G.Selvi & Ors. vs Ramesh Chand Sharma

$~11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13.10.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010231222025
+ RC.REV. 138/2025, CM APPL. 24101/2025 (Stay), CM APPL.
24102/2025 (Ex.) & CM APPL. 24103/2025 (Ex. From filing
entire TCR record)

G.SELVI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rishabh Kapur and Ms.
Priyanshi Goel, Advocates.


versus

RAMESH CHAND SHARMA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. G.P. Sharma and Mr.
Kartikaiya Sharma, Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)

1. The present Rent Control Revision Petition has been filed under
Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking the
following reliefs:
“(i) Set aside the Impugned Judgment dated 26.11.2024 passed
by the Ld. ACJ-cum- CCJ- cum- ARC, South-West District,
Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in ‘Ramesh Chand Sharma v G. Selvi
& Ors., RC ARC 17/2023for the reasons stated hereinabove; and
(ii) pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the
present case.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 1 of 11

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner confines his
challenge to the judgment to the following:
I) Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as is
apparent from the legal notice dated 18.01.2023, the monthly
rent of the premises, which is stated to be the ground floor and
first floor, when taken collectively, exceeded the limit of Rs.
3,500/- as has been prescribed for the learned Rent
1
Controller to assume jurisdiction.
He submits that the bifurcation of the two floors was mala fide
and was only for the purpose of ensuring that the same does not
fall foul of the provisions of the DRC Act.
II) Secondly, he submits that the bona fide requirement of
the Petitioner is not made out since the bona fide requirement,
as stated in the eviction petition, encompasses both residential
and commercial need and such a mixing of the two stated
requirements cannot be done in an eviction petition.
III) He further submits that the Respondent has an alternate
accommodation, as he owns another property in Janakpuri. He
submits that this alternate accommodation is evident from the
affidavit that is filed in support of the eviction petition. He
submits that the stated premises situated at WZ-76, Possangi
Pur Village, Janak Puri, New Delhi–110058, comprises a four-
storey building and, therefore, constitutes sufficient and suitable
alternate accommodation, which has not been disclosed by the

1
Learned RC
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 2 of 11

Respondent herein.
3. Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the Respondents
submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the
learned RC.
4. It is further submitted that the grounds that are sought to be
raised before this Court pertaining to the jurisdiction of the learned
RC as well as the alternate suitable accommodation were never raised
in the application for leave to defend or the affidavit in support
thereof; therefore, he submits that these cannot be raised today as
grounds for challenging the impugned judgment. He further submits
that the challenge raised pertaining to the bona fide requirement is
identical to the one raised before the learned RC and the same has
been dealt with and suffers from no infirmity and therefore, the
Impugned Order does not merit any interference.
5. It is apposite to note herein that no further grounds were urged
by the parties and were only confined to the grounds recorded
hereinabove.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and, with
their able assistance, perused the material on record along with the
Impugned Judgement.
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 3 of 11

2
Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
3 4
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.
9. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
5
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
6
Grover .
10. 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.

2
(1998) 8 SCC 119
3
(2014) 9 SCC 78
4
(2022) 6 SCC 30
5
2024:DHC:9322
6
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 4 of 11

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.”

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 RC. 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 Judgment
suffers from a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material
irregularity or perversity, or where the conclusion arrived at by the
learned RC 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 5 of 11

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 by the learned counsel on behalf of the
Petitioner against the Impugned Order are required to be examined.
14. At the outset, this Court notes that the first contention advanced
on behalf of the Petitioner, premised on the legal notice dated
18.01.2023 and the alleged collective rent of ₹4,900/- in respect of the
ground floor and the first floor, does not find mention either in the
grounds pleaded in the present Revision Petition or in the application
for leave to defend or the affidavit filed in support thereof before the
learned RC. The Petitioner, therefore, seeks to assail the Impugned
Judgment on a ground which was neither pleaded in the present
proceedings nor urged before the learned Rent Controller at the
appropriate stage.
15. Insofar as the first contention, pertaining to the alleged
discrepancy between the rent stated in the legal notice dated
18.01.2023 and the manner in which the two floors of the subject
premises have been treated for the purposes of the eviction
proceedings, is concerned, this Court finds that no such objection was
raised before the learned Rent Controller in the application for leave to
defend. Neither is there a whisper about the same in the present
Revision Petition. In the absence of any such plea having been raised
at the appropriate stage, the Petitioner cannot seek to introduce the
same for the first time through oral submissions before this Court,
particularly when the contention involves an examination of the
factual circumstances surrounding the letting of the premises and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 6 of 11

institution of the eviction proceedings.
16. It is pertinent to note that Section 25B(4) of the DRC Act
contemplates the disclosure, by the tenant, of the facts on which the
tenant seeks to contest the eviction petition, through an application for
leave to defend supported by an affidavit. The statutory scheme,
therefore, requires the tenant to specifically disclose the grounds on
which the landlord's claim for eviction is sought to be contested. A
ground which was neither raised before the learned RC nor pleaded in
the present Revision Petition cannot ordinarily be permitted to be
introduced at the stage of oral arguments, particularly when its
consideration would entail an examination of factual issues that did
not form part of the controversy before the learned RC.
17. Now, turning to the second contention urged on behalf of the
Petitioner, concerning the alleged absence of bona fide requirement on
the ground that the premises were stated to be required for both
residential and commercial purposes, this Court deems it appropriate
to extract hereinbelow the reasoning rendered by the learned RC while
dealing with the challenge raised pertaining to the bona fide
requirement of the Respondent, which reads as under:
“Bonafide Requirement

44. The petitioner, a retired government employee, has asserted
that the premises are required for his own residence after his
superannuation. He currently does not have any suitable
accommodation where he can reside comfortably with his family.
The law recognizes that the retirement of a landlord often
necessitates the requirement of premises for personal use, as a
retired individual's income and lifestyle undergo significant
changes, making it imperative to utilize owned properties
optimally.

45. The petitioner has also emphasized that the premises are in a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 7 of 11

dilapidated condition, requiring urgent repairs and renovation. The
petitioner has substantiated this claim with photographic evidence
and communications with concerned authorities. The need to repair
and renovate the premises to make it habitable aligns with his
claim of bonafide requirement. A landlord is entitled to reside in a
premises that is safe, functional, and conducive to their needs, and
this entitlement strengthens the petitioner's case.

46. The petitioner has further submitted that he intends to use the
premises for starting a business in building raw materials to
augment his income post-retirement. It is well-settled law that a
landlord is entitled to seek eviction for premises required for
business purposes, provided that the requirement is bonafide. The
petitioner's claim in this regard appears genuine, as there is no
evidence suggesting any ulterior motive or pretext to evict the
respondents.

47. The petitioner has successfully demonstrated that the premises
are required for his bonafide use. His requirement is genuine,
immediate, and not tainted by malafide intent. The respondents
have failed to raise any triable issue that could negate the
petitioner's claim of bonafide requirement. Therefore, this court
finds that the petitioner's need for the premises is legally valid,
reasonable, and deserving of protection under Section 14(1)(e) of
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.”

18. A perusal of the reasoning recorded by the learned RC, as
extracted hereinabove, reveals that the requirement pleaded by the
Respondents was considered in the context of their post-retirement
residential needs, the dilapidated condition of the subject premises and
the stated intention to commence a business in building raw materials
to augment their income after retirement. The learned RC has returned
a finding that the requirement of the Respondents is genuine,
immediate and not actuated by any mala fide intention. The mere fact
that the landlord has disclosed more than one purpose for which the
premises are required does not, by itself, render the requirement bona
fide untenable. What is material is whether the requirement so pleaded
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 8 of 11

is genuine and whether the same has been considered by the learned
RC in accordance with law. In the present case, the Petitioner has not
demonstrated as to how the consideration of the residential and
commercial requirements by the learned RC suffers from any
jurisdictional error, manifest illegality or perversity. Neither has any
material been brought to the attention of this Court to establish that the
findings returned by the learned RC are contrary to the record or that
the stated requirement is merely a pretext to secure the eviction of the
Petitioner. In the absence of any such material, this Court cannot, in
the exercise of its limited revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to
Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, reappreciate the evidence or
substitute its own assessment of the Respondents’ requirement for that
of the learned RC merely because the Petitioner seeks to canvass a
different interpretation of the stated need. Accordingly, this Court
finds no infirmity in the findings returned by the learned RC on the
aspect of bona fide requirement warranting interference.
19. The third contention, pertaining to the alleged availability of
alternate accommodation at WZ-76, Possangi Pur Village, Janak Puri,
New Delhi–110058, is similarly not borne out by the grounds pleaded
in the present Revision Petition or by any objection raised before the
learned Rent Controller in the application for leave to defend. The
Petitioner seeks to rely upon the description of the aforesaid premises
as a four-storey building and contends that the same constitutes
suitable alternate accommodation. However, the said assertion, in
itself, does not establish that the premises are available to the
Respondents and are reasonably suitable for their alleged requirement.
More importantly, no such specific challenge was placed before the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 9 of 11

learned RC for consideration.
20. This Court is, therefore, not persuaded to undertake an inquiry
into the suitability or availability of the aforesaid premises at the
revisional stage. Such an exercise would necessarily require an
examination of factual matters which were not made the subject
matter of the proceedings before the learned RC and would be
contrary to the limited scope of scrutiny contemplated under Section
25B(8) of the DRC Act.
21. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also sought to contend
that the eviction proceedings were initially instituted on a consolidated
basis, whereafter the original petition was withdrawn and separate
petitions came to be instituted in respect of the two floors. In response,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that
the earlier petition was withdrawn on account of technical defects and
that the subsequent proceedings were instituted pursuant to the liberty
granted by the Court.
22. In this regard, this Court notes that the Petitioner has not
demonstrated that the aforesaid contention, similar to the others, was
raised before the learned RC or that any specific challenge founded on
this circumstance has been pleaded in the present Revision Petition. In
the absence of such a challenge, and without any material
demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record or an
infirmity in the decision-making process, this Court finds no occasion
to examine the factual circumstances surrounding the institution and
subsequent withdrawal of the earlier proceedings.
23. It bears reiteration that the revisional jurisdiction vested in this
Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is not an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 10 of 11

appellate jurisdiction permitting the parties to enlarge the scope of the
proceedings through oral submissions or to seek a fresh adjudication
of factual issues which were not placed before the learned Rent
Controller. The jurisdiction is intended to ensure that the decision-
making process is in accordance with law and does not suffer from
any patent illegality, jurisdictional infirmity or other error warranting
interference within the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
24. In the present case, the contentions advanced on behalf of the
Petitioner neither form part of the grounds pleaded in the present
Revision Petition nor were they raised before the learned RC in the
application for leave to defend. Further, no infirmity in the decision-
making process adopted by the learned RC has been demonstrated so
as to warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its limited
revisional jurisdiction. This Court, therefore, finds no merit in the
grounds sought to be urged on behalf of the Petitioner.
25. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition, along with all
pending applications, if any, stands dismissed.

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
OCTOBER 13, 2026/ v/va
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:HARVINDER
KAUR BHATIA
Signing Date:21.10.2026
15:04:30
RC.REV. 138/2025 Page 11 of 11