Manish S. Kumar & Anr. vs Sudhir Sapra
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010061122026
+ RC.REV. 52/2026, CM APPL. 11353/2026 (Stay) & CM
APPL. 11354/2026 (Ex. From filing certified copies of
annexures)
MANISH S. KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr.
Kunal Sachdeva, Ms. Mansi
Mehta & Ms. Eisha Jain,
Advocates.
versus
SUDHIR SAPRA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjiv Bahl, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Vikrant
Arora & Ms. Aastha Sapra,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Revision Petition, filed under Section 25-B(8) of
1
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , seeks setting-aside of the
2
Judgment dated 19.08.2025 , passed by the learned CCJ-cum-ARC
3
(Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Eviction Petition, being RC
ARC 466/2022, titled as “ Sh. Sudhir Sapra v. Sh. Manish S. Kumar &
Anr.” .
1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Judgement
3
Learned ARC
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 1 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
2. By way of the Impugned Judgement, the Application seeking
leave to defend filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed and,
consequently, an Eviction Order in favour of the Respondent with
respect of tenanted being, Shop No. XIII-5122, Harphool Singh
4
Building, Subzi Mandi, Clock Tower, Delhi-110007 came to be
passed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, at the
outset, submits that the challenge to the Impugned Judgment is
confined to two aspects. First, it is contended that the requirement
pleaded by the Respondent is not bona fid e. Second, it is contended
that the Respondent has reasonably suitable alternative
accommodation available to him and, therefore, the learned ARC
erred in declining leave to defend on this aspect.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, on the aspect of bona fide
requirement, submits that the requirement projected in the Eviction
Petition was founded upon the alleged need of the Respondent‟s
daughter for establishing an office for carrying on her legal practice. It
is submitted that, during the pendency of the present proceedings it
has come to the knowledge of the Petitioners that there has been a
subsequent development, inasmuch as the daughter of the Respondent
has since left India and has also relinquished her Indian citizenship.
Learned counsel submits that, in these circumstances, the very
foundation upon which the requirement was projected no longer
survives.
4
Subject premises
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 2 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
5. Learned counsel further submits that reasonably suitable
alternative accommodation is available immediately adjacent to the
Subject premises, being Shop No. 5123, Ground Floor, Harphool
5
Singh Building, Subzi Mandi, Clock Tower, Delhi-110007 . It is
submitted that the said shop is lying vacant, which is prima facie
borne out from the photographs as well as the electricity bills
reflecting zero consumption. Learned counsel for the Petitioners
submit that the aforesaid material, placed before the learned ARC, at
the very least, raises a serious triable issue with respect to the
availability of alternative accommodation, which the learned ARC
failed to appreciate in its proper perspective.
6. Per contra , learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent supports the Impugned Judgment in its entirety.
7. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent, controverting the
submission concerning the present status of the daughter of the
Respondent, submits that the same is an assertion made for the first
time across the Bar and is neither supported by any pleading nor by
any material forming part of the record. He submits that no such
ground was either urged before the learned ARC or taken in the
present Revision Petition. The said submission, therefore, cannot
furnish a basis for interference with the Impugned Judgment,
particularly in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction of this
Court.
8. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent submits that insofar
as the alleged availability of alternative accommodation is concerned,
the learned ARC has considered, in considerable detail, each of the
5
Adjacent Shop
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 3 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
properties relied upon by the Petitioners and has recorded cogent
reasons for concluding that none of them constitutes reasonably
suitable alternative accommodation for the requirement pleaded by the
Respondent.
9. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent submits that the
learned ARC has particularly dealt with the suitability of the Adjacent
Shop as a reasonable alternative accommodation and has correctly
held that the same is not in the exclusive ownership or possession of
the Respondent and is, in fact, co-owned with his brother, and
currently occupied by his brother.
10. It is submitted that the aforesaid finding being the correct
factual position, and having being accordingly dealt with by the
learned ARC, the said premises cannot be regarded as accommodation
available to the Respondent for the purpose of satisfying the
requirement pleaded in the Eviction Petition.
11. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent, therefore, submits
that the findings returned by the learned ARC are based on a proper
appreciation of the pleadings and material on record and neither suffer
from perversity nor disclose any material irregularity warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
ANALYSIS:
12. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties, and, with their able assistance, perused material available on
record, including the relevant documents as well as the Impugned
Order.
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 4 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
13. 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 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
14. 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 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is supervisory
and revisional in character and cannot be equated with the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.
15. 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
10
Grover .
16. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while
elucidating the legislative intendment underlying Section 25(B) of the
DRC Act, observed that the omission of an appellate remedy against
an Order passed by the learned Rent Controller is conscious and
deliberate. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is,
therefore, one of superintendence over the decision-making process,
including the legality and propriety thereof, and does not permit the
High Court to substitute its own view for that of the learned Rent
6
(1998) 8 SCC 119
7
(2014) 9 SCC 78
8
(2022) 6 SCC 30
9
2024:DHC:9322
10
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 5 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
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.”
17. In Pankaj Pahwa (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court,
upon considering the principles enunciated in Abid-Ul-Islam (supra),
reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under the
proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is limited in scope and that
this Court is not expected to substitute or supplant its view for that of
the learned ARC. 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.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the position which emerges
is that, while exercising jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25-
B(8) of the DRC Act, this Court is neither required nor permitted to
undertake a fresh appreciation of the material on record with a view to
arrive at an independent conclusion on the merits of the dispute.
Interference would be warranted only where the Impugned Order
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 6 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
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.
19. 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.
20. In order to appreciate the challenge raised by the Petitioners, it
would first be apposite to advert to the findings returned by the
learned ARC on the two aspects which arise for consideration in the
present Revision. The relevant observations are extracted herein
below:
“ 13. In the present petition, it is submitted that the demised
premises is bona fidely required by the petitioner for his daughter
namely Ms. Aastha Sapra to be used as her office as she is a
practising lawyer. It is submitted the demised premises is situated
in busy locality of Sabzi Mandi having heavy footfall, and is also in
vicinity of Tis Hazari Court, and thus it would be easy for Ms.
Aastha Sapra to commute to Court from her office and vice versa.
It is submitted that Ms. Aastha Sapra requires a reasonable space of
around 100 sq. ft. for her personal chamber, and also needs space
for her staff including clerk, peon etc, and additional space to keep
files and physical library as well as conference room. It is further
submitted that since the tenanted premises are on ground floor it
would be convenient for old, infirm and ill clients to visit the office
of Ms. Aastha Sapra. Further, that professional sign board and
visage of office would also be clearly visible from the main road
and would attract potential clients. Further, that daughter of
petitioner is dependent on petitioner for the purpose of commercial
space.
14. In these circumstances explained in the petition, though the
bona fide requirement is opposed by the respondents, this court is
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 7 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
of the opinion that if the petitioner requires the demised premises in
order to help his daughter establish her career as lawyer and earn
her livelihood, then such requirement cannot be said to be fanciful
or whimsical desire. It is well settled proposition of law that a
landlord can bring a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act for
the requirement of his/her children. It has been held in a catena of
judgments that it is considered a moral duty of parents to settle
their children, and as such, a petition filed by landlord for his/her
son or daughter is maintainable under Section 14 (1) (e) of DRC
Act. It was held in case of Labhu Lal v. Sandhya Gupta, 2011 (1)
RCR (Rent) 231 (Delhi) that “the children are very much
dependent on the landlord for the purpose of setting up their
business and such a requirement is bona fide.” Observations of the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Ravinder Singh v.
Deepesh Khorana , MANU/DE/6474/2012 , are equally relevant
wherein it was held that “[E]ven in the instant case, the son of the
respondent is unemployed and is dependent on respondent for his
livelihood. It is nothing but bona fide for the respondent to require
the suit shop to set up a computer business for his son and to help
him find a source of income and subsequently settle down in life.”
Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Sunder Singh Talwar
v. Kamal Chand Dugar, 2018 SCC Online Del 8376 , wherein it
was held that there can be no reason as to why the father would not
like to settle his daughter in business or profession in the same way
as he would like to settle his son. In view of the same, no mala fide
is found in the requirement of the demised premises by the
petitioner.
15. As already discussed, it is a settled law that court must presume
the bona fide requirement of the landlord and that the burden to
refute such presumption squarely lies on the tenant who is to
disclose such facts as would disentitle the landlord from obtaining
an eviction order. However, the respondents have not brought on
record any such „fact‟ as would refute the presumption of the
bonafide nature of the requirement disclosed by the petitioner.
There is nothing in the leave to defend application to show that the
requirement of the demised premises by the petitioner is not
bonafide, genuine, sincere or honest. As regards this criterion
therefore, respondents have not raised any triable issue.
16. Coming now to the third ingredient of availability of other
suitable alternate accommodation, it is to be noted that to entail
denial of the claim of the landlord, an alternate accommodation
must be reasonably suitable, in comparison with the suit
accommodation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Shiv Sarup
Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, AIR 1999 SC 2507 has held
. that for an eviction petition to fail on the ground of availability of
alternate suitable accommodation, the availability of another
accommodation shall be suitable as well as convenient in all
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 8 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
respects as the tenanted accommodation from which the landlord
seeks eviction of the tenant. 17. In the present application for leave
to defend, it is contended by the respondents that·the petitioner is in
possession of ground floor shop No. 5123, Harphool Singh
Building, Subzi Mandi, Delhi, and that the said shop is lying vacant
and is not occupied by his brother Sh. Pradeep Sapra. They have
relied upon photographs in support of this contention. Further,
alongwith the rejoinder they also filed copy of electricity bills of
the said shop showing Zero consumption of units to show that the
property is lying vacant. On the other hand, the petitioner has
averred in the petition as well as in reply to leave to defend
application that the said shop No. 5123 is occupied by his brother
Pradeep Sapra, who is co-owner of the said shop.
18. Though, the respondents have relied upon photographs in
support of their contention that the said shop is in possession of ·
the petitioner and is lying vacant, it is to be noted that these
photographs merely show a shutter down shop and cannot establish
that petitioner is in exclusive possession of the said shop. Further,
as far as the electricity bills is concerned since the same were filed
after filing of the Leave to defend application and no permission
was taken to bring the same on record, these cannot be considered
to decide the present application. Even if for a moment, these
electricity bills are considered, the same in fact goes against the
respondents as these bills reflect that the electricity connection qua
the said property No. 5123 is in the name of Pradeep Sapra i.e.
brother of the petitioner. Hence, the said electricity bills, even if
considered, supports the case of the petitioner that the said shop is
being used and occupied by another co-owner. Since the said shop
is being used/occupied by another co-owner, the petitioner cannot
be expected to compel such co-owner to vacate such shop and hand
over the exclusive possession of the same to the petitioner. Hence,
the said shop cannot be said to be as convenient in all respects as
the tenanted premises and thus, cannot be considered to be alternate
accommodation available to the petitioner. As such, as regards the
availability of the afore-mentioned property with the petitioner, no
triable issue arises.”
(Emphasis supplied)
21. A perusal of the Impugned Judgment shows that the learned
ARC has considered the claim of bona fide requirement as pleaded by
the Respondent, namely , the requirement of the Subject premises for
his daughter, Ms. Aastha Sapra, for establishing an office for carrying
on her legal practice. The learned ARC has also taken into
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 9 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
consideration the reasons furnished for seeking the ground-floor
premises, including its proximity to the Tis Hazari Courts,
accessibility to clients and visibility from the main road. Upon
consideration of the pleadings and material placed before it, the
learned ARC found no circumstance which would render the
requirement fanciful, whimsical or lacking in bona fides .
22. Learned counsel for the Petitioners, however, seeks to assail the
aforesaid finding on the basis of an alleged subsequent development,
namely , that the daughter of the Respondent has since left India and
relinquished her Indian citizenship. This submission cannot, in the
present proceedings, be given the effect sought to be attributed to it.
The alleged subsequent development neither formed part of the
proceedings before the learned ARC nor has any material in support
thereof been placed before this Court. More importantly, the
Petitioners seek to introduce a fresh factual circumstance at the
revisional stage for the purpose of displacing a finding which was
returned by the learned ARC on the basis of the pleadings and
material then before it. Apart from being a statement across the bar,
nothing has been placed on record, not even an averment to this effect.
23. In the absence of any such material forming part of the record,
this Court cannot proceed on the basis of an assertion made across the
Bar so as to hold that the requirement, which was found to be bona
fide by the learned ARC, has ceased to exist.
24. The scope of the present proceedings under Section 25-B(8) of
the Act, as discussed hereinbefore, does not permit this Court to
undertake such a fresh factual enquiry, particularly when the alleged
subsequent circumstance itself is disputed or unsupported by the
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 10 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
record.
25. The challenge with respect to alternative accommodation also
does not merit interference. The Petitioners had relied upon, inter alia ,
the Adjacent Shop, being Shop No. 5123, lying vacant and, therefore,
being available to the Respondent for satisfying the requirement
pleaded in the Eviction Petition.
26. The learned ARC has considered this objection in detail. The
Respondent had specifically pleaded that the Adjacent Shop was
occupied by his brother, Pradeep Sapra, who was also a co-owner
thereof. The photographs relied upon by the Petitioners were found by
the learned ARC to depict no more than a shuttered shop and,
therefore, not to establish the Respondent‟s exclusive possession
thereof. The learned ARC also declined to rely upon the electricity
bills subsequently filed with the rejoinder, inter alia , on the ground
that the same had been placed on record without obtaining permission.
Significantly, even those bills reflected the electricity connection in
the name of Pradeep Sapra, thereby lending support to the
Respondent‟s assertion regarding the co-owner‟s connection with the
premises.
27. The aforesaid reasoning cannot be said to suffer from any
infirmity warranting interference in revision. The mere fact that a
premises may be lying shuttered or may have negligible or nil
electricity consumption does not, by itself, establish that the premises
is in the exclusive possession of the landlord or is available to him for
satisfying the requirement pleaded in the Eviction Petition. The
learned ARC was required to examine not merely the physical status
of the premises but whether it constituted accommodation reasonably
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 11 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
available to the Respondent. Upon considering the material placed
before it, the learned ARC concluded that the Adjacent Shop, being
co-owned and occupied by the Respondent‟s brother, could not be
treated as reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available to
the Respondent.
28. Learned counsel for the Petitioners has essentially sought to
invite this Court to take a different view of the photographs and
electricity bills and to draw an inference contrary to that drawn by the
learned ARC. Such an exercise would necessarily entail re-
appreciation of the material on record and substitution of the factual
conclusion reached by the learned ARC with another possible
conclusion. The same is plainly outside the limited scope of revisional
jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Act.
29. It is also pertinent that the learned ARC has not proceeded
merely on the principle that the landlord is the best judge of his
requirement. The learned ARC has examined the specific objection
regarding the Adjacent Shop and has furnished reasons for concluding
that the said premises was not available to the Respondent in a manner
which could satisfy the requirement pleaded by him. The Petitioners
have not demonstrated that the said conclusion is perverse,
unsupported by the material on record, or otherwise suffers from any
jurisdictional or material error.
30. Thus, on both aspects urged before this Court, namely , the bona
fide requirement and the availability of reasonably suitable alternative
accommodation, the learned ARC has undertaken the requisite
examination of the pleadings and material placed before it and has
returned findings supported by reasons. No material has been shown
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 12 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06
which would warrant the conclusion that the learned ARC failed to
exercise the jurisdiction vested in it or adopted a decision-making
process suffering from any manifest illegality or material irregularity.
31. The subsequent assertion concerning the daughter of the
Respondent, as noticed hereinabove, cannot alter this position,
particularly when the same is unsupported by the record and would
require this Court to undertake a fresh factual enquiry. Likewise, the
challenge concerning the Adjacent Shop essentially seeks a re-
appreciation of the material already considered by the learned ARC.
DECISION :
32. This Court, therefore, finds no perversity, jurisdictional error,
material irregularity or error apparent on the face of the record in the
Impugned Judgment so as to warrant interference in exercise of the
revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Act.
33. Accordingly, the present Revision Petition, being devoid of merit,
is dismissed.
34. The present Revision Petition, along with all pending
Application(s), if any, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026/ v / DJ
Signature Not Verified
RC.REV. 52/2026 Page 13 of 13
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:07.09.2026
13:39:06