Vinod Kumar vs Rakesh Singh

Court
Delhi High Court

$~63
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010209992026
+ RC.REV. 167/2026 & CM APPL. 57729/2026 (Early Hearing
on behalf of petitioner)

VINOD KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Kunal Jain,
Advocate.

versus

RAKESH SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Vikas Chhabra and Mr.
Kartik Mittal, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)

1. The present Petition, filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi
Rent Control Act, 1958 [ “DRC Act” ], seeks to assail the Order dated
27.02.2026 [ “Impugned Order” ] passed by the learned ACJ-cum-
CCJ-cum-ARC, Patiala House Court, Delhi [ “learned ARC” ], in
Eviction Petition, being RC ARC No. 28/2023, titled as “Rakesh
Singh v. Vinod Kumar”.
2. By way of the Impugned Order, the Application seeking leave
to defend filed by the Petitioner was rejected by the learned ARC and,
consequently, an Eviction Order was passed in favour of the
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 167/2026 Page 1 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43

Respondent, in respect of Shop No.6, CB-385, Khasra No. 1068/2,
Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi-110028 [ “Subject premises” ].
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the
outset, would submit that the present challenge to the Impugned Order
is confined to the findings rendered by the learned ARC on the
question of the existence of a Landlord-Tenant relationship between
the parties.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the
specific plea taken by the Petitioner herein, challenging the rent
receipts placed on record by the Respondent along with the Eviction
Petition has not been accorded any consideration by the learned ARC
in the Impugned Order. He submits that the Petitioner, in particular,
pleaded and submitted that the rent receipts appeared to have been
generated contemporaneously and that all the receipts were of the
same date.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the
challenge to the veracity of the rent receipts placed on record by the
Respondent forms an essential facet for adjudication, for the further
reason that despite the Respondent alleging the rent was paid up till
the year 2017, he further goes on to contend that rents have been paid
even in the year 2019.
6. He therefore, submits that, since the learned ARC has not dealt
with this vital aspect, the Judgment stands vitiated and would require
to be set aside.
7. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent, fairly and
candidly, accepts that the challenge raised with respect to the rent
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 167/2026 Page 2 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43

receipts did not receive consideration by learned ARC while passing
the Impugned Order.
8. Learned counsel for the Respondent, however, submits that
there is no requirement for the learned ARC to categorically record
findings on the said aspect since the Petitioner, in order to set up a
case of adverse possession, would have to first establish the manner in
which he came into the possession of the subject premises itself.
9. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and, with
their able assistance, perused the material available on record.
10. Before proceeding to examine the grounds of challenge urged
on behalf of the Petitioners, 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.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India
1
Insurance Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v.
2
Dilbahar Singh , and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain
3
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.
12. 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 .

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. 167/2026 Page 3 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43

13. 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
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.”

14. 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
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 167/2026 Page 4 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43

Order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or an
absence of adjudication warranting interference.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
parties and the material available on record, this Court is of the
considered view that the Impugned Order cannot be sustained in its
present form. The limited challenge raised by the Petitioner before this
Court pertains to the finding concerning the existence of a landlord-
tenant relationship between the parties. In support of his challenge to
the said relationship, the Petitioner had specifically disputed the
veracity and evidentiary value of the rent receipts relied upon by the
Respondent. It is not in dispute that the said contention, though
specifically raised by the Petitioner, has not received any
consideration in the Impugned Order.
18. The submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 167/2026 Page 5 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43

that the said omission would not be material since the Petitioner, while
setting up a plea of adverse possession, is required to establish the
manner in which he came into possession of the Subject Premises,
cannot be accepted at this stage. The issue before the learned ARC
was not merely whether the Petitioner had succeeded in establishing
his plea of adverse possession. The learned ARC was also required to
examine whether the material placed before it disclosed the existence
of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, particularly when
such relationship had been specifically disputed by the Petitioner.
19. The rent receipts relied upon by the Respondent constitute
material which bears directly upon the said question. The Petitioner
had specifically raised a challenge to the authenticity and veracity of
the said receipts and had also sought to point out what, according to
him, were inconsistencies in the Respondent's case regarding the
period for which rent had allegedly been paid. In particular, the
Petitioner contended that, all the receipts were of the same date and
further that, while the Respondent had alleged payment of rent up to
the year 2017, the material relied upon by him also referred to
payment of rent in the year 2019. Whether the explanation furnished
by the Respondent in respect thereof is acceptable or whether the
challenge raised by the Petitioner gives rise to a triable issue are
matters which necessarily required consideration by the learned ARC.
20. This Court is conscious of the limited scope of its jurisdiction
under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act. This Court is
not required to undertake a fresh appreciation of the material on record
or substitute its own conclusions for those which ought to have been
arrived at by the learned ARC. However, where a material contention
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 167/2026 Page 6 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43

specifically raised by a party, having a direct bearing on the
determination of the controversy, has not been considered at all, such
omission goes to the decision-making process itself and would fall
within the limited scope of revisional interference under Section 25-
B(8) of the DRC Act.
21. In the present case, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent has, in fact, fairly conceded that the challenge raised by
the Petitioner with respect to the rent receipts did not receive
consideration at the hands of the learned ARC while passing the
Impugned Order. This Court is, therefore, not called upon to
determine the correctness of the Petitioner's challenge to the rent
receipts or to record an independent finding on the existence of the
landlord-tenant relationship. Such an exercise would clearly travel
beyond the scope of the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court.
The appropriate course would be to remit the matter to the learned
ARC for consideration of the contentions raised and for passing a
fresh order in accordance with law.
22. Accordingly, the Impugned Order dated 27.02.2026 is set
aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned ARC for a de-novo
consideration on the basis of the pleadings and material already on
record.
23. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the rival contentions of the parties, including the
genuineness or evidentiary value of the rent receipts or the merits of
the Petitioner's plea of adverse possession. The learned ARC shall
consider the matter independently on the basis of the material already
available on record and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 167/2026 Page 7 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43

24. List before the learned ARC on 08.09.2026.
25. The next date of hearing before the Court on 06.10.2026 stands
cancelled.
26. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any,
is disposed of in the aforesaid

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 25, 2026/ v/va



Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 167/2026 Page 8 of 8

Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43