Smt Damyanti Devi vs Sh Shreyansh Soharia

$~73
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 28.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010230002026
+ RC.REV. 176/2026
SMT DAMYANTI DEVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manoj Sharma and Mr.
Kapil Kaushik, Advocates.


versus


SH SHREYANSH SOHARIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vinit Trehan, Ms. Urvi
Syal and Ms. Diti Jain,
Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)

CM APPL. 74229/2026 (Seeking Early Hearing )

1. The present Application has been filed under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [“ CPC ”], seeking early hearing of the
present matter.
2. For the reasons as stated in the Application, the same is allowed
and the matter is taken up for hearing today.
3. The present Application stands disposed of in the above terms.
RC.REV. 176/2026
4. The present Petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of the
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 176/2026 Page 1 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:56:25

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [“ DRC Act ”], assailing the Eviction
Order dated 27.03.2026 [“ Impugned Order ”] passed by the learned
Additional Rent Controller-01, Tis Hazari Courts, Central District,
Delhi [“ learned ARC ”], in Eviction Petition bearing RC ARC No.
144/2024.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner draws the
attention of this Court to the Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner herein to
the Reply filed on behalf of the Respondent in response to the
Application seeking leave to defend, in which there is a categorical
assertion with respect to the aspect that the Respondent had allegedly
re-let the Shop Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5, which were got vacated by him. He
would further submit that details of the tenants in respect of each of
these shops had also been provided as also photographs and lease
deeds in support of this contention was placed on the record before the
learned ARC. He submits that despite the factum of a Rejoinder
having been filed and being noted by the learned ARC, no
consideration has been accorded to any of the averments that have
been made in the said Rejoinder.
6. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent would submit that the contents of the Rejoinder could not
have been taken into consideration since any grounds for opposing the
Eviction Petition were to be statutorily taken within the 15 day period
and in the Application seeking leave to defend and any Rejoinder
thereafter could not expand the scope of the objections. He further
submits that considering the same, there is no infirmity in the said
judgment.
7. It is pertinent to note that no other grounds were urged by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 176/2026 Page 2 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:56:25

ANALYSIS:
8. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties, and, with their able assistance, perused the material available
on record, including the relevant documents as well as the Impugned
Order.
9. 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 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
10. 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 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is supervisory
and revisional in character and cannot be equated with the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.
11. 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 .
12. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
elucidating the legislative intendment underlying Section 25(B) of the

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
RC.REV. 176/2026 Page 3 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:56:25

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
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.”

13. 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.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 176/2026 Page 4 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:56:25

14. 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
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.
15. As is apparent from a perusal of the Impugned Order, the
learned ARC has taken note of the fact that a Rejoinder had been filed
by the Petitioner herein to the Reply submitted by the Respondent to
the Application seeking leave to defend. The said Rejoinder was also
permitted to be taken on record. However, despite having taken note
of the filing of the Rejoinder, the learned ARC has not adverted to or
dealt with the specific averments made therein, particularly those
concerning the alleged re-letting of Shop Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which,
according to the Petitioner, had earlier been vacated by the
Respondent. The Petitioner had, in support of the aforesaid assertions,
furnished particulars of the persons allegedly inducted as tenants in
the respective shops, besides placing photographs and lease deeds on
record.
16. This Court is conscious of the submission advanced on behalf
of the Respondent that, in proceedings under Section 25-B of the DRC
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 176/2026 Page 5 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:56:25

Act, the grounds seeking leave to defend are required to be
specifically urged within the statutorily prescribed period of fifteen
days and that a subsequent Rejoinder cannot be permitted to enlarge
the scope of the defence already set up. However, having considered
the rival submissions and examined the material available on record,
this Court finds that the aforesaid objection is misconceived in the
facts of the present case. The contentions raised by the Petitioner in
the Rejoinder, pertaining to the alleged re-letting of the other shops,
do not constitute an altogether new or independent ground of defence,
but are in the nature of further particulars and supporting assertions
intended to substantiate and buttress the plea already raised in the
Application seeking leave to defend. In other words, the Petitioner has
not sought to set up an entirely different defence through the
Rejoinder, but has sought to fortify the existing assertion by placing
further particulars and material in support thereof. Consequently, the
consideration of such averments would not, in the facts of the present
case, amount to permitting the Petitioner to introduce an additional
ground of defence beyond the statutory period prescribed under
Section 25-B of the DRC Act.
17. In any event, it is pertinent to note that the Rejoinder was
permitted to be taken on record by the learned ARC and its filing has
also been expressly noticed in the Impugned Order. Once the learned
ARC had permitted the said pleading to form part of the record and
had taken note of its existence, it was incumbent upon the learned
ARC to deal with the material contentions raised therein, particularly
those which were in furtherance of the defence already set up by the
Petitioner. The learned ARC was required to examine the relevance
and import of the assertions made therein and thereafter arrive at an
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 176/2026 Page 6 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:56:25

appropriate conclusion, either accepting or rejecting the same, for
reasons to be recorded. The mere fact that the Rejoinder was taken on
record and its filing was noticed in the Impugned Order could not
dispense with the requirement of judicially considering the material
averments contained therein. The learned ARC could not have simply
noticed the existence of the Rejoinder while leaving its substantive
contents altogether unaddressed.
18. It is clarified that the aforesaid requirement of consideration
does not, in any manner, imply that the learned ARC was bound to
accept the assertions made by the Petitioner or to treat the documents
relied upon in support thereof as conclusive proof of the alleged re-
letting. The learned ARC was, undoubtedly, at liberty to examine the
evidentiary value, relevance and probative worth of the material
placed on record and to return a finding in accordance with law.
However, what was required was an adjudication of the contentions so
raised and not their complete omission from consideration. The failure
to deal with such material averments, which were intended to
substantiate a defence already raised in the Application seeking leave
to defend, has resulted in a material aspect of the Petitioner's case
remaining unadjudicated.
19. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that the
aforesaid omission constitutes an infirmity in the decision-making
process and attracts the limited revisional scrutiny envisaged under the
proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act. The interference
warranted in the present case is not on account of this Court
undertaking a fresh appreciation of the material placed on record or
expressing any opinion on the merits of the allegations concerning the
alleged re-letting of the shops. Rather, the interference is necessitated
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 176/2026 Page 7 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:56:25

by the failure of the learned ARC to consider and adjudicate upon
material contentions which had been duly brought on record,
permitted to be taken on record and expressly noticed in the Impugned
Order. Such non-consideration amounts to an absence of adjudication
on a material aspect of the defence and, therefore, warrants
interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the Impugned Order cannot be sustained and
is accordingly set aside.
21. The present lis is remanded back to the learned ARC for fresh
and de novo consideration, on the basis of the record as was available
before it.
22. List before the learned ARC on 20.11.2026.
23. Needless to state that nothing contained in the present order
shall be construed as an opinion of this Court on the merits of the rival
contentions, including the veracity of the Petitioner's allegations
regarding the alleged re-letting of the aforesaid shops. All questions of
fact and law are accordingly left open for consideration by the learned
ARC, which shall proceed to adjudicate the Application seeking leave
to defend independently, uninfluenced by any observations made
herein.
24. The present Petition, along with the pending application(s),
including the caveat, if any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
25. The date already fixed stands cancelled, i.e., 03.12.2026.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 28, 2026/nd/va
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 176/2026 Page 8 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:02.11.2026
15:56:25