Ashok Kumar Sharma vs Joginder Singh

$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 01.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010274472025
+ RC.REV. 150/2025
ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ankit Gupta and Mr. Rajat
Jain, Advs.
versus

JOGINDER SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ashok Chhaparia, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Rent Control Revision Petition, under Section 25-B
1
(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , seeks the setting aside of
2
the Order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Rent
3
Controller-02, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi , in Eviction
Petition being RC ARC No.43/2021, whereby the leave to defend
application preferred by the Respondent herein has been allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to challenge the
Impugned Order on the ground that the Respondent has expressly
admitted to being a co-owner of the tenanted premises, which
unequivocally supports the Petitioner's case for eviction and therefore,
there being no triable issue, the learned ARC has erroneously allowed

1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Order
3
ARC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
RC.REV. 150/2025 Page 1 of 10

the Application seeking leave to defend filed by the Respondent.
3. It is further submitted that the Respondent has not been able to
put forth any alternate suitable accommodation that is available with
the Petitioner or to raise any other triable issue and therefore, the grant
of leave to defend is erroneous.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner limits his challenge to the
aforenoted two grounds.
5. Per Contra , learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the
learned ARC has considered all the necessary issues and the issues
sought to be raised in the present Revision Petition were also raised
before the learned ARC and the same were considered; therefore, in
the limited jurisdiction exercisable by this Court, there arises no scope
of interference with the Impugned Order.
ANALYSIS:
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and,
with her able assistance, perused the material available on record.
7. Before proceeding to examine the grounds of challenge urged
on behalf of the Petitioner, it would be apposite to advert to the scope
and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court under the
proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.
8. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in S arla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
4
Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
5 6
Singh , and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua , has
consistently held that thejurisdiction exercised by the High Court
under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is supervisory

4
(1998) 8 SCC 119
5
(2014) 9 SCC 78
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
RC.REV. 150/2025 Page 2 of 10

and revisional in character and cannot be equated with the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.
9. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
7
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
8
Grover .
10. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
elucidating the legislative intendment underlying Section 25B 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.”

6
(2022) 6 SCC 30
7
2024:DHC:9322
8
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
RC.REV. 150/2025 Page 3 of 10

11. In Pankaj Pahwa (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
upon considering the principles enunciated in Abid-Ul-Islam (supra),
reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under the
proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is limited in scope and that
this Court is not expected to substitute or supplant its view for that of
the learned 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.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the position which emerges
is that, while exercising jurisdiction under the proviso to Section
25B(8) of the DRC Act, this Court is neither required nor permitted to
undertake a fresh appreciation of the material on record with a view to
arrive at an independent conclusion on the merits of the dispute.
Interference would be warranted only where the Impugned 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.
13. It is within the aforesaid limited parameters of revisional
scrutiny that the grounds urged on behalf of the Petitioner against the
Impugned Order are required to be examined.
14. At this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to reproduce
herein the findings rendered by the learned ARC in the Impugned
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
RC.REV. 150/2025 Page 4 of 10

Order, which reads as under:

“14. It is important to note here that petitioner completely evaded
explaining as to who Sh. Nathu Ram and then the petitioner
became the absolute owner of the suit property. No doubt,
petitioner being one of the co-owners can seek eviction and he
need not be absolute owner but then why did petitioner alleged in
the petition to be absolute owner of the property. Petitioner is
certainly bad for concealment and misrepresentation.
15. It is further stated by the respondent that the petitioner has
deliberately concealed from court that he has filed a suit for
declaration and permanent injunction, titled as Ashok Kumar vs.
Sh. Kailash Chand & Ors. Being CS DJ 443/2017, which is
pending adjudication. In the said suit it has been mentioned that the
property No. 1780, Kucha Lattoo Shah, Dariba Kalan, Chandni
Chowk, Delhi-110006 was purchased by the father of the petitioner
out his own savings as well as loan borrowed by him from his
employer. Though it has been admitted in the suit that the property
was purchased jointly in the name of Nathu Ram and his younger
brothers, Kailash Chans Sharma, Bihari lal Sharma, and Munna Lal
Sharma, it has further been stated in the said suit that Nathu Ram
settled the shares of himself and his brothers by metes and bounds
on 02.04.1999. It has further been stated that a Will dated
02.04.1999 was also executed by Nathu Ram on the same day, in
favor of his four sons Ashok Kumar (petitioner herein), Vijay
Sharma, Shiv Kumar Sharma and Dharamvir Sharma. It has further
been stated that Joginder Singh became tenant in the shop in
question in place of Sh. Jagdish Singh, in the later stage which is
contrary to what has been pleaded in the present petition. The
plaintiff, petitioner herein has therefore prayed for a decree of
declaration in his favor along with his brothers. The defendant No.
2 (Behari Lal Sharma) and defendant no. 3 (Munna Lal Sharma)
have filed their joint written statement in which they have denied
that the property was purchased by Nathu Ram. It has been stated
that the property was purchased by Late Umrao Singh from his
savings in the name of Nathu Ram, Kailash Chand Sharma, Behari
Lal Sharma and Munna Lal Sharma. It has been stated that after
death of Nathu Ram the rent for the shop in question is being
collected by Behari Lal Sharma. The said defendants have denied
the Settlement dated 02.04.1999 and also the Will dated
02.04.1999. It has been specifically stated that shops in the front
side neither belong to the plaintiff (Petitioner herein) nor are in
possession of any one including the plaintiff (petitioner) and the
defendants except defendant no. 2 (Behari Lal Sharma). That
following issues have been framed in the said case on 07.08.2018:
(i) whether the property no. 1780 was purchased by Umrao Singh?
(ii) whether the property was partitioned between Nathu Ram and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
RC.REV. 150/2025 Page 5 of 10

his three brothers by metes on 02.04.1999?. (iii) The issue whether
the plaintiff is entitled to decree of declaration as prayed for? It is
submitted by respondent that till the said issues are decided in
favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff can not claim himself to be the
absolute owner of the shop in question, subject matter of the
present petition.
16. In reply by the petitioner, it is averred that petitioner has not
concealed any fact and subject shop is bonafidely required by him
to run a business of goldsmith. That the issues of other cases are
not required to be decided first in view of the facts that the
respondent/tenant have admitted the right of the petitioner in the
subject shop admitting that late Sh. Nathu Ram Sharma was the
purchaser of the property in auction proceedings held by
Government of Delhi in December 1964 and not in 1946 and
petitioner is the son of Sh. Nathu Ram Sharma and therefore
petitioner is the co-owner of the subject property. That petitioner is
not required to be absolute owner of the property for the purpose of
eviction petition as per law of the land.
17. Here, it would be again pertinent to note that petitioner has not
denied any of these facts averred by the respondent regarding the
civil suit filed by the petitioner seeking declaration of title. Clearly
all these facts have been concealed by the petitioner due to which
now the petitioner cannot claim to have come to the court with
clean hand,
18. All in all the petitioner has failed to disclose all the necessary
ingredients required for eviction order under section 14 (1) (c)
DRC Act. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, there are
triable issues in the present petition which shall be established by
evidence during trial.”

15. Having considered the rival submissions and the findings
returned by the learned ARC, this Court is of the view that no ground
for interference with the Impugned Order is made out. The principal
contention of the Petitioner is that the Respondent has admitted the
Petitioner to be a co-owner of the subject premises and, therefore, no
triable issue survives. The said submission, however, proceeds on a
selective reading of the pleadings and the material placed before the
learned ARC.
16. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that a co-owner of
a tenanted premises is competent to maintain an eviction petition and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
RC.REV. 150/2025 Page 6 of 10

is not necessarily required to establish an absolute or exclusive title
over the property. However, the said proposition does not imply that
every dispute pertaining to the Petitioner's asserted status, particularly
where such status is itself placed in issue on the basis of the
Petitioner's own pleadings and pending civil proceedings, is incapable
of constituting a triable issue. The question before this Court is not
whether a co-owner, in law, can maintain an eviction petition, but
whether, in the peculiar facts of the present case, the learned ARC was
justified in finding that the Respondent had raised issues requiring
adjudication by way of evidence.
17. In the present case, the learned ARC has specifically taken note
of the fact that the Petitioner has instituted a civil suit seeking
declaration of title in respect of the very property in question. The
pleadings in the said proceedings, as noticed in the Impugned Order,
disclose that the Petitioner has himself asserted a particular chain of
title, including the alleged purchase of the property by his father, the
alleged settlement by metes and bounds, as well as the execution of a
Will in favour of the Petitioner and his brothers. Significantly, the said
assertions have been specifically disputed by the other co-defendants
in the civil suit, who have asserted a different source of title and have
also disputed the alleged settlement and Will.
18. The aforesaid circumstances cannot be brushed aside merely on
the premise that the Respondent has, at some stage, admitted the
Petitioner's status as a co-owner. The alleged admission, read in the
context of the complete pleadings and the pending civil proceedings,
does not render the controversy as to the Petitioner's precise right,
share and entitlement over the subject premises wholly academic.
More importantly, the Petitioner himself has approached the civil
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
RC.REV. 150/2025 Page 7 of 10

court seeking a declaration in respect of his title and entitlement. The
learned ARC was, therefore, justified in taking note of the
inconsistency between the Petitioner's assertion of absolute ownership
in the eviction proceedings and the stand taken by him in the pending
civil proceedings.
19. The submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that a
landlord need not be an absolute owner, though correct as a general
proposition, does not answer the specific finding returned by the
learned ARC. The Impugned Order does not proceed merely on the
premise that the Petitioner is required to establish absolute ownership.
Rather, the learned ARC has found that the Petitioner failed to
disclose material facts concerning the pending civil proceedings and
the nature of the dispute relating to title and entitlement over the
subject premises. The existence and relevance of those proceedings,
particularly when they emanate from the Petitioner himself, constitute
matters which cannot be said to be wholly irrelevant at the stage of
considering an application for leave to defend.
20. It is also material to note that the learned ARC has not finally
adjudicated upon the respective rights of the parties. The Impugned
Order merely holds that the Respondent has disclosed facts which
warrant an opportunity to defend the eviction proceedings. At the
stage of leave to defend, the Court is not required to conduct a mini-
trial or conclusively determine the competing claims of title. Where
the defence raises issues which, if established by evidence, may have a
bearing upon the landlord's entitlement to seek eviction, the grant of
leave to defend cannot be characterised as perverse merely because
the landlord disputes the tenability of such defence.
21. The attempt of the Petitioner, in substance, is to invite this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
RC.REV. 150/2025 Page 8 of 10

Court to re-assess the pleadings and material considered by the
learned ARC and to substitute its own assessment as to whether the
Respondent has raised a triable issue. Such an exercise would,
however, amount to appellate re-appreciation of the material on
record, which is impermissible while exercising jurisdiction under the
proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act. As noticed hereinabove,
the jurisdiction of this Court is supervisory and is intended to examine
the legality and propriety of the decision-making process, and not to
undertake a fresh adjudication on merits.
22. In the present case, the learned ARC has considered the rival
pleadings, taken note of the pending civil proceedings, noticed the
assertions made therein by the Petitioner himself, and thereafter
arrived at the conclusion that the Respondent has raised triable issues
which would require adjudication by way of evidence. The reasoning
adopted by the learned ARC cannot be said to be so unreasonable,
perverse or legally untenable as would warrant interference in
revisional jurisdiction.
23. The reliance placed by the Petitioner on the alleged admission
of co-ownership also cannot, at this stage, be elevated into a
conclusive determination of the Petitioner's entitlement to eviction,
particularly when the surrounding circumstances disclose a subsisting
dispute regarding the Petitioner's title and entitlement and the
Petitioner himself has sought declaratory relief before the competent
civil court. Whether the Petitioner is ultimately able to establish the
requisite ingredients for an eviction order is a matter to be adjudicated
in the proceedings after the Respondent is afforded an opportunity to
defend.
24. It is reiterated that the grant of leave to defend does not amount
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
RC.REV. 150/2025 Page 9 of 10

to an adjudication in favour of the Respondent on the disputed
questions. It merely recognises that the defence raised is not sham,
moonshine or wholly irrelevant and that the controversy warrants
adjudication in accordance with law. The learned ARC having
exercised its discretion upon consideration of the material placed
before it, no jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material
irregularity or perversity has been demonstrated by the Petitioner.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no
infirmity in the Impugned Order warranting exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.
26. The present Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Needless to state, nothing contained herein shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the rival claims of the parties,
which shall be adjudicated by the learned ARC in accordance with
law.

27. The present Petition, along with pending Application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 1, 2026/rk/va
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:03.09.2026
12:30:52
RC.REV. 150/2025 Page 10 of 10