were also placed on record before the learned ARC, wherein Mr.
Pawan Kumar Bhutani was reflected as the sole proprietor of the said
firm. It would, therefore, be contended that the material placed before
the learned ARC directly contradicted the basis upon which the bona
fide requirement had originally been pleaded.
41. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that, only
after the aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the learned
ARC, did the Respondent acknowledge that her son was already
carrying on the said business and, accordingly, altered the basis of the
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 9 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
alleged bona fide requirement in her Reply to the Application seeking
leave to defend. It would be contended that the requirement was
thereafter sought to be justified on the premise that the Subject
premises, being situated on the ground floor, would afford greater
convenience and commercial viability for carrying on the existing
business.
42. In rejoinder submissions , learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Respondent, controverting the aforesaid submissions, would
submit that the Reply to the Application seeking leave to defend forms
part of the pleadings and constitutes material forming part of the
record before the learned ARC, on the basis of which the Eviction
Petition was adjudicated.
43. Learned Counsel for the Respondent would submit that there
was no departure from, or abandonment of, the bona fide requirement
pleaded in the Eviction Petition, rather the Respondent merely
elaborated upon the requirement in response to the grounds sought to
be raised by the Petitioners in their Application seeking leave to
defend, including the facts brought on record by the Petitioners
themselves.
44. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, therefore, would submit
that the learned ARC committed no error in returning a finding in
favour of the Respondent on the aspect of bona fide requirement, the
said finding having been arrived at upon an overall consideration of
the pleadings and material available on record. It would, accordingly,
be submitted that the present Petition, insofar as it assails the finding
of bona fide requirement, is devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 10 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
ANALYSIS:
45. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and, with
their able assistance, perused the material available on record,
including the Judicial Orders and precedents placed across the Bar.
46. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the ensuing discussion
is arranged under separate headings corresponding to the principal
discussion undertaken thereunder.
47. It is made clear that the said headings are merely intended to
facilitate the orderly appreciation of the reasoning and are not to be
construed as creating isolated distinction between the issues. The
Judgment is to be read as a whole, and the findings recorded under
each heading shall be understood in the context of, and in conjunction
with, the findings and reasoning contained in the other parts of the
Judgment.
48. The principal question which arises for consideration, in the
backdrop of the alleged subsequent developments in the present case,
is whether a Rent Control Revision Petition challenging an Eviction
Order under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act can be
disposed of as being rendered infructuous, when the Eviction Order
has been lawfully executed and pursuant thereto, vacant and peaceful
possession of the tenanted premises has been restored to the landlord.
49. The aforesaid question necessarily invites, at the outset, the
consideration of this Court to the legal position in context of the effect
of the delivery of peaceful possession of tenanted premises to the
landlord pursuant to execution of the Eviction Order. The said aspect
has received consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as
by this Court in a consistent line of authorities, which shall now be
adverted to.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 11 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
Legal position governing the effect of execution of an Eviction
Order
10
50. In N.C. Daga v. Inder Mohan Singh Rana , the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was seized of a challenge to the Judgment of this
Court affirming the decision of the learned Rent Controller declining
leave to defend in an Eviction Petition instituted under Section
14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. During the pendency of the said
proceedings, the possession of the tenanted premises had already been
taken pursuant to execution of the Eviction Order. In view of the
aforesaid development during the pendency, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court declined to examine the rival contentions any further, observing
that, once possession had been taken pursuant to execution of the
Order permitting eviction, such an exercise “would amount to
rendering a decision on a purely academic question” . The relevant
portion thereof, being Paragraph No. 6, reads as under:
“ 6. In view of the admitted position that pursuant to the order
passed by the Rent Controller, possession has been taken on
execution of the order permitting eviction, and absence of specific
stand regarding implied consent it is, however, not necessary to go
into the finer details and to examine the rival stand in the
background of legal position as it would amount to rendering
decision on a purely academic question. The appeal is, therefore,
dismissed, without any order as to costs.”
51. The aforesaid principle was subsequently reiterated in the
Judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Verma v.
11
Manmohan Verma , where, upon being informed that possession of
the premises had already been taken over by the landlord, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that nothing further survived in the Appeals and
accordingly disposed of the same as being infructuous. The aforesaid
10
2003 (1) SCC 453
11
Civil Appeal Nos. 5220-5221/2008
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 12 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
Order reads as under:
“Leave granted.
At the time of hearing of these appeals, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the landlord-respondent submits, on
instructions, that the possession of the premises in question has
already been taken over by the landlord-respondent. That being the
position, these appeals have now become infructuous, which have
been filed against the final judgment and order dt.25.02.2008 and
28.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in
RCR No.49 of 2007 and C.M.No.119 of 2008 (Review) in RCR
No.49 of 2007, by which the Revision Petition filed by the
tenant/appellant was dismissed and order of eviction was affirmed.
Since the possession has already been taken over by the landlord-
respondent, in our view nothing survives in these appeals and
accordingly, the appeals are disposed of as infructuous.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
There will be no order as to costs.”
(Emphasis supplied)
52. The aforesaid principle was also directly applied by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in circumstances materially analogous
to those obtaining in the present case, and the conclusion so arrived
came to be affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
12
53. In Neelam Sharma v. Ekant Rekhan , a Revision Petition
arose from an Eviction Order passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the
DRC Act and, during the pendency of the Revision, possession of the
subject premises had been taken over by the landlord in execution
proceedings. Taking note of the said subsequent development, the
Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the Revision Petition had
become infructuous. The relevant observation reads as under:
“ 15. The possession of the shop in question, admittedly, is taken
over by the respondent on 30.08.2018 in execution proceedings,
hence even otherwise, this petition has become infructuous.”
54. Significantly, the aforesaid Judgment was thereafter carried in
challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neelam Sharma v.
12
RC.REV. 398/2018, decided on 10.01.2019
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 13 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
13
Ekant Rekhan . The Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the
aforesaid finding of this Court and declined to interfere with the said
conclusion, thereby dismissing the Special Leave Petition. The
relevant portion of the Order reads as under:
“We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner.
In Paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment, the High Court has
observed that the possession of the shop in question, admittedly is
taken over by the respondent on 30.08.2018 in execution
proceedings. Therefore, the revision before the High Court has
become infructuous. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined
to entertain this special leave petition.”
The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
(Emphasis supplied)
55. Having thus noticed and considered the aforesaid Judgements
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would now be apposite to examine
the manner in which the aforesaid principle has been interpreted,
developed and consistently applied by this Court in the context of
Revision Petitions arising under the DRC Act.
56. This Court is conscious of the fact that the question, at hand in
the present case, has, over the years, engaged the attention of this
Court on numerous occasions, resulting in a substantial and consistent
body of judicial authority. It would serve little purpose to burden the
present Judgment by traversing each decision rendered on the subject.
The authorities noticed hereinafter are, therefore, not intended to be
exhaustive, but are illustrative of the consistent judicial approach
adopted by this Court and sufficiently represent the manner in which
the question has been considered and dealt with in successive
decisions.
13
SLP (C) No. 10967/2019, decided on 08.05.2019
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 14 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
14
57. In Mohd. Akram v. Nafisa Begum , a Coordinate Bench of
this Court, most recently, was faced with a similar circumstance. The
said matter also arose from a Revision Petition under Section 25-B(8)
of the DRC Act challenging an Eviction Order passed under Section
14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. During the pendency of the Revision
Petition, it was confirmed before the Court that possession of the
demised premises had already been handed over to the landlord. After
noticing the Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C. Daga
(supra) and Vinod Kumar Verma (supra) , the Coordinate Bench held
that the Revision Petition had become infructuous. The relevant
observations are contained in Paragraph No. 9 of the said Order,
which reads as under:
“ 9. In view of the fact that the possession of the demised premises
in terms of order dated 28.02.2025 has already been handed over to
the respondent/landlord, and the aforesaid observations of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as view taken by learned
Coordinate Bench, the present petition has become infructuous and
the same is disposed of accordingly.”
58. A similar view of taken by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in
Nathi Lal Chaurasia (since deceased through LR) v. Sushila Devi
15
Jain & Anr. reiterated that where an Eviction Order has gained
fruition and has been implemented through execution proceedings
resulting in the landlord obtaining possession in accordance with law,
the Revision Petition challenging such Order becomes infructuous.
The relevant portion of the said Judgement reads as under:
“ 15. This Court in various orders including Order dated 14.12.2023
passed in RC. REV. 335/2019 captioned Ajay Kumar v. Ranbir
Singh, Order dated 06.12.2023 passed in RC. REV. 52/2023
captioned Govardhan Lal v. Smt. Vidya Rani (Deceased) Through
Lrs dated 03.11.2023 passed in RC. REV. 104/2021 captioned
Ram Avtar v. Smt. Anuradha Shukla has held that when a Revision
14
RC.REV. 311/2025, decided on 15.01.2026
15
2025:DHC:1664
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 15 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
Petition has been filed challenging an order of learned Trial Court
which has now gained fruition and has already been implemented
through execution proceedings, in such circumstances, the
Revision Petition has become infructuous. In addition, it was held
that once possession was taken over by the Respondent/landlord in
accordance with law, the Petition becomes infructuous.”
59. Likewise, in Gulzar Singh & Anr. (supra) , a Coordinate Bench
of this Court, upon noticing that possession of the tenanted premises
had already been restored to the landlords in execution of the Warrant
of Possession, held the Revision Petition to have become infructuous.
60. The Coordinate Bench, in holding so, relied upon the decision
of this Court in Om Prakash Ashok Kumar & Sons v. Ajay
16
Khurana , which in turn relied various Judgements and Orders of
this Court, inter alia , in Poonam Bangia v. Harbhagwan Dass
17 18
Chandiramani , Mange Ram v. Rajesh Narain Goel and Ram
19
Avtar v. Anuradha Shukla . The relevant portion thereof read as
under:
“ 4. This Court in the judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed in
RC.REV. 284/2023 titled as Om Prakash Ashok Kumar & Sons V
Shri Ajay Khurana held as under:-
7. The issue which needs Judicial consideration is whether
the revision petition which is filed as per section 25B (8)
of the Act to impugn the order of eviction as per section
25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act and if during the
pendency of the revision petition, the possession is
restored back to the landlord/owner, whether, in that
eventuality the revision petition is maintainable or not.
8. In N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana 2003 (1)
SCC 453 the respondent/landlord filed the petition for
eviction primarily on the ground of bona fide requirement
which was opposed by the petitioners/tenant. The eviction
order was passed as per section 14(1)(e) of the Act in
favour of the respondent/landlord with the direction that
the possession of the tenanted premises shall not be taken
before the expiry of 06 months in terms of section 14(7) of
16
2024 SCC OnLine Del 5228
17
RC. REV. No.16/2021, decided on 22.07.2021
18
RC. REV. No. 147/2021, decided on 19.03.2024
19
RC. REV. No. 104/2021, decided on 03.11.2023
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 16 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
the Act. The revision petition before the High Court of
Delhi was also dismissed by holding that no prima facie
case was made out by the tenant. The Supreme Court dealt
with the arguments raised on behalf of the landlord that
the petition has become infructuous because the
possession has already been taken in pursuant to the
execution of the order passed by the rent controller. The
Supreme Court has observed that in view of the admitted
position that pursuant to the order passed by the rent
controller, the possession has already been taken on
execution of order permitting eviction did not examine the
rival stand of the parties and accordingly dismissed the
petition.
9. The Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Verma V
Manmohan Verma & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.5220-5221
of 2008 arising out of SLP (C) nos. 11268-11264/2008
vide order dated 19.08.2008 has also disposed of the
appeals as infructuous as the possession of the tenanted
premises was taken over by the landlord.
10. This Court in various decisions has followed the
decision given by the Supreme Court in N. C. Daga V
Inder Mohan Singh Rana. The Co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Poonam Bangia V Harbhagwan Dass
Chandiramani in RC. REV. no.16/2021 vide order dated
22.07.2021 after following the law laid down in N. C.
Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana, dismissed the revision
petition after observing that the landlord has received the
possession of the tenanted premises through execution
proceedings. Another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Mange Ram V Rajesh Narain Goel, in RC. REV. no.
147/2021, decided on 19.03.2024 after following N. C.
Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana and Vinod Kumar
Verma V Manmohan Verma & Anr., in Civil Appeal nos.
5220-5221/2008 passed by the Supreme Court and in
Poonam Bangia V Harbhagwan Dass Chandiramani in
RC. REV no. 16/2021 passed by this Court as mentioned
hereinabove also dismissed the revision petition as became
infructuous due to the reason that the possession of the
subject premises has been restored to the
respondent/landlord. The same view was also taken by
another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar V
Anuradha Shukla in RC. Rev. Bearing no. 104/2021 vide
order dated 03.11.2023, the revision petition was ordered
to be dismissed as the possession of the tenanted premises
has already been taken by the respondent/landlord in
accordance with law.”
5. Accordingly, in view of the above observations made in the
judgment dated 26.07.2024 passed in RC.REV. 284/2023 and as
the possession of the tenanted premises has already been restored
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 17 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
back to the respondents/landlords in execution of warrant of
possession in accordance with law, the present revision petition has
become infructuous. Hence, the present petition along with
pending application, stands dismissed being infructuous.”
(Emphasis supplied)
61. The aforesaid Judgments, though not exhaustive, sufficiently
demonstrate the consistency with which the aforesaid principle has
been recognised and applied by this Court. This consistent judicial
approach leaves no room for doubt that the legal position in this
regard is now well settled and can no longer be regarded as res
integra .
Legal position emerging from the Judicial precedents
62. The legal position, therefore, which emerges from the aforesaid
discussion is that, once a Eviction Order has been acted upon in
accordance with law and the landlord has, pursuant thereto, obtained
vacant and peaceful possession of the Subject premises, the
substratum of the tenant’s challenge to such Order ceases to survive
for effective adjudication.
63. In such circumstances, the Revisional Court is no longer in a
position to grant any meaningful or executable relief against an
Eviction Order which has already attained fruition through execution.
Where no independent or surviving relief otherwise preserves a live
controversy between the parties, the Revision Petition would
consequently be liable to be dismissed as having become infructuous.
64. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position that the
subsequent developments in the present case fall for consideration.
Execution of the Eviction Order & Legal transfer of possession
65. In the present case, the Eviction Order passed by the learned
ARC was stayed by this Court vide Order dated 28.07.2022. The said
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 18 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
interim protection was subsequently continued by this Court, subject
to stipulated terms, including the payment of User and Occupation
charges, as recorded in the Order dated 10.12.2024. The relevant
portion of the Order dated 10.12.2024 is reproduced herein under for
ready reference:
“ 10. Subject to the payment of user and occupation charges by the
Petitioner/tenant, the interim protection granted by this Court on
28.07.2022 shall continue till the next date of hearing.
11. In the event that there is any default in the payment of use and
occupation charges on behalf of the Petitioner, interim protection
as granted by this Court on 28.07.2022 shall automatically stand
dissolved.”
66. The aforesaid position, however, subsequently underwent a
material change. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has
placed across the Bar, an Order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the
learned Executing Court, which records that the interim protection
granted by this Court had ceased to operate on account of non-
payment of the stipulated user and occupation charges, in terms of the
Order dated 10.12.2024 of this Court. The learned Executing Court,
consequently, proceeded to issue Warrants of Possession in respect of
the Subject premises. The relevant portion of the said Order reads as
under:
“…It is submitted in the affidavit that stay order/interim protection
granted by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been vacated as no
payment of rent has been received from JD.
Warrants of possession is pressed accordingly.
Issue Warrants of Possession against the JDs on filing of PF as
well as an affidavit of the DH to the effect that there is no stay
against the eviction order, within 07 working days, returnable for
07.11.2025.”
67. The Warrants of Possession were thereafter executed by the
Bailiff on 13.10.2025 and, consequently, vacant and peaceful
possession of the Subject premises was delivered to the Respondent.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 19 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
The subsequent Order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned
Executing Court records the said execution of the Warrants as also the
delivery of possession and, consequently, also records that the
execution proceedings stood satisfied. The said Order has also been
placed across the Bar and brought to the notice of this Court. The
relevant portion thereof reads as under:
“…As per report of bailiff, warrants of possession were executed
on 13.10.2025 and vacant and peaceful possession has been handed
over to the DH.
LR of DH also states that the he has obtained vacant and peaceful
possession of the tenanted premises from the JD with the help of
Bailiff on 13.10.2025. He further states that the present petition
stands satisfied and may be disposed of accordingly.”
Application of the legal principles & consequent infructuousness
68. In the considered view of this Court, the aforesaid
developments are not merely collateral to the controversy before this
Court, but goes to the very substratum of the relief sought in the
present Revision.
69. The Impugned Eviction Order has, in the interregnum , been
acted upon through the process of execution, culminating in the legal
heir of the Respondent obtaining vacant and peaceful possession of
the Subject premises. Therefore, the very relief which was sought to
be interdicted by the present Petition has already been effectuated
through execution.
70. It is equally significant to note that the said possession was
neither voluntarily surrendered by the Petitioners nor obtained
otherwise than through due process of law. The possession was
delivered pursuant to Warrants of Possession issued by the learned
Executing Court and was thereafter expressly recorded as having been
handed over to the Decree Holder i.e. , the legal heir of the
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 20 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
Respondent. The execution proceedings themselves were
subsequently recorded as satisfied.
71. The present case thus falls squarely within the circumstances
contemplated by the aforesaid line of authorities and the principles
distilled therefrom. The Eviction Order has travelled beyond the realm
of mere executability and has attained fruition through the process of
execution, culminating in the Respondent obtaining vacant and
peaceful possession of the Subject premises. The very relief which
constituted the foundation of the Impugned Order has, therefore,
already been effectuated in accordance with law.
72. In view of the foregoing discussion and the principles
enunciated hereinabove, this Court is, therefore, of the considered
view that the present Revision Petition has become infructuous and is
liable to be dismissed on this ground.
Objection raised by the Petitioners
73. The aforesaid conclusion, however, is sought to be resisted by
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, who has raised
an objection that, notwithstanding the subsequent delivery of
possession, the present Revision ought nevertheless to be adjudicated
on merits. The aforesaid contention, however, does not inspire the
confidence of this Court.
74. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.C. Daga
(supra) assumes particular significance in this regard. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in circumstances where possession of the tenanted
premises had already been obtained pursuant to execution of the
Eviction Order, declined to enter into the finer details of the rival
contentions, observing that, once possession had been taken in
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 21 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
execution of the Order permitting eviction, any further examination of
the rival stands would amount to “rendering decision on a purely
academic question”.
75. The distinction between an Eviction Order which is merely
executable and one which has actually been executed is, therefore,
material. It is not the mere existence or executability of the Eviction
Order which renders the Revision infructuous; rather, it is the
subsequent execution thereof, coupled with delivery of vacant and
peaceful possession to the landlord pursuant thereto, which results in
the relief sought in the Revision having already been effectuated.
76. In the present case, that stage has not only been reached but
conclusively crossed. The Warrants of Possession have been executed,
possession has been delivered, and the execution proceedings have
thereafter been recorded as satisfied, rendering the present Petition, as
already discussed, infructuous.
Examination of present Petition on merits
77. Ordinarily, having arrived at the aforesaid conclusion, no
further adjudication on the merits of the challenge would be
warranted. However, the Petitioners have pressed the merits of the
present Petition and since the challenge is confined to the narrow issue
of bona fide requirement, this Court, for the sake of completeness and
without treating the same as the basis for disposal of the present
Petition, deems it appropriate to examine the said limited contention
sought to be raised by the Petitioners upon the merits of the present
Petition.
78. Before proceeding to examine the said ground of challenge
urged on behalf of the Petitioners, it would be apposite to advert to the
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 22 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court
under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
Limited scope of Revisional Jurisdiction
79. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India
20
Insurance Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v.
21
Dilbahar Singh , and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain
22
Dua , has consistently held that the jurisdiction exercised by the High
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.
80. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
23
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
24
Grover .
81. 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:
20
(1998) 8 SCC 119
21
(2014) 9 SCC 78
22
(2022) 6 SCC 30
23
2024:DHC:9322
24
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 23 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
“ 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.”
82. 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/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.
83. 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 Orders
suffer from a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material
irregularity or perversity, or where the conclusion arrived at by the
learned ARC/RC is wholly unreasonable or founded upon an
erroneous premise of law.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 24 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
84. It is within the aforesaid limited parameters of revisional
scrutiny that the grounds urged on behalf of the Petitioners against the
Impugned Order are required to be examined.
Relevant portions of the Impugned Judgement
85. At this juncture, it is appropriate to notice the findings rendered
by the learned ARC, with respect to the aspect of bona fide
requirement of the Respondent. The relevant portion of the Impugned
Judgement reads as under:
“Bonafide requirement:-
19. The next element of Section 14 (1) (e) of the DRC Act is
whether the need of the petitioner qua the tenanted premises is
bonafide or not.
20. In this regard, it is stated that the petitioner is married and is
having two sons, Kapil Bhutani and Pawan Kumar Bhutani. The
petitioner, whose one son, namely Pawan Kumar Bhutani, whom
the petitioner wants to settle in his life by doing some business and
for this purpose, the present petition is filed on bonafide ground
qua the tenanted shop. It is stated that the respondents are not using
the tenanted shop in question and have occupied the same for
nothing. But as per the information, the respondents are using the
tenanted shop as godown.
21. In leave to defend application, it is stated by the respondents
that Pawan Kumar Bhutani, for whose bonafide need, the present
petition is filed, has been doing the business of trading of various
items, i.e, tubes, pipes and hoses and fitting. For example - Joints,
Elbows, Flanges of Plastic, Artificial Guts of Harden Protein,
Rigid of Polymers of Ethylene, Tubes of Polythylene, Copper
Tubes and Pipe Fittings, etc. for the last 15 years under the Name
and Style of Jai Durga Enterprises, having its Principle office at
4932/7, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, from the first floor of the suit property
and the said firm of Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhutani happens to be a
Sole Proprietor and has been submitting its GST Returns with
concerned authorities vide GST No. 07AAHP8849B1ZU. It is
stated that the need of the petitioner is neither genuine nor bonafide
as Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhutani is not dependent upon the petitioner,
either financially or for accommodation because he is bachelor,
i.e., unmarried. It is stated that the area where the tenanted
premises is situated has become commercialized to the extent of
upper floors also and as per the petition, the petitioner is in
possession of entire first floor and the business activities are being
conducted therefrom by the son of the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 25 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
In reply to leave to defend application filed by the petitioner, it has
been admitted that Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhutani is doing business
from the first floor of the premises in question. But since 2019, he
wanted to start his business from the tenanted shop at ground floor
which is convenient and comfortable for him to start business and
to continue the business from the suitable premises in question at
the ground floor and it is well settled that the landlord is not
supposed to sacrifice his convenience and comfort for the sake of
tenant. It is stated that Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhutani wants to start his
business from the premises in question at ground floor. It is stated
that it is well settled that reply to leave to defend is a part of
pleadings. It is stated that the petitioner is entitled to decide how
and in what manner he should start business and the petitioner is
the best judge of his commercial requirement and has got complete
freedom in the matter and the petitioner is to decide as to how he
would like to start business comfortably. Neither can the tenant nor
the Court dictate him in this aspect. Therefore, the ground taken by
the respondents is only for the sake of defence, without having any
substance. It is stated that it is a well settled law that the Court has
to consider the entire material on record including supporting
documents to take into consideration the case of the parties and if
the tenants plea do not make out any case, then, leave to defend
must be refused. It is stated that the Pawan Kumar Bhutani is
unmarried and single. The need of the petitioner for her son is
genuine and bonafide as the premises in question is convenient and
suitable which is situated at the ground floor.
22. Having heard the arguments and perusal of entire material on
record show that it is stated by the respondents in their leave to
defend application that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact that
Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhutani, for whose bonafide need, the present
petition is filed, has been doing the business of trading of various
items, i.e, tubes, pipes and hoses and fitting. For example - Joints,
Elbows, Flanges of Plastic, Artificial Guts of Harden Protein,
Rigid of Polymers of Ethylene, Tubes of Polythylene, Copper
Tubes and Pipe Fittings, etc. for the last 15 years under the Name
and Style of Jai Durga Enterprises, having its Principle office at
4932/7, Hauz Qazi, Delhi, from the first floor of the suit property
and the said firm of Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhutani happens to be a
Sole Proprietor and has been submitting its GST Returns with
concerned authorities vide GST No. 07AAHP8849B1ZU.
Therefore, the need of the petitioner is neither genuine nor
bonafide because Sh. Pawan Kumar Bhutani is not dependent upon
the petitioner, either financially or for accommodation because he
is a bachelor/unmarried. It has further been submitted that the area
where the tenanted shop is situated has become commercialized to
the extent of upper floors also and the petitioner is in the
possession of entire first floor and the business activities are being
conducted therefrom by the son of the petitioner.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 26 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
The petitioner in the petition has mentioned that she is married and
is having two sons, namely, Kapil Bhutani and Sh. Pawan Kumar
Bhutani and she has filed the present petition to settle her son Sh.
Pawan Kumar Bhutani in his life by doing some business. She has
also admitted in her reply to leave application that her son Sh.
Pawan Kumar Bhutani is doing his business from the first floor of
the tenanted premises. But since 2019, he wanted to start his
business from the tenanted shop at ground floor which is
convenient and comfortable for him to start business and to
continue the business from the suitable premises in question at the
ground floor.
23. In this regard, the Hon'ble High Court in Rajesh Jain v. Quazi
Sammin Ahmad 2015 (2) RLR 438 , has laid down that :-
“since eviction was sought for commercial purposes, it
was rightly held that ground floor of the property would
be more suitable.”
In another case titled as “Viran Wali Vs. Keldeep Rai Kochar,
cited as 174 (2010) DLT 328” , it has been laid down by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that :-
“any business which is being run from the ground floor
will attract more customers than the business being run
from the basement and the tenant can not dictate the
landlord as to how and in what manner the landlord
should use his own property.”
Moreover, in Kanta Sachdeva & Ors. Vs. A.D. Choudhary
bearing R.C. REV. No. 362/2011 , it has been held that:-
“The learned ARC has rightly observed that the upper
floors’ halls cannot be used for setting up office for the
son of the respondent and in any case, the office on the
ground floor from where the sale is to be conducted, is
more convenient than on the upper floor. He also
observed, and rightly so, that the tenant cannot compel
and dictate the landlord to set up the office for his son on
the upper floor of the suit premises, which are
undisputedly being used for storage of books. It cannot be
disputed that the business of sale of books as also the
office for the same can be better looked after and managed
from the ground floor than from the upper floor. It is well
known fact that office situated on the ground floor is more
convenient than on the upper floors and the
landlord/owner has all the rights and choices to have the
business/office for himself or his family members in the
premises which is more suitable and convenient, if the
bonafide of the landlord is established.”
24. Further, the law regarding the bonafide need has been made
clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as “Sarla Ahuja
v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported as AIR 1999
SUPREME COURT 100” , whereby it was held that :
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 27 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
“…..The crux of the ground envisaged in clause (e) of
Section 14(1) of the Act is that the requirement of the
landlord for occupation of the tenanted premises must be
bona fide. When a landlord asserts that he requires his
building for his own occupation the Rent Controller shall
not proceed on the presumption that the requirement is not
bona fide. When other conditions of the clause are
satisfied and when the landlord shows a prima facie case
it is open to the Rent Controller to draw a presumption
that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide. It is often
said by Courts that it is not for the tenant to dictate terms
to the landlord as to how else he can adjust himself
without getting possession of the tenanted premises. While
deciding the question of bonafides of the requirement of
the landlord it is quite unnecessary to make an endeavour
as to how else the landlord could have adjusted
himself….”.
25. In the present petition, the petitioner has mentioned that she
requires the tenanted shop for the bonafide need of her son, Sh.
Pawan Kumar Bhutani, who wants to start his business and to
continue the business from the tenanted shop at ground floor.
26. By applying the ratio of abovesaid judgments in the present
matter, it can be said that the Court shall not doubt the bonafide
need of the petitioner as asserted by her in her petition. It has also
been established that the ground floor is more suitable place to start
and to continue any business activity. Hence, it can be said that the
petitioner has been able to establish her bonafide need qua the
tenanted shop.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Discussion upon the merits of the present Petition
86. A perusal of the aforesaid findings of the learned ARC makes it
evident that the learned ARC was conscious of the contention raised
by the Petitioners regarding the Respondent’s son, Mr. Pawan Kumar
Bhutani, already carrying on business from the first floor of the
Subject premises. The said aspect was expressly noticed and forms
part of the reasoning returned by the learned ARC.
87. The learned ARC, however, proceeded to consider the
distinction between the existing business being carried on from the
first floor and the requirement pleaded for the ground-floor shop.
After considering the material on record and the judgments relied
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 28 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
upon, the learned ARC found that the ground-floor premises would be
more convenient and suitable for carrying on the business and,
consequently, accepted the bona fide requirement pleaded by the
Respondent.
88. Significantly, the learned ARC has not proceeded on the
premise that the Respondent’s son was not carrying on any business.
Rather, the existence of the said business was expressly noticed, and
the requirement was adjudicated on the basis that the ground-floor
premises were sought on the assertion that they would provide greater
convenience and suitability for carrying on the business. The mere
fact that the Respondent’s son was already carrying on business from
the first floor, therefore, cannot by itself render the requirement
pleaded by the Respondent not bona fide .
89. Further, the submission that the Respondent altered or resiled
from the case set up in the Eviction Petition also does not, in the facts
of the present case, disclose any ground warranting interference. The
Reply to the Application seeking leave to defend forms part of the
pleadings and was therefore a part of the record and the learned ARC
was entitled to consider the pleadings and material placed before it as
a whole. The subsequent clarification that the ground-floor premises
were sought for greater convenience and suitability in carrying on the
existing business cannot, by itself, be characterised as a withdrawal of
the original plea of bona fide requirement.
90. The contention of the Petitioners, therefore, essentially seeks to
invite this Court to re-appreciate the material on record and arrive at a
different conclusion as to whether the existing accommodation on the
first floor was sufficiently suitable for the Respondent’s son. Such an
exercise, particularly in the absence of any perversity or manifest
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 29 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
illegality in the reasoning of the learned ARC, would fall outside the
limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the
DRC Act.
Conclusion upon the merits of the present Petition
91. The learned ARC has, therefore, considered the precise
objection now sought to be urged by the Petitioners and has returned a
reasoned finding upon the same. No jurisdictional error, perversity,
material irregularity or manifest illegality is discernible in the
approach adopted by the learned ARC so as to warrant interference in
the present proceedings.
92. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit in
the challenge raised by the Petitioners on the aspect of bona fide
requirement. The Impugned Judgement does not suffer from any
infirmity warranting interference in exercise of the limited revisional
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
93. Thus, even upon the limited examination undertaken
hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the challenge to the finding
of bona fide requirement returned by the learned ARC.
94. The aforesaid examination, however, does not alter the primary
conclusion reached by this Court that, consequent upon execution of
the Eviction Order and delivery of vacant and peaceful possession of
the Subject premises to the Respondent, the present Revision has
ceased to survive for effective adjudication.
DECISION:
95. In view of the principles delineated herein before, application
thereof to the facts of the present case and the foregoing discussion
thereupon, the present Revision Petition is dismissed as having
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 30 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57
become infructuous.
96. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove, on the
merits of the present Petition, are only for the sake of completeness
and shall not be construed as the basis for the disposal of the present
Petition.
97. The present Petition, along with all pending Application(s), if
any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
98. There shall be no Order as to the Costs.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2026/DJ
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 178/2022 Page 31 of 31
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.09.2026
14:52:57