Gian Singh Lakha vs Vakeel Ahmed

$~2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC013383672015
+ RC.REV. 396/2015
GIAN SINGH LAKHA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Ishita Kaushal, Advocate.

versus

VAKEEL AHMED .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenu Ojha, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 25-B(8) of the
1
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , assailing the Judgment dated
2
31.03.2015 passed by the learned SCJ-cum-RC, South District,
3
Saket Courts, New Delhi , in Eviction Petition bearing No. E.
4
61/2011 , titled “Sh. Gian Singh Lakha v. Shri Vakeel Ahmed” .
2. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned RC has
dismissed the Eviction Petition instituted by the Petitioner/landlord
under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act in respect of the premises i.e.,
one shop at property bearing no. 1418/13, Govind Puri, New
5
Delhi .

1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Judgment
3
learned RC
4
Eviction Petition
5
Subject Premises
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:09:26
RC.REV. 396/2015 Page 1 of 9

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner assails
the Impugned Judgment primarily on the ground that the learned RC
has failed to properly examine the relevant facts and appreciate the
evidence brought on record and has consequently arrived at erroneous
findings in the Impugned Judgment.
4. It is submitted that the bona fide requirement projected by the
Petitioner has not been appreciated in its correct perspective. Learned
counsel submits that the conclusion of the learned RC that the son of
the Petitioner, for whose benefit the Subject Premises were also
sought, had no intention of returning to India merely because he was
residing in the United States of America, is erroneous. It is contended
that the requirement was projected jointly by the Petitioner and his son
for the purpose of commencing a hardware and paint business.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the learned RC has erred
in drawing an adverse inference from the fact that the Petitioner's son
had not visited India for a considerable period of time, i.e., for almost
twenty (20) years. It is urged that the mere absence of the son from
India could not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the requirement
pleaded was not bona fide .
6. It is also contended that the learned RC has erred in holding that
the Petitioner had alternative suitable accommodation available to
him, inasmuch as the accommodation referred to in the Impugned
Judgment could not be regarded as “suitable” for the business
proposed to be undertaken by the Petitioner and his son.
7. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent supports the Impugned Judgment in its entirety and
submits that the same has been rendered upon a complete appreciation
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:09:26
RC.REV. 396/2015 Page 2 of 9

of the pleadings and evidence led by the parties. It is further submitted
that the jurisdiction of this Court under the proviso to Section 25-B(8)
of the DRC Act is limited and supervisory in nature and does not
permit a re-appreciation of evidence merely because another view may
be possible.
8. No other submissions were advanced on behalf of the parties.
9. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties at length, and, with their able assistance, perused the material
placed on record as well as the Impugned Judgment.
10. 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.
11. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in S arla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
6
Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
7 8
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 25B(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
9
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny

6
(1998) 8 SCC 119
7
(2014) 9 SCC 78
8
(2022) 6 SCC 30
9
2024:DHC:9322
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:09:26
RC.REV. 396/2015 Page 3 of 9

10
Grover .
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 RC 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 RC 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 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

10
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:09:26
RC.REV. 396/2015 Page 4 of 9

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.
15. 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 Judgment
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.
16. It is within the aforesaid limited parameters of revisional
scrutiny that the grounds urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the
Petitioner against the Impugned Judgment are required to be
examined.
17. The learned RC, while dismissing the Eviction Petition, has
returned findings against the Petitioner on both the essential
ingredients, namely, the existence of a bona fide requirement and the
existence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation. The
relevant findings returned in the Impugned Judgment are extracted
hereinbelow:
“ C) Bonafide requirement
21. Petitioner has alleged that the tenanted premises is required
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:09:26
RC.REV. 396/2015 Page 5 of 9

bonafide by himself and his son to run hardware and paint shop.
However, the petitioner has not placed on record any documentary
proof to reflect the intention of his son to return to India and start
the said business. Interestingly, the said son Sh. Makhan Singh has
not even bothered to appear in the witness box to prove his
bonafides to settle in India. Even though, petitioner has explained
that his son did not come to India as he was angry with the inability
of the petitioner to arrange the shop for running the business.
However as, neither any such plea has been taken in the petition
nor at any other time during his evidence and therefore, appears
unsubstantiated. Further, in his cross examination, petitioner has
admitted that his son had never visited India since 1994-96. It is
rather unbelievable that a person who alleges that he is unable to
adjust in the culture of USA and is dreaming to set up his business
in his mother land, has not even visited his homeland for the last
almost 10 years
22. Further, petitioner states that he intends to leave his job and
has already sought retirement from his present employer, and
intimation in this regard has already been given to his employer.
However, no documentary proof in this regard has been filed to
corroborate that any intimation/ letter has been sent by the
petitioner to his employer seeking voluntary retirement and a mere
bald assertion without any supporting document in this regard
weakens the very foundation of the case of the petitioner for
eviction of tenant, who is running business and earning livelihood
from the tenanted premises.
23. Furthermore, the petitioner has argued that he and his wife
are not keeping well as the weather does not suit them and hence,
he wants to shift to India. It is pertinent that the wife of the
petitioner expired during the pendency of the petition. No medical
document whatsoever has been placed on record to establish that
the petitioner has been prescribed to avoid cold weather or that the
climatic conditions of America are not congenial to his health
conditions. Further, the case of the petitioner seems quite
unbelievable as the petitioner admittedly is a Green Card Holder
and it is common knowledge, that he is entitled to avail social
security benefits in USA, which apparently India does not offer to
its citizens. Hence, the said plea is meritless.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am not convinced that
the tenanted premises is required bonafide by the petitioner for
himself or his son.
d) No other alternate accommodation available to the
petitioner.
25. Ld. counsel for the petitioner has argued that he requires the
tenanted shop for running business along with the adjoining shop
which has already been vacated. At the outset, no evidence has
been led by the petitioner on the question of inadequacy of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:09:26
RC.REV. 396/2015 Page 6 of 9

adjoining shop for running his business. Further, the petitioner has
admitted during his cross examination that the four rooms in rear
portion of the premises in which the suit shop is located was got
vacated in the year 2006 and that all the said rooms are lying
vacant with him. Interestingly, the said fact was never disclosed by
the petitioner in his petition for eviction. Hence, the petition smells
of malafides on account of concealment of material facts.
26. In cross examination, petitioner has put a defence that the
said rooms are in a dilapidated condition. However, the said
defence cannot be considered at this stage as it appears to be an
afterthought as not a whisper was uttered either about the said
vacated rooms or their condition prior to the time of cross
examination.
27. Last but not the least, an admission has been made by the
petitioner in his cross examination dated 15.03.2014 wherein he
has stated that he did not start any business in five shops/rooms,
even though they were vacated as his son expired at the said time.
Again, the said fact has not been disclosed in the petition, and
amounts to material concealment.
28. Hence, the present ingredient stands decided in favour of
respondent and against the petitioner.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, petitioner has failed to
establish ingredient of bonafide requirement and non availability of
sufficient alternative accommodation in his favour. Accordingly,
the petition filed by the petitioner u/s. 14 (1) (e) DRC Act stands
dismissed.
30. File be consigned to record room.”

18. The learned RC has examined the material placed on record and
returned findings on both the essential ingredients required to be
established under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, namely, the
existence of a bona fide requirement and the non-availability of any
other reasonably suitable accommodation.
19. Insofar as the bona fide requirement is concerned, the learned
RC has taken into consideration the fact that the requirement was
projected, inter alia , for the benefit of the Petitioner's son, who was
admittedly residing abroad and had not visited India for a considerable
period of time. Significantly, the said son, for whose benefit the
Subject Premises were also sought, did not enter the witness box to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:09:26
RC.REV. 396/2015 Page 7 of 9

substantiate his intention to return to India and commence the
proposed business. The learned RC has thus taken note of the absence
of any cogent material in support of the requirement so projected,
along with the other circumstances emerging from the evidence led by
the Petitioner. The conclusion arrived at on the basis thereof cannot be
said to be perverse or wholly unsupported by the material available on
record.
20. The learned RC has also taken into consideration the admitted
position that the Petitioner's son had not visited India since the mid-
1990s. Undoubtedly, the mere fact that a person resides abroad, or has
not visited India for a considerable period, may not by itself be
determinative of the bona fide nature of a requirement. However, the
said circumstance was not considered by the learned RC in isolation.
It was assessed in conjunction with the absence of any independent
evidence from the son himself, or any other contemporaneous material
demonstrating a concrete intention to return to India and commence
the proposed business.
21. The finding with respect to the availability of alternative
accommodation also does not warrant interference. The learned RC
has taken note of the Petitioner's admission regarding the availability
of four rooms in the rear portion of the property, which had been got
vacated in the year 2006 and were admittedly lying vacant. The
learned RC has also considered the fact that the availability of such
accommodation had not been disclosed in the Eviction Petition and
that the explanation regarding its alleged unsuitability or dilapidated
condition was sought to be advanced subsequently in the cross-
examination and was not pleaded at the relevant stage. This Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:09:26
RC.REV. 396/2015 Page 8 of 9

finds no infirmity in the appreciation of the aforesaid material by the
learned RC so as to warrant interference in the present proceedings.
22. It is relevant to note that the challenge raised by the Petitioner
essentially proceeds on the premise that the evidence ought to have
been appreciated differently. However, the existence of another
possible view is not a ground for interference under the proviso to
Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act. Unless the findings returned are
shown to be wholly unsupported by the material on record or are so
unreasonable as to warrant their characterisation as perverse, this
Court would not be justified in exercising its revisional jurisdiction to
supplant the conclusions of the learned RC with its own.
23. Having examined the Impugned Judgment in the aforesaid light,
this Court is unable to discern any jurisdictional error, material
irregularity, manifest illegality or perversity in the approach adopted
by the learned RC. The findings returned are based upon an
appreciation of the pleadings and evidence on record and cannot be
said to be so unreasonable or implausible as to warrant interference in
the limited revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
24. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the present Petition
and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
25. The present Petition, along with pending application(s), if any,
stands disposed of in the above terms.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026/tk/ma

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:05.09.2026
13:09:26
RC.REV. 396/2015 Page 9 of 9