Jitender Kochar vs Jagdish Chand Jain (Since Deceased) Through Legal Heir Yogesh Jain
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 28.09.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 06.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010840522024
RC.REV. 349/2024 & CM APPL. 68354/2024 (Stay)
JITENDER KOCHAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. P.S. Bindra, Senior
Advocate along with Mr.
Gobind Malhotra, Mr. Lovish
Sharma and Mr. Rehan Saifi,
Advocates.
versus
JAGDISH CHAND JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH
LEGAL HEIR YOGESH JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pravesh Thakur, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
J U D G M E N T
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Petition has been filed under the proviso to Section
1
25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , assailing the Order
2
dated 20.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Controller-
cum-Additional Rent Controller, Shahdara District,
3 4
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi , in RC ARC No. 153/2020 , titled
Jitender Kochar v. Jagdish Chand Jain (since deceased) through his
1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Order
3
learned ARC
4
Eviction Petition
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 1 of 23
son and legal heir Yogesh Jain , whereby the application filed by the
Respondent seeking leave to defend the eviction petition was allowed.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The Petitioner instituted the Eviction Petition seeking eviction
of the Respondent from Shop No. 1, forming part of property bearing
old municipal No. IX/411/1 and new municipal No. IX/1392,
situated at Shambhu Nath Building, Main Road, Gandhi Nagar,
5
opposite Nehru Gali, Shahdara, Delhi-110031 . The eviction was
sought on the ground of bona fide requirement for the Petitioner’s
daughter-in-law, who, according to the Petitioner, intended to
commence a business dealing in ladies’ readymade garments and
interior designing from the subject premises.
3. The Petitioner traced his claim to the subject premises through a
chain of transactions originating from the erstwhile owners of the
property. The Petitioner’s case was that his son, Arjun Kochar, had
acquired the subject property through a sale deed dated 18.02.2010,
which inadvertently recorded the municipal property number as
IX/1393 instead of IX/1392. According to the Petitioner, the
discrepancy was subsequently rectified pursuant to an order dated
25.10.2019 passed in the rectification proceedings, followed by
execution of a registered rectification deed dated 08.01.2020.
4. The petitioner further relied upon the subsequent documents
executed in favour of Sunita and, thereafter, in his favour on
14.09.2010, in support of his claim as owner and landlord of the
tenanted premises.
5
subject premises
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 2 of 23
5. The Respondent, in his application seeking leave to defend,
disputed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the
parties and challenged the Petitioner’s ownership and entitlement to
seek eviction. He relied, inter alia , upon the discrepancy between the
municipal property numbers reflected in the title documents, the
alleged prior transfer of a share in the property, and the circumstances
in which the rectification deed had been obtained.
6. The Respondent also referred to criminal proceedings arising
out of allegations concerning the property transactions and contended
that the Petitioner had not made a complete and consistent disclosure
of the relevant facts. Further, he relied upon the discrepancy between
the quantum of rent pleaded in the earlier civil proceedings and that
stated in the present Eviction Petition, and asserted that alternative
properties were available to the Petitioner’s family.
7. The Petitioner controverted the aforesaid objections,
maintaining that the discrepancy in the property number had been duly
rectified, that the other properties referred to by the Respondent were
either no longer available or were not suitable for the proposed
business, and that the requirement pleaded in the Eviction Petition was
bona fide .
8. Upon consideration of the rival pleadings and the material
placed on record, the learned ARC found no prima facie merit in the
Respondent’s objections concerning the bona fide requirement and the
availability of alternative accommodation.
9. However, the learned ARC considered the objections relating to
the landlord-tenant relationship, the inconsistencies in the chain of
title documents, the circumstances surrounding the rectification
proceedings, the discrepancy in the pleaded quantum of rent, and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 3 of 23
alleged non-disclosure of pending criminal proceedings to raise triable
issues. Holding that the Respondent ought to be afforded an
opportunity to establish his defence, the learned ARC allowed the
application seeking leave to defend vide the Impugned Order.
10. Aggrieved by the grant of leave to defend, the Petitioner has
instituted the present Petition, contending that the Impugned Order
warrants interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this
Court under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
11. Learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would assail the
Impugned Order, contending that the learned ARC failed to appreciate
the documents placed on record in support of the Petitioner’s claim to
the tenanted premises.
12. Learned senior counsel would submit that the learned ARC,
despite observing that the requirement of the Petitioner’s daughter-in-
law was reasonable and that no other suitable accommodation was
available, erred in granting leave to defend on the ground that the
Petitioner’s title to the tenanted premises was under a cloud.
13. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the Petitioner
has placed on record the registered sale deed, rectification deed and
settlement deed, which, according to him, sufficiently establish his
claim to the tenanted premises. It would be contended that the learned
ARC exceeded the scope of proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the
DRC Act by undertaking an enquiry into the validity of the title
documents, particularly when the title objections had also been
considered in the civil proceedings.
14. Learned senior counsel would submit that the Respondent did
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 4 of 23
not challenge the registered rectification deed in the present eviction
proceedings. He would contend that the proceedings referred to in
paragraph no. 18 of the Impugned Order pertained to a separate
eviction proceeding initiated by a tenant, Om Prakash, of a different
shop, concerning the same property, which was pending
simultaneously.
15. It would, therefore, be submitted that the learned ARC
proceeded on an incorrect factual premise in holding that the
rectification deed had been challenged and that evidence was required
to establish the landlord-tenant relationship.
16. It would further be contended that the learned ARC failed to
consider material documents, including the rent receipts and the
Respondent’s earlier stand regarding the applicability of the DRC Act
and the rent payable.
17. On the aforesaid grounds, learned senior counsel submits that
the objections raised by the Respondent did not warrant grant of leave
to defend and that the Impugned Order, having failed to properly
appreciate the documentary record and the limited scope of the
proceedings, warrants interference by this Court.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
18. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent would support
the Impugned Order, submitting that the learned ARC has passed a
detailed and reasoned order after duly considering the rival pleadings
and the documents placed on record. It would be contended that the
present Petition merely reiterates the grounds urged before the learned
ARC and discloses no patent illegality, material irregularity or
jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 5 of 23
exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction.
19. Learned counsel would submit that the disputes concerning the
Petitioner’s title, the discrepancy in the municipal numbers, the
circumstances surrounding the rectification deed and the pending
criminal proceedings raise bona fide triable issues. Reliance is placed
upon the earlier civil proceedings and the alleged discrepancies in the
description and area of the property to contend that the Petitioner’s
claim to the tenanted premises cannot be accepted without evidence.
20. It would further be submitted that the Respondent has
consistently disputed the relationship of landlord and tenant with the
Petitioner, while acknowledging the earlier tenancy under Amrik
Singh Bhatia and the subsequent collection of rent by Avtar Singh
Bhatia.
21. Learned counsel would further contend that the proceedings
initiated by Om Prakash in respect of the same property, including the
challenge to the rectification deed, form part of the circumstances
relevant to the dispute and were rightly noticed by the learned ARC
while assessing whether the Petitioner’s claim required evidence.
22. It would be submitted that the mere assertion that the
rectification deed was not independently challenged in the present
eviction proceedings does not, by itself, resolve the underlying
disputes concerning the Petitioner’s claim to the premises.
23. Learned counsel would further contend that the grant of leave to
defend is only a prima facie determination of whether triable issues
arise and does not amount to a final adjudication of the parties’ rights.
It would be submitted that the Respondent is only required to disclose
facts which, if established, may disentitle the Petitioner from
obtaining eviction, and is not required to conclusively prove his
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 6 of 23
defence at this stage.
24. Accordingly, learned counsel would submit that the Impugned
Order neither suffers from any apparent error nor warrants
interference in revisional jurisdiction, and that the Respondent ought
to be afforded an opportunity to establish his defence at trial.
25. No other submissions were advanced on behalf of the parties.
ANALYSIS:
26. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and, with their able assistance, perused the Impugned Order as
also the material placed on record.
27. 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.
28. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sarla 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.
29. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
6
(1998) 8 SCC 119
7
(2014) 9 SCC 78
8
(2022) 6 SCC 30
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 7 of 23
9
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
10
Grover .
30. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
elucidating the legislative intent 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.”
31. In Pankaj Pahwa (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
upon considering the principles enunciated in Abid-Ul-Islam (supra),
9
2024:DHC:9322
10
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 8 of 23
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.
32. 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.
33. Further, it is also necessary to bear in mind the principles
governing the consideration of an eviction petition filed under Section
14(1)(e), read with Section 25B of the DRC Act. The landlord is
required to establish the essential ingredients of the provision, namely ,
the existence of the landlord–tenant relationship, the bona fide
requirement of the premises for the landlord or a dependent family
member, and the absence of other reasonably suitable accommodation.
34. At the stage of considering an application for leave to defend,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 9 of 23
however, the learned ARC is required to examine whether the grounds
disclosed by the tenant raise such triable issues as would warrant an
opportunity to contest the eviction petition.
35. The principles governing the grant of leave to defend stand
settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Precision Steel &
11
Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal , and Abid-
Ul-Islam (supra). Accordingly, the defence disclosed by the tenant is
required to be examined to determine whether it raises a substantial
issue requiring adjudication. The tenant is not required to establish the
defence conclusively at this stage; equally, a merely sham or illusory
defence would not suffice to warrant leave.
36. In the light of the aforesaid settled principles, this Court
proceeds to examine the Impugned Order and the reasons recorded by
the learned ARC while allowing the Respondent’s application seeking
leave to defend. The relevant observations of the learned ARC, which
form the basis of the Impugned Order, are extracted hereinbelow:
“16.The only limb of objection which remains taken by the
respondent qua there being no landlord-tenant relationship between
the parties, and that the petitioner having not come to the Court
with clean hands impugning its bonafides, is found to be credible.
It has been averred that as tenant the respondent used to pay rent to
Amrik Singh and, after his death, had paid rent to his brother Avtar
Singh. After him, however, it is claimed that the petitioner cannot
be stated to be the owner as he had purchased, if at all, a separate
unit bearing no. 1393 and not 1392, which has been surreptitiously
now claimed to be property no. 1392. Instead, it is averred that
Amrik Singh had a wife as well and the averment of the petitioner
that he died as a bachelor was not correct. Finally, the respondent
has also pointed out that the documents filed by the petitioner
himself belie his claims, as in the sale deed dated 09.06.2004 it has
been mentioned that Surender Singh Bhatia had already sold off his
share to Avtar Singh, and despite the same, subsequently Surender
Singh Bhatia allegedly sold the tenanted premises along with Avtar
Singh to Arjun Kochar, which patently looks erroneous. The
11
(1982) 3 SCC 270
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 10 of 23
respondent has also stated that the rectification deed executed by
the petitioner was through a wrong and circuitous route, which is
under challenge already through separate suit proceedings already
underway. Not only that, the respondent has also claimed that in
the guise of rectifying the previous sale deed, the petitioner also
added other material particulars such as substituting two shops in
place of one in the deed and also seeking to amend the area of the
tenanted premises therein. It is therefore contended that the myriad
documents executed by the petitioner are prima facie not in order
and the respondent must be allowed leave to establish that they do
not create a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. On the
other hand, the petitioner has averred that the rectification of the
sale deed has been done in pursuance of court orders and no fault
could be found with the same. Having considered the rival
contentions on both sides of the aisle as it were, this Court is of the
view that the petitioner’s claims, though appearing to be correct on
the surface, nevertheless require deeper scrutiny, for which the
respondent must be given an opportunity to lead evidence. It is true
that in cases of the present kind, i.e. eviction petitions under the
DRC Act, the landlord is not required to prove his title qua the
tenanted premises as in a title suit and, instead, he is only to show a
better title vis-a-vis the tenant. Having said so, however, in
petitions where a tenant/respondent does not admit to the landlord-
tenant relationship between the parties, shows that no rent was ever
paid to the petitioner or any of his associates, and also shows gaps
in the documents filed by the petitioner himself based upon which a
claim of landlord-ship is made by him, the Court cannot simply
brush aside such averments altogether citing a lower standard of
scrutiny. What is implied by the landlord being required to show
only a better title in proceedings such as the one under
consideration is limited to the extent that no formal issues can be
framed or evidence led regarding such an aspect for the purposes of
establishing ownership of the landlord if, prima facie , based upon
the documents filed on record, the Court can form an opinion that
the landlord has a better claim of being regarded as such. If the
documents on which a petitioner relies, which prima facie show
that he is the landlord, are found to be in order, the Court need not
go further to delve deep into the nitty-gritty of other aspects. That
level of standard of scrutiny, however, cannot ipso facto be applied
even in a scenario where inconsistencies in the title documents filed
by the petitioner himself are shown which prima facie raise doubts.
That is to say, if the documents being relied upon by the petitioner
himself, which are being used to assert landlord-ship, do not add up
and indicate towards something more than what meets the eye, the
claim of the tenant/respondent that the petitioner is not the landlord
cannot be summarily dismissed on the pretext that the standard of
proof required in eviction petitions of the present kind is lower.
Putting it differently, if the tenant/respondent explicitly denies the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 11 of 23
landlord-tenant relationship between him and the petitioner and, to
bring home that very argument, he shows deficiencies in the
petitioner’s documents themselves which ostensibly cannot be
ignored, he can be said to have raised a triable issue qua the very
existence of the landlord-tenant relationship. In the present case, it
is seen that the petitioner is relying upon the document dated
18.02.2010, being a sale deed executed by Surender Singh Bhatia
and Jagjeet Singh in favour of Arjun Kochar, son of the petitioner,
qua the tenanted premises, through whom subsequently the
petitioner came to become the owner later through one Sunita, to
whom the son of the petitioner had sold the property first. In the
relinquishment deed, document dated 16.06.2008, however, it is
seen that it is explicitly mentioned that Surender Singh Bhatia had
already sold his share previously in favour of his uncle Avtar Singh
vide sale deed dated 09.06.2004 (mentioned at page no. 2 in the
said document dated 16.06.2008). If that be so, how and under
what circumstances could thereafter the same very person, i.e.
Surender Singh Bhatia, who had sold his share to Avtar Singh,
execute subsequently another document dated 18.02.2010, the sale
deed, to sell the tenanted premises along with Jagjeet Singh to the
son of the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has stated that
it is the modus operandi of the petitioner and his associates that one
after the other they enter into such sham transactions to defraud
unsuspecting buyers, with the ultimate objective of evicting tenants
therefrom. In view of the same, such contentions on part of the
respondent showing gaps in the above said document are indeed
grave ex facie . This is so since, if the said document itself is shown
to be improper, the subsequent obtaining of title/landlord-ship by
the petitioner also comes under a cloud, which is the case of the
respondent as well. In the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner,
where all sorts of arguments have been made on each of the
averments of the respondent, there is not even a whisper regarding
this at all and no cogent explanation has been offered in this behalf
to clear the air as it were. Considering the same, such a contention
on part of the respondent does muddy the waters with respect to the
claim of the petitioner as to him stepping into the shoes of the
owner/landlord subsequently. At the cost of repetition, it is
reiterated, as not being lost on the Court, that even defective title of
a landlord may not come in the way of him obtaining a favourable
eviction order in suitable circumstances of the kind where, say, rent
is being paid to a petitioner by the respondent notwithstanding any
objection to his capacity of being as such. The inherent logic of
such a scenario is not hard to postulate that a tenant/respondent
cannot be allowed to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds
and state that though he would pay rent to the landlord, he would
still not admit to his landlord-ship/ownership [or] object to his title.
The two arguments evidently would be self-destructive and not
conciliatory. The present case, however, presents a completely
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 12 of 23
different scenario. It is seen that here the tenant/respondent has not
only vehemently denied the landlord-tenant relationship, but has
also asserted that he never paid any rent to the petitioner either, him
not having ever become the rightful owner of the tenanted
premises. Instead, the tenant/respondent is seen to have stated that
after the death of Amrik Singh, he was survived by his wife and
was not a bachelor, as claimed by the petitioner. Further, it has
been stressed that in fact the petitioner had purchased a separate
property 1393, which was falsely sought to be represented as 1392
but was not so, leading to criminal cases and FIRs being registered
against the petitioner. Not only that, it is also alleged that the
petitioner, in cahoots with the officials at the SDM Office
concerned, got a rectification deed registered subsequently by
misleading the Court as well regarding the background facts and
obtaining a favourable order. That order is admittedly under
challenge vide separate suit proceedings pending with the appellate
court, where initially the petitioner was once directed not to deal
with the tenanted premises till disposal of the said proceedings. The
Hon’ble HC, however, though allowed the petitioner to carry on
with the present proceedings irrespective of the order of the
appellate court, but it is observed that the appeal proceedings
themselves were also allowed to continue, which assailed the
validity of the manner in which the rectification deed came to be
executed.
17.In fact, the precarious nature of the entire scheme of things is
further aggravated by the fact that even with regard to the area of
the tenanted premises, there is ambiguity as shown by the
respondent. It is averred that though in the proceedings undertaken
by the petitioner for rectification vis-à-vis the correct property no.,
he also proposed to get corrected the number of shops as being two
from one and the area of the tenanted premises, sought to be got
corrected to 29 sq. yds. from 29 and 1/3 sq. yds. It is stated that
though the property no. and the no. of shops indeed came to be
corrected by execution of the rectification deed, the area didn’t, and
the rectification deed, as corrected, also contained the original area
of 29 and 1/3 sq. yds. only, instead of the desired 29 sq. yds. This
in itself again raises more questions than answers in as far as there
being a disjunction in the path that the petitioner had set out for
himself and what he ultimately achieved by instituting proceedings
for rectification.
18.Given the sequence of events, therefore, and the nature of
claims taken by the respondent, the fact that he has pointed out
inaccuracies in the documents filed by the petitioner himself and
also assailed the rectification deed got executed by the petitioner by
filing formal proceedings in Court, this Court has enough material
on record which prima facie indicates that evidence is required to
be led for the purposes of establishing a proper landlord-tenant
relationship between the parties qua the tenanted premises, and it
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 13 of 23
cannot be simply presumed at this stage from the averments and
counter averments.
19.Even on the aspect of the requirement of the petitioner being
accompanied with bonafides, the case of the petitioner appears to
be on a rather weak wicket, so to say. Fair disclosure forms one
important part of showing bonafides. It is seen that though the
petitioner disclosed in the eviction petition that he had filed a suit
for recovery of possession previously against the respondent, which
came to be later dismissed on rejection of his plaint, primarily on
the ground of mismatch between the numbers of the property
purchased being 1393 as against the one sought to be vacated
herein bearing no. 1392, full disclosure that criminal proceedings
with regard to two separate FIRs, which were lodged against the
petitioner and were pending for the offences of cheating and
forgery, was not quite made. Even further, it is also observed that
in the said suit proceedings, the petitioner herein had claimed that
the respondent was a tenant liable to pay an amount far in excess of
what has been claimed subsequently vide the present petition, i.e.
miraculously now; upon rejection of the plaint previously, the
petitioner did a somersault and now claimed that the respondent is
liable to pay a rent of Rs. 200/- per month only, bringing its case
within the purview of the rent law. The reasoning offered for such a
turnaround was that the petitioner was given wrong legal advice.
Such reasoning does not convince the Court, since wrong legal
advice can pertain to availing the wrong remedy in a wrong
manner, but the buck with regard to factual
inaccuracies/manipulation with regard to the facts of a case, the
knowledge of which is directly attributable to the respective party
itself, stops with the petitioner only. It cannot be believed that the
petitioner, despite knowing fully well as to what amount of rent
was liable to be paid by the respondent, chose to state exactly a
different amount in the pleadings formally filed in a Court of law.
And very conveniently now, the petitioner has again made a u-turn
and stated another amount liable to be paid by the respondent as
rent, presumably to bring the present proceedings within the
jurisdiction of the Court. The entire conspectus of things appears
suspect. Either the petitioner was stating the truth previously or
now and, in any case, therefore, he has misled/is now misleading
the Court, both equally damning. In view of the same, opportunity
in this regard to come clean with the correct picture is required to
be afforded, for which the leave application of the respondent does
indeed merit favourable consideration for testing the claims of
either side properly during trial.
20.Individually and collectively, therefore, on account of the doubt
raised over the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, the
suspect nature of averments of the petitioner now and before being
in contradistinction with each other (specifically with regard to the
quantum of rent), outrightly concealing the factum of criminal
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 14 of 23
proceedings pending, showing lack of bonafides, and the inability
to explain deficiency in one’s own title documents, this Court is of
the view that a prima facie case has been established by the
respondent for allowing him opportunity to be given leave to
defend. The authorities relied upon by both the sides outline the
principles governing the circumstances under which an application
of the present kind may or may not be allowed. The facts of such
cases, however, work to the disadvantage of the petitioner when
tested against such principles and, as such, therefore, such
authorities do not come to his aide.
21.In view of the above, the application is allowed in above
mentioned terms”
37. A perusal of the Impugned Order reveals that the learned ARC
considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record.
The learned ARC first dealt with the objections concerning the bona
fide requirement of the Petitioner’s daughter-in-law and the
availability of alternative accommodation, and found no prima facie
ground to doubt the requirement pleaded in the Eviction Petition.
There is no challenge to that finding before this Court, and the same
does not, therefore, call for examination in the present proceedings.
38. The principal controversy which weighed with the learned ARC
concerned the existence of the landlord–tenant relationship between
the parties and the Petitioner’s entitlement to seek eviction from the
subject premises. The grounds urged on behalf of the Petitioner in this
regard are considered hereinafter.
39. The first contention of learned senior counsel for the Petitioner
is that the learned ARC exceeded the scope of proceedings under
Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act by undertaking an enquiry into the
validity of the Petitioner’s title documents. A perusal of the Impugned
Order, however, does not support this contention. The learned ARC
has expressly recognised, in paragraph no.16 thereof, that in
proceedings of the present nature, a landlord is not required to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 15 of 23
establish title in the same manner as in a civil suit for declaration of
ownership, but is required to demonstrate a better title vis-a-vis the
tenant.
40. The learned ARC has not returned any final finding on the
validity of the Petitioner’s title. Rather, the conclusion is that where
the tenant specifically disputes the landlord–tenant relationship and
points to inconsistencies in the very documents relied upon by the
landlord, the issue may warrant adjudication through evidence.
41. The distinction is material. While the summary procedure under
Section 25B of the DRC Act does not contemplate a full-fledged
adjudication of title, the requirement of establishing a landlord–tenant
relationship remains an essential ingredient of an eviction petition
under Section 14(1)(e). Where the denial of such relationship is
accompanied by specific objections founded upon the landlord’s own
documents, the learned ARC cannot be said to have exceeded its
jurisdiction merely by examining whether those objections disclose a
triable issue. This Court, therefore, finds no error in the approach
adopted by the learned ARC in this regard.
42. Learned senior counsel next contends that the learned ARC
proceeded on an incorrect factual premise in observing that the
Respondent had challenged the registered rectification deed by
initiating formal proceedings before a court of law. It is submitted that
the proceedings noticed in paragraph no. 18 of the Impugned Order
were instituted by one Om Prakash, in respect of another shop in the
same property, and not by the Respondent, who has not challenged the
rectification deed in the present proceedings.
43. It is noted that paragraph no. 18 of the Impugned Order does
record that the Respondent had “also assailed the rectification deed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 16 of 23
got executed by the petitioner by filing formal proceedings in Court”.
The Petitioner’s contention, in this regard, is that the proceedings
referred to by the learned ARC were distinct from the present eviction
proceedings. Even if the observation is understood in the manner
suggested by the Petitioner, this Court is unable to find that the same,
by itself, vitiates the Impugned Order.
44. The absence of an independent challenge to the rectification
deed by the Respondent in the present proceedings would not, by
itself, resolve the underlying dispute concerning the Petitioner’s claim
to the subject premises. The Respondent has independently questioned
the circumstances in which the rectification deed came to be executed,
as well as the particulars relating to the number of shops and the area
of the premises. These objections form part of the defence considered
by the learned ARC and are distinct from the question as to whether
the Respondent himself instituted separate proceedings challenging
the deed.
45. In any event, the conclusion reached by the learned ARC does
not rest solely upon the alleged challenge to the rectification deed. The
Impugned Order identifies other discrepancies in the chain of title and
in the documents relied upon by the Petitioner, which were considered
relevant to the question of whether the landlord–tenant relationship
could be presumed at the stage of leave to defend.
46. Consequently, even if the Petitioner’s objection to the particular
observation in paragraph no. 18 is accepted, it would not, by itself,
displace the other reasons recorded by the learned ARC for granting
leave to defend.
47. The next aspect concerns the discrepancy in the chain of title
documents relied upon by the Petitioner. The learned ARC has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 17 of 23
referred to the recital in the document dated 16.06.2008, recording
that Surender Singh Bhatia had previously transferred his share in
favour of Avtar Singh Bhatia through a sale deed dated 09.06.2004.
The learned ARC juxtaposed this recital with the subsequent sale deed
dated 18.02.2010 executed by Surender Singh Bhatia and Jagjeet
Singh Bhatia in favour of the Petitioner’s son, Arjun Kochar, and
observed that the apparent inconsistency had not been satisfactorily
explained in the Petitioner’s counter affidavit.
48. The Petitioner relies upon the subsequent rectification deed and
the other documents in the chain of transactions to establish his claim
to the subject premises. However, at the stage of considering leave to
defend, the question is not whether the Petitioner’s explanation will
ultimately succeed, but whether the discrepancy noticed by the learned
ARC is such as to warrant an opportunity to the Respondent to
establish his defence.
49. Accordingly, the inconsistency identified by the learned ARC
arises from the documents relied upon by the Petitioner himself and
concerns the manner in which the Petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest
is stated to have derived rights in the subject property. In these
circumstances, the learned ARC cannot be said to have acted beyond
its jurisdiction in considering the said discrepancy while assessing
whether a triable issue arose concerning the landlord–tenant
relationship.
50. Further, the Petitioner has also relied upon the order dated
25.10.2019 passed in the rectification proceedings and the registered
rectification deed dated 08.01.2020, contending that the discrepancy
in the municipal number stood duly corrected. The said documents are
undoubtedly relevant to the Petitioner’s case. However, the order
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 18 of 23
dated 25.10.2019 was passed in proceedings instituted by the
Petitioner against the erstwhile owners for rectification of the sale
deed. The effect of that order upon the objections raised by the
Respondent, who was not a party to those proceedings, cannot be
presumed to conclude every issue arising in the present eviction
petition.
51. The learned ARC has also noticed objections concerning the
area and number of shops described in the documents. The effect of
the rectification deed, when considered alongside these objections, is a
matter which must be assessed in the context of the material available
on record. This Court is not required, in the exercise of its revisional
jurisdiction, to return a final finding on the validity or effect of the
said documents.
52. It is further contended on behalf of the Petitioner that the
learned ARC failed to give due consideration to the rent receipts and
the Respondent’s earlier stand concerning the applicability of the
DRC Act and the quantum of rent payable. The Respondent’s case, as
recorded in the Impugned Order, is that he was originally a tenant
under Amrik Singh Bhatia and thereafter paid rent to Avtar Singh
Bhatia, but never paid rent to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, on the
other hand, relies upon the documentary record and the Respondent’s
earlier pleadings to support his claim.
53. The learned ARC has not overlooked the principle that a tenant
who has paid rent to a person may, in appropriate circumstances, be
precluded from subsequently disputing that person’s status as
landlord. The learned ARC has, however, distinguished the present
case on the ground that the Respondent disputes both the relationship
with the Petitioner and the payment of rent to him.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 19 of 23
54. In view of the specific denial and the accompanying objections
to the Petitioner’s documents, the evidentiary effect of the rent
receipts and the Respondent’s earlier stand cannot be determined in
isolation. These are matters which may be tested on the basis of the
evidence led by the parties. This Court, therefore, finds no ground to
interfere with the reasoning adopted by the learned ARC on this
aspect.
55. The learned ARC has also taken note of the discrepancy
between the quantum of rent claimed by the Petitioner in the earlier
civil proceedings and that pleaded in the present Eviction Petition.
The Impugned Order records that the Petitioner had earlier claimed a
substantially higher amount, whereas the present proceedings proceed
on the basis of rent of Rs. 200/- per month. The explanation offered by
the Petitioner, as recorded by the learned ARC, was that the earlier
proceedings had been instituted on incorrect legal advice. The learned
ARC did not find this explanation satisfactory and considered the
inconsistency relevant to the assessment of the Petitioner’s pleadings.
56. A variation in the quantum of rent pleaded in different
proceedings would not, by itself, necessarily warrant grant of leave to
defend. However, where the inconsistency relates to a material factual
assertion made in judicial proceedings, the learned ARC was entitled
to consider the explanation offered in determining whether the
Respondent had disclosed a defence requiring adjudication. The
sufficiency of the explanation and the effect of the earlier pleadings
are matters which may ultimately be assessed on evidence. At this
stage, this Court is not called upon to determine which of the rival
versions is correct.
57. With regard to the criminal proceedings arising out of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 20 of 23
allegations concerning the property transactions, the learned ARC has
referred to the Respondent’s contention that the relevant facts had not
been fully disclosed by the Petitioner. The mere registration of an FIR
or pendency of criminal proceedings cannot, by itself, establish that
the Petitioner’s claim to the premises is invalid or that the Eviction
Petition is mala fide . Their relevance must be assessed in the context
of the allegations and their connection with the documents relied upon
by the Petitioner.
58. In the present case, however, the learned ARC has considered
this aspect alongside the discrepancies in the title documents and the
inconsistency in the pleaded quantum of rent. The observations in the
Impugned Order must be understood in that context and cannot be
construed as a finding on the merits of the criminal allegations.
59. Learned senior counsel has also contended that, having found
the bona fide requirement of the Petitioner’s daughter-in-law to be
reasonable and the absence of suitable alternative accommodation to
be established, the learned ARC ought not to have granted leave to
defend. This submission proceeds on a conflation of distinct
ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The requirements of
the provision are conjunctive, and a prima facie finding in favour of
the landlord on the question of bona fide requirement and alternative
accommodation does not dispense with the requirement of
establishing the landlord–tenant relationship. If a bona fide triable
issue arises in respect of that essential ingredient, leave to defend may
be granted notwithstanding that the other ingredients have not been
found to be in dispute.
60. The Impugned Order, when read as a whole, demonstrates that
the learned ARC did not grant leave to defend merely on the basis of a
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 21 of 23
bald denial by the Respondent. The objections concerning the chain of
title, the discrepancy in the municipal numbers, the circumstances
surrounding the rectification deed, the denial of the landlord–tenant
relationship and the inconsistency in the pleaded quantum of rent have
been considered against the documents and pleadings relied upon by
the parties.
61. The learned ARC has furnished reasons for concluding that the
defence disclosed by the Respondent was not wholly sham or illusory
and that an opportunity to establish the same ought to be afforded.
62. The fact that the Petitioner relies upon registered documents
and maintains that the discrepancy in the municipal number stands
rectified does not, by itself, render the grant of leave to defend
unsustainable.
63. The question before this Court is not whether the Petitioner’s
explanation must ultimately prevail, but whether the learned ARC
committed an error warranting interference in holding that the
Respondent had raised triable issues. In the absence of a demonstrable
jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity or
perversity in the decision-making process, this Court would not be
justified in substituting its own assessment merely because the
Petitioner advances a different interpretation of the documents on
record.
64. It must also be emphasised that the grant of leave to defend
does not amount to a final determination of the parties’ rights. The
Respondent has been afforded an opportunity to establish the defence
disclosed in his application, while the Petitioner remains at liberty to
establish the case pleaded in the Eviction Petition.
65. The questions concerning the landlord-tenant relationship, the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 22 of 23
effect of the rectification proceedings and the evidentiary value of the
documents relied upon by the parties remain open for adjudication in
accordance with law before the learned ARC. Any conclusive
expression of opinion on these issues at this stage would be premature.
66. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
Impugned Order reflects due consideration of the rival pleadings, the
material placed on record and the principles governing the grant of
leave to defend under Section 25B of the DRC Act.
67. No error in the decision-making process has been demonstrated
which would warrant interference under the proviso to Section 25B(8)
of the DRC Act. The grounds urged by the Petitioner essentially seek
a reappreciation of the material and substitution of a different
conclusion, which is impermissible in the limited revisional
jurisdiction exercised by this Court.
CONCLUSION:
68. Accordingly, the present Petition, along with pending
Application(s), if any, stands dismissed.
69. It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to
the examination of the Impugned Order within the limited scope of
revisional jurisdiction and shall not be construed as an expression of
opinion on the final merits of the rival claims or defences.
70. The learned ARC shall adjudicate the Eviction Petition
uninfluenced by any observations made in the present Judgment.
71. No Order as to Costs.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 6, 2026/jk
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
17:40:23
RC.REV. 349/2024 Page 23 of 23