Pinki Gupta vs Geeta Rastogi & Ors.

$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 24.08.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010398992026
+ RC.REV. 304/2026, CM APPL. 57414/2026 (Stay) & CM
APPL. 57415/2026 (Ex.)

PINKI GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Appearance not given.

versus

GEETA RASTOGI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Nemo

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Rent Control Revision Petition, under Section 25-B
1
(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , seeks the setting aside of
2
the Judgment dated 09.06.2026 passed by the learned Senior Civil
3
Judge-cum-Rent Controller, District Shahdara, Delhi in Eviction
Petition being RC ARC No.71/2023 whereby the leave to defend
application preferred by the Petitioner herein has been dismissed and
she has been directed to evict the tenanted premises.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would seek to challenge the
Impugned Judgement limited to the following grounds.
3. Firstly, learned counsel for the Petitioner would raise a

1
DRC Act
2
Impugned Judgement
3
Learned RC
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 1 of 15

challenge to the Impugned Judgement on the ground that the learned
RC has erred in holding that the subject premises was needed by the
Respondents for bona fide requirement. It would be submitted that the
Respondents herein had not gone before the learned RC with clean
hands and the bona fide requirement so claimed was only to evict the
Petitioner herein and to rent out the subject premises to another tenant
for a higher price.
4. On the ground of bona fide requirement, it would also be
submitted that it was the claim of the Respondents that the subject
premises was required for the beneficiaries for them to start a
Gymnasium-cum-Fitness Centre for their livelihood, whereas the said
beneficiaries were neither unemployed nor dependant on the
Respondents.
5. Secondly, it would be submitted by the learned counsel for the
Petitioner that the Respondents had also vacated other shops owned by
them on similar grounds of bona fide requirement and then left them
unused or started using them for some other reason than what was
actually stated, which shows that the Respondents never had a bona
fide requirement and only wanted the subject premises vacated so as to
rent it out to another tenant for a higher rent.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION:
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and,
with her able assistance, perused the material available on record.
7. Before proceeding to examine the grounds of challenge urged
on behalf of the Petitioner, it would be apposite to advert to the scope
and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court under the
proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.
8. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 2 of 15

Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in S arla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
4
Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
5 6
Singh , and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua , has
consistently held that thejurisdiction exercised by the High Court
under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is supervisory
and revisional in character and cannot be equated with the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction.
9. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
7
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
8
Grover .
10. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, while
elucidating the legislative intendment underlying Section 25B of the
DRC Act, observed that the omission of an appellate remedy against
an Order passed by the learned Rent Controller is conscious and
deliberate. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is,
therefore, one of superintendence over the decision-making process,
including the legality and propriety thereof, and does not permit the
High Court to substitute its own view for that of the learned Rent
Controller merely because another view on the material available on
record may be possible. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court read as under:
“ 23. The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive
power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller,
being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the
decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance.

4
(1998) 8 SCC 119
5
(2014) 9 SCC 78
6
(2022) 6 SCC 30
7
2024:DHC:9322
8
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 3 of 15

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 ARC. The revisional scrutiny is confined to examining the
decision-making process and determining whether the Impugned
Order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or an
absence of adjudication warranting interference.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the position which emerges
is that, while exercising jurisdiction under the proviso to Section
25B(8) of the DRC Act, this Court is neither required nor permitted to
undertake a fresh appreciation of the material on record with a view to
arrive at an independent conclusion on the merits of the dispute.
Interference would be warranted only where the Impugned Order
suffers from a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material
irregularity or perversity, or where the conclusion arrived at by the
learned 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
error apparent on the face of the record, exercise of revisional
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 4 of 15

jurisdiction may be warranted.
13. It is within the aforesaid limited parameters of revisional
scrutiny that the grounds urged on behalf of the Petitioner against the
Impugned Order are required to be examined.
14. At this outset, this Court is of the view that the learned counsel
for the Petitioner seeks to impugn the Judgment passed by the learned
RC verbatim on the very same grounds as were raised before the
learned RC.
15. This Court also takes note of the fact that all these issues have
already been dealt with by the learned RC. What is essentially sought
is a re-appreciation of the entire evidence. This Court, in exercise of
its revisional jurisdiction, cannot undertake a re-appreciation of the
evidence
16. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the reasoning rendered
by the learned RC is reproduced hereunder:
“35) In respect of the bonafide requirement of the petitioners, they
have pleaded that the tenanted premises is required by them for
three grandsons of petitioner no. l namely Sh. Nikunj Rastogi, Sh.
Nimish Rastogi and Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi alongwith son of
petitioner no.2 namely Sh. Nitin Rastogi and son of petitioner no.4
namely Sh. Rachit Rastogi. Petitioners have categorically pleaded
in their petition itself that Sh.Nikunj Rastogi, Sh. Nimish Rastogi
and Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi are unemployed and are completely
dependent upon the petitioner no. 1. They have further disclosed in
the petition itself that Sh. Nitin Rastogi is already running his
business of selling disposable items in shop no.2. Thus, it is not the
case of the petitioners that Sh. Nitin Rastogi and Sh. Rachit
Rastogi are also completely dependent upon the petitioners for the
aforesaid projected need. It has been contended by ld. counsel for
the petitioners during the course of arguments that Sh. Nikunj
Rastogi, Sh. Nimish Rastogi and Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi intend to
open a Gymnasium-cum-Fitness Centre alongwith Sh. Nitin
Rastogi and Sh.-Rachit Rastogi and accordingly the said fact has
been pleaded in the petition itself. Now, the respondent has alleged
that since Sh. Nitin Rastogi and Sh. Rachit Rastogi are not
dependent upon the petitioners, therefore, the present petition is not
maintainable. In this regard, this court is of the view that although
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 5 of 15

Sh. Nikin Rastogi and Sh. Rachit Rastogi are already earning
income, this does not in itself disentitle them from opening a
gymnasium-cum-fitness centre, alongwith Sh. Nikunj, Sh. Nimish
and Sh. Vaibhav. The tenanted premises are primarily required for
the bonafide need of Sh. Nikunj Rastogi, Nimish Rastogi and
Vaibhav Rastogi who are also the members of the same
family/extended family as that of Sh. Nitin Rastogi and Sh. Rachit
Rastogi. Thus, there is no bar if they together want to open a
venture for becoming independent. Further, the petitioners cannot
be forced to look for some other property for the said purpose
either on rent or by way of purchase when they already have their
own property which would meet their projected requirement.
36) It is further alleged by the respondent that Sh. Nikunj Rastogi
is already running a business under the name and style of 'Vaibhav
Properties' in shop no.6, however, the respondent has not led into
evidence any document such as GST details or form 32 details of
the said 'Vaibhav Properties' so as to prove that Sh. Nikunj Rastogi
is the proprietor or a partner or a director thereof. Similarly, RWl
has alleged that the grandsons of petitioner no.1 have started their
business of eatery in the name of 'café Gainz" in shop no.4 and 5 in
the property bearing no.E-4/10 and he has also led into evidence
photographs Ex.RWl/4 in this regard, however, again, no such
document of proprietorship, partnership or directorship has been
led into evidence by RWl to prove that the said three grandsons of
petitioner no. 1 are the owners of the said „Café Gainz‟ which is
being run in the shop no. 4 and 5. Upon the perusal of the
photographs Ex.RW1/A, it is revealed that although a flex board of
„Café Gainz‟ is visible therein but neither the name nor the details
of the said three grandsons of petitioner no. 1 are reflected therein.
Even the address of the said shop is not reflected in the flex board
of the 'Cafe Gainz". Thus, merely from the photographs Ex.RW1/4,
it cannot be concluded that the grandsons of petitioner no. 1 have
opened the said 'Cafe Gainz". It has been held in the case of
Hasmat Rai (supra) that "this requirement must continue
throughout the progress of the litigation and must exist on the date
of decree and when we say decree we mean the decree of the Final
Court. Any other view would defeat the beneficial provision of a
welfare legislation like the Rent Restriction Act." However, in the
given facts and circumstances of this case, this court is of the view
that since the respondent has failed to prove that grandsons of
petitioner no. 1 have opened their own cafe, therefore, she has
failed to prove that the projected need of the petitioners does not
exist anymore. As such, this court is of the view that the aforecited
decision is not applicable upon the facts and circumstances of the
present matter.
37) Further, the respondent has alleged that Sh. Nimish Rastogi is
doing his own business of stock market trading whereas Sh.
Vaibhav Rastogi is engaged in the business of real estate alongwith
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 6 of 15

his father Sh. Ajay Rastogi. In this regard, PW1 has duly stated in
his cross-examination that Sh. Nimish Rastogi is doing a part time
job of trading in stock market from his home itself, whereas he has
denied that Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi is running the business of real
estate alongwith his father Sh. Ajay Rastogi in Noida. Thus, it has
come on record that Sh. Nimish Rastogi is not doing any full time
job and it has also come on record that Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi is not
assisting his father in the business of real estate as alleged by the
respondent. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the
respondent to lead into evidence any record or document to prove
that Sh. Nimish Rastogi is engaged in a full time job and that Sh.
Vaibhav Rastogi is in fact running the business of his father and is
earning a handsome income from there. However, the respondent
has failed to lead any such evidence so as to rebut the case of the
petitioners. PW 1 has stated in his cross-examination that it is Sh.
Nikunj Rastogi who sits at the shop of Sh. Ajay Rastogi. Be that as
it may, even if it is believed that Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi or Sh. Nikunj
Rastogi are assisting Sh. Ajay Rastogi in his business even then it
is evident that Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi and Sh. Nikunj Rastogi are not
doing any independent business of their own. And now, if they
intend to open their joint venture then they are very much entitled
to do the same and the respondent being a tenant does not have any
right to dictate the petitioners that their aforesaid grandsons and
sons cannot open any such joint venture and that they will have to
continue to sit idle or to continue to assist their parents in their
business. It has been held in the case of Inderjeet Kaur (supra) that
"when possession is sought on the ground of personal requirement,
an absolute need is not to be satisfied but a mere desire equally is
not sufficient. It has to be something more than a mere desire
equally is not sufficient. It has to be something more than a mere
desire. And being an enabling provision, the burden is on the
landlord to establish his case affirmatively." In the present matter,
as already stated hereinabove, nothing has come on record to
suggest that Sh. Nikunj, Sh. Nimish and Sh. Vaibhav are already
earning a handsome income, therefore, there is no requirement for
them to open a Gymnasium-cumfitness centre. Similarly, it has
also not come on record that the aforesaid persons own any other
commercial property in their own names so as to say that they are
not entitled for seeking eviction of the respondent qua the tenanted
premises. As such this Court is of the view that the facts and
circumstances of the aforesaid decision are also not applicable
upon the present matter.
38) The respondent has further pleaded that the petitioners have not
pleaded the dependency of Sh. Nikunj Rastogi, Sh. Nimish Rastogi
and Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi upon petitioners no. 2 to 4 and similarly
that petitioners no.1,2 and 4 have not pleaded their dependency
upon petitioner no.3, therefore, petitioner no.1, petitioner no.2 and
petitioner no.4 cannot claim the share of petitioner no.3. In this
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 7 of 15

regard this court is of the view that the petitioners no.1,2 and 4
have not claimed the share of petitioner no.3. During the course of
arguments it has been duly clarified by ld. counsel for petitioners
that petitioner no.3 has been impleaded as a party merely because
he is also one of the co-sharers and he has no objection if the entire
ground floor of the property no.E-4/10 is utilized for the purpose of
opening a gymnasium-cum-fitenss centre by the aforesaid
beneficiaries. It is a settled position of law that every co-sharer is
the owner of each and every inch of the co-owned property,
therefore, even if petitioner no.3 would not have filed the present
petition even then the same would have been maintainable and now
when all the co-sharers of the tenanted premises have come
forward to seek possession of the tenanted premises specifically for
the bonafide requirement of Sh. Nikunj Rastogi, Sh. Nimish
Rastogi and Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi alongwith Sh. Nitin Rastogi and
Rachit Rastogoi, therefore, it was not required to specifically plead
that the aforesaid grandsons of petitioner no.1 are dependent upon
petitioner no.2 to 4 as well or that petitioner no.1, petitioner no.2
and petitioner no.4 are also dependent upon petitioner no.3. Thus,
considering the aforesaid facts and circumstanes this court is of the
view that as far as as the bonafide requirement of the petitioners is
concerned then the same has been duly proved by the petitioners in
the present, matter.
39) Coming to the availability of alternate suitable accommodation
with the petitioners, then it is their case that there are 9 shops on
the ground floor out of which shop no.1,3,5,6 and 7 are with the
respective tenants whereas shop no.2, 4, 8 & 9 are already with the
petitioners. That shop no.2 is with Sh. Nitin Rastogi, shop no.4 is
with Sh. Ajay Rastogi whereas the shops no.8 and 9 are lying
vacant. Admittedly, the shops no.5,6 and 7 have also been vacated
by the respective tenants during the pendency of the present
petition and it is, thus, contended by the respondent that the said
shops are also available with the petitioners now. In this regard, the
petitioners have duly disclosed in their petition itself that they
require the entire ground floor of the property no.E-4/10 for their
projected need for which they also require the other tenanted shops
and for which they have already filed other eviction petitions
against the respective tenants. Thus, even if shops no.5,6 and 7
have been vacated during the pendency of the present petition the
same cannot be said to be an alternate accommodation for the
petitioners since the said shops alongwith the tenanted premises are
required by the petitioners for their projected need.”
(emphasis supplied)

17. Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to assail the Impugned
Judgment substantially on the same grounds which were urged before
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 8 of 15

the learned RC. The principal contention is that the Respondents do
not, in fact, require the subject premises bona fide and that the
projected requirement of establishing a Gymnasium-cum-Fitness
Centre for the benefit of their family members is merely a ruse to
secure eviction of the Petitioner and thereafter let out the premises at a
higher rent. It is further contended that the beneficiaries of the
projected requirement are already engaged in various
occupations/business activities and that the Respondents have
sufficient alternate accommodation available with them.
18. At the outset, this Court finds that none of the aforesaid
contentions discloses any jurisdictional error, perversity or material
irregularity in the approach adopted by the learned RC. The learned
RC has considered each of these objections in detail and has returned
findings on the basis of the pleadings and evidence available before it.
The mere fact that the Petitioner seeks to place a different
interpretation upon the evidence, or that another view may
conceivably be taken therefrom, cannot furnish a ground for
interference in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction under the
proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
19. As regards the challenge to the bona fide requirement, the
learned RC has specifically considered the contention that the
projected beneficiaries were already earning their livelihood and,
therefore, did not require the subject premises. Upon appreciation of
the evidence, the learned RC found that Sh. Nikunj Rastogi, Sh.
Nimish Rastogi and Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi, for whose benefit the
requirement was primarily projected, were not shown to be carrying
on any independent business or employment which would disentitle
them from commencing a new venture. The learned RC further noted
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 9 of 15

that the alleged involvement of Sh. Nimish Rastogi in stock-market
trading was only on a part-time basis and from his residence, while the
alleged involvement of Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi in the business of his
father was not substantiated by any independent evidence. These
findings are based upon the evidence led before the learned RC and
cannot be said to suffer from any perversity.
20. It is equally well settled that a landlord cannot be compelled to
establish that the proposed business constitutes the only means of
livelihood available to the person for whose benefit the premises are
sought. The fact that a member of the family may already be earning
some income or may be assisting in an existing family business does
not, by itself, extinguish a bona fide desire to establish an independent
venture. The learned RC, therefore, cannot be faulted for holding that
the proposed Gymnasium-cum-Fitness Centre could constitute a
genuine and legitimate requirement, particularly when the Petitioner
failed to place on record material demonstrating that the projected
beneficiaries were already carrying on an independent business of
such nature or magnitude as would render the projected requirement
inherently improbable.
21. The contention that the Respondents have approached the Court
without clean hands and intend to re-let the premises at a higher rent is
also devoid of merit. The allegation, being one of fact, was required to
be substantiated by cogent material. The learned RC has considered
the evidence led by the Petitioner and has found no material
establishing that the projected requirement is a mere pretext for re-
letting the premises. In the absence of any such material, a mere
allegation of an ulterior motive cannot constitute a triable issue
warranting leave to defend, much less justify interference with the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 10 of 15

final finding returned by the learned RC.
22. The Petitioner has further relied upon the alleged availability of
other shops in the same property. This contention, too, has been
specifically considered by the learned RC. It has been recorded that
shops bearing Nos. 8 and 9 were already lying vacant and that shops
bearing Nos. 5, 6 and 7 had also fallen vacant during the pendency of
the proceedings. However, the Respondents had, from the inception,
pleaded that their requirement was not confined to the subject
premises alone but extended to the entire ground floor of property
bearing No. E-4/10 for establishing the proposed Gymnasium-cum-
Fitness Centre, and that eviction proceedings had already been
initiated against the other tenants occupying the remaining shops.
23. In this regard, the mere availability of some other premises
cannot, in the facts of the present case, ipso facto establish the
existence of suitable alternate accommodation. The question is not
merely whether some physical space is available with the landlord, but
whether such accommodation is reasonably suitable for the
requirement projected by the landlord. The learned RC has returned a
categorical finding that the other shops form part of the larger
premises required for the proposed venture and that their availability,
therefore, cannot be treated as an alternative which would negate the
Respondents' requirement. No perversity or manifest error in this
finding has been demonstrated before this Court.
24. It is also significant that the alleged vacation of shops bearing
Nos. 5, 6 and 7 occurred during the pendency of the eviction
proceedings. The learned RC has not ignored this circumstance;
rather, it has expressly taken note thereof and examined whether such
subsequently vacated premises could constitute alternate suitable
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 11 of 15

accommodation. Having regard to the Respondents' consistent case
that the entire ground floor is required for the proposed venture, the
conclusion that such premises could not, by themselves, defeat the
bona fide requirement cannot be characterised as unreasonable or
perverse.
25. The reliance placed by the Petitioner upon the alleged conduct
of the Respondents in respect of other shops is equally insufficient to
warrant interference. The Petitioner has sought to contend that the
Respondents had earlier secured vacation of other premises on the
ground of bona fide requirement but thereafter either kept those
premises unused or utilised them for purposes different from those
originally projected. However, the learned RC has considered the
material placed before it and the Petitioner has not demonstrated any
finding in the Impugned Judgment which ignores a material piece of
evidence or proceeds on an erroneous legal premise. In any event, an
allegation that the Respondents had acted otherwise in respect of other
premises cannot, without cogent evidence establishing a deliberate
pattern of false projection, lead to the conclusion that the present
requirement is not bona fide .
26. This Court is also unable to accept the submission that the mere
fact that certain beneficiaries are earning some income or are
associated with an existing family business renders the proposed
requirement not bona fide . The law does not require a landlord or the
family member for whose benefit the premises are sought to establish
that he is entirely without any source of income before seeking
possession for commencing or expanding a business. What is required
is a genuine requirement, as distinguished from a mere fanciful desire.
The learned RC, after considering the material on record, has found
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 12 of 15

the requirement to be genuine. Such a factual determination, in the
absence of perversity or an error apparent on the face of the record,
falls outside the permissible scope of revisional interference.
27. It is further material that the learned RC has examined the
alleged businesses of „Vaibhav Properties‟ and „Café Gainz‟ relied
upon by the Petitioner and has found that the Petitioner failed to
produce any documentary evidence establishing that the projected
beneficiaries were the proprietors, partners or directors thereof.
Similarly, the allegations regarding the involvement of Sh. Nimish
Rastogi in stock-market trading and Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi in the
business of Sh. Ajay Rastogi were also considered on the basis of the
evidence led before the learned RC. The learned RC has consequently
returned findings that the Petitioner failed to establish that the said
beneficiaries were already engaged in independent businesses which
would negate the projected requirement. These are findings of fact
which cannot be reopened in the present proceedings merely because
the Petitioner seeks a different assessment of the evidence.
28. The challenge founded upon the status of Sh. Nitin Rastogi and
Sh. Rachit Rastogi also does not advance the case of the Petitioner.
The learned RC has noticed that the Respondents had primarily
projected the requirement for Sh. Nikunj Rastogi, Sh. Nimish Rastogi
and Sh. Vaibhav Rastogi and had stated that the proposed venture was
to be undertaken jointly with Sh. Nitin Rastogi and Sh. Rachit
Rastogi. The fact that the latter two may themselves be earning or
carrying on some activity does not render the requirement of the other
beneficiaries non-existent. A family venture may legitimately
comprise members who have different existing sources of income or
occupations. The finding of the learned RC that the proposed joint
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 13 of 15

venture cannot be defeated merely because some of its proposed
participants are already earning income does not suffer from any
infirmity warranting revisional interference.
29. The submission regarding the impleadment of Petitioner No. 3
and the alleged absence of pleadings regarding dependency upon the
other co-sharers has also been adequately dealt with by the learned
RC. The learned RC has recorded that Petitioner No. 3 was impleaded
as a co-sharer and had no objection to the entire ground floor being
utilised for the projected requirement. It has further been held that the
Respondents were not seeking to claim the share of Petitioner No. 3
but were seeking possession of the tenanted premises for the pleaded
requirement of the beneficiaries. No legal infirmity in this finding has
been demonstrated before this Court.
30. It is thus evident that the learned RC has not mechanically
accepted the case of the Respondents. On the contrary, the objections
raised by the Petitioner regarding the employment/business activities
of the beneficiaries, the alleged availability of alternate
accommodation, the alleged business establishments in other shops,
the subsequent vacation of certain shops and the status of the co-
sharers have all been specifically considered. The findings returned by
the learned RC are supported by the material which was before it. The
Petitioner, in substance, seeks this Court to reassess that material and
arrive at a conclusion different from that reached by the learned RC.
Such an exercise is plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction under
Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.
31. This Court is conscious that the revisional jurisdiction under the
proviso to Section 25-B(8) is not an appellate jurisdiction and that the
Court is not required to undertake a fresh examination of the evidence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 14 of 15

merely to ascertain whether a different conclusion could have been
reached. Unless the finding of the learned RC is shown to be so
unreasonable that no judicial forum could have arrived at it on the
material available, or is vitiated by a manifest illegality, jurisdictional
error or perversity, interference would not be justified. No such
infirmity has been established in the present case.
32. The Petitioner has, therefore, failed to demonstrate any error
apparent on the face of the record or any material irregularity in the
decision-making process adopted by the learned RC. The Impugned
Judgment reflects due consideration of the rival pleadings, the
evidence led by the parties and the objections raised by the Petitioner.
The conclusions reached therein are neither perverse nor contrary to
law so as to warrant exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction of
this Court.
33. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the present Petition.
The Impugned Judgment dated 09.06.2026 passed by the learned
Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, District Shahdara, Delhi, in
RC ARC No.71/2023 does not warrant any interference. The present
Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
34. The present Petition, along with pending application(s) if any,
stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 24, 2026/rk/va


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:29.08.2026
16:10:43
RC.REV. 304/2026 Page 15 of 15