Sh. Jagdish Kumar Rajput (Deceased) Through His Lr. Mrs. Rama Rajput vs Khandelwal Jain Society And Others

$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.09.2026
# CNR No. DLHC011024552025
+ RC.REV. 401/2025, CM APPL. 79448/2025 (Stay), CM APPL.
79450/2025 (Seeking leave to challenge the order dt.
14.08.2025), CM APPL. 43672/2026 (For urgent hearing and
stay of the Execution Proceeding pending before Ld. Senior
Civil Judge), CM APPL. 59557/2026 (For placing an additional
document on record by Petitioner) & CM APPL. 59567/2026
(Delay of 34 days in filing the reply to the cm no. 43672/2026)

SH. JAGDISH KUMAR RAJPUT (DECEASED) THROUGH
HIS LR. MRS. RAMA RAJPUT .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arjun Pant and Ms.
Nimisha Menon, Advocates.

versus

KHANDELWAL JAIN SOCIETY AND OTHERS
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Ms. Kavita
Sharma and Mr. Suvan Sharma,
Advocates for Respondent No.
1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR

% JUDGEMENT (Oral)
1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 25-B (1) of
1
the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 , seeking to set aside the Order
dated 14.08.2025 with Eviction Order dated 30.08.2025 passed by the
Court of Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Rent Controller, New Delhi

1
DRC Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
11:29:56
RC.REV. 401/2025 Page 1 of 10

2 3
District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi , in RC ARC No. 39/19
whereby the learned RC dismissed the Application for leave to defend
and allowed the Eviction Petition of the Respondent No. 1.
2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner, in terms of the statement made before this Court on
17.12.2025, fairly submits that the challenge to the Order dated
14.08.2025 is not being pressed in the present Petition and the
Petitioner shall avail of the appropriate remedy as available in law.
Accordingly, the challenge in the present Petition is confined to the
4
Eviction Order dated 30.08.2025 .
3. Mr. Arjun Pant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Petitioner, limits his challenge to the Impugned Order on the
following grounds.
4. Firstly , he submits that the learned RC did not have jurisdiction
to adjudicate the issues arising in the present proceedings, since the
5
Respondent is a lessee under the Government Grants Act, 1895 and
the lease in question was entered into between the Respondent and the
Government of India on 15.01.1922. He, however, candidly admits
that this objection was not raised before the learned RC.
5. In support of the aforesaid submission, he seeks to rely upon the
lease deed dated 15.01.1992, which is sought to be placed on record
vide CM APPL. 59557/2026.
6. He further relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
6
Court in Union of India v. Sir Sobha Singh to submit that properties
governed by the GG Act would stand excluded from the operation of

2
learned RC
3
Eviction Petition
4
Impugned Order
5
GG Act
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
11:29:56
RC.REV. 401/2025 Page 2 of 10

the DRC Act and, consequently, from the jurisdiction of the learned
RC.
7. He submits that the aforesaid issue is, in fact, the “elephant in
the room” , as the same goes to the very jurisdiction of the learned RC
to entertain and adjudicate the Eviction Petition. He, therefore,
submits that unless the applicability of the DRC Act to the premises in
question is determined, the Eviction Order could not have been passed
by the learned RC.
8. Secondly , he submits that the Petitioner had, in any event,
brought to the notice of the learned RC that sufficient suitable
accommodation, as well as vacant land, was available to the
Respondent and could be utilised for the bona fide requirement
pleaded by the Respondent.
9. Per contra , learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent
No.1 submits that the objection regarding the applicability of the GG
Act and the consequent lack of jurisdiction of the learned RC has been
raised for the first time before this Court.
10. He submits that, having regard to the limited jurisdiction
statutorily conferred upon this Court under Section 25-B(8) of the
DRC Act, this Court cannot ordinarily take cognizance of fresh facts
which were neither pleaded nor urged before the learned RC.
11. He further submits that the issue regarding the availability of
alternate suitable accommodation and vacant land was duly
considered by the learned RC and that no ground for interference is
made out in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction of this
Court.
12. He, therefore, submits that the Impugned Order does not

6
2026 SCC OnLine SC 658
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
11:29:56
RC.REV. 401/2025 Page 3 of 10

warrant any interference and that the present Petition deserves to be
dismissed.
13. This Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties and, with their able assistance, has perused the material on
record, including the Impugned Order and considered the judgment
handed over across the Bar.
14. 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.
15. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance
7
Co. Ltd. , Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar
8 9
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.
16. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied
upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia , in Pankaj
10
Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. , and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny
11
Grover .
17. 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

7
(1998) 8 SCC 119
8
(2014) 9 SCC 78
9
(2022) 6 SCC 30
10
2024:DHC:9322
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
11:29:56
RC.REV. 401/2025 Page 4 of 10

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.”

18. 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.

11
2025:DHC:11285
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
11:29:56
RC.REV. 401/2025 Page 5 of 10

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the position which emerges
is that, while exercising jurisdiction under the proviso to Section
25B(8) of the DRC Act, this Court is neither required nor permitted to
undertake a fresh appreciation of the material on record with a view to
arrive at an independent conclusion on the merits of the dispute.
Interference would be warranted only where the Impugned Judgment
suffers from a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material
irregularity or perversity, or where the conclusion arrived at by the
learned ARC is wholly unreasonable or founded upon an erroneous
premise of law. Equally, where a material plea has been left
unconsidered, or the decision-making process otherwise discloses an
error apparent on the face of the record, exercise of revisional
jurisdiction may be warranted.
20. It is within the aforesaid limited parameters of revisional
scrutiny that the grounds urged by the learned counsel on behalf of the
Petitioner against the Impugned Judgment are required to be
examined.
21. The first and principal contention raised by learned counsel for
the Petitioner, which he describes as the “elephant in the room” , is
that the learned RC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Eviction
Petition in view of the applicability of the GG Act. In support thereof,
reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Union of India v. Sir Sobha Singh (supra).
22. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment, however, shows that the
issue therein arose in the context of the original lessee vis-à-vis the
lessor and the applicability of Section 3 of the GG Act to the lease in
question. It was in that context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the applicability of the provisions of the DRC Act to the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
11:29:56
RC.REV. 401/2025 Page 6 of 10

premises covered by the Government grant.
23. The facts of the present case stand on a materially different
footing. The Petitioner herein is not the original lessee under the
Government of India. As is evident from the Petitioner's own case, he
claims to be a tenant under the Respondent, who is the lessee under
the Government of India. The judgment relied upon by learned
counsel for the Petitioner, therefore, does not advance his case.
24. Furthermore, the aforesaid objection regarding the applicability
of the GG Act and the consequent lack of jurisdiction of the learned
RC was admittedly never raised before the learned RC, and the
Petitioner, therefore, cannot in exercise of the limited revisional
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act, seek
to introduce a new factual foundation which was neither pleaded nor
urged before the learned RC.
25. The said contention raised by the Petitioner is, accordingly,
rejected.
26. Adverting to the second challenge raised by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, this Court takes note of the
consideration accorded by the learned RC on the aspect of alternate
accommodation and vacant land, which reads as follows:
“Alternative Accommodation:-
20. The petitioner has clearly stated in the eviction petition that he
does not have any suitable alternative accommodation to satisfy its
bonafide requirement.
21. However, in the application, the respondent has alleged that the
petitioner has sufficient accommodation to fulfill the projected
need.
22. The respondent claimed that the petitioner is in possession of:
a) More than one acre of vacant within the Khandelwal Jain
Society. Also, there is about half acres of land situated behind
the tenanted premises and about half acre of land near the
temple, which the petitioner got vacated through a court order.
b) The petitioner has a big hall for conducting various
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
11:29:56
RC.REV. 401/2025 Page 7 of 10

activities. However, instead of utilizing it for the alleged
purposes, the petitioner has been letting it out for private
functions and earning a huge amount as rental charges. The
said hall is lying vacant and has not been disclosed in the
petition nor has it been shown in the site plan.
23. In reply to the leave to defend, the petitioner has admitted that
there is open land available with it. However, it has disputed the
size/extent of the land alleged by the respondent. The petitioner has
further stated that since it is open land, it cannot be utilized for the
bonafide requirement which is for built-up and covered space.
24. As regards the alleged availability of big hall and its purported
use for private functions, the petitioner has disputed same and
stated that the respondent has not filed any document to
substanțiate its claim.
25. This court finds merits in the submissions of the petitioner. The
availability of vacant open land, without construction, cannot fulfil
the requirement of the petitioner. So far as alleged availability and
letting out of big hall by the petitioner is concerned, the respondent
has not filed any document like photograph or rent receipt etc, to
support his version. As such, mere bald averments are not
sufficient for grant of leave to defend.
26. Apart from the above, the respondent has given the details of
following vacant, locked and unused accommodation:
i) House No.21 - consisting of 2 BHK + Kitchen + Bathroom +
Toilet has been kept locked for the last 1 ½ year.
ii) House No.20 A, which is a residential house, is misused by
Sh. Choli Lal for godown purpose.
iii) House No.18 - 2 BHK+ Kitchen + Bathroom has been kept
locked for the last 5 years.
iv) House No.27 - I BHK + Kitchen + Bathroom + Toilet has
been kept locked for last 2 years.
v) House No.2 - 1 BHK+ Kitchen + Bathroom + Toilet was
vacated and relet 2 years ago.
vi) House No. 13 - 2 BHK + Kitchen + Bathroom + Toilet
sealed due to unauthorized activities.
vii) Some more other houses, whose number could not be
given as the site plan of the entire property has not been filed
and some vacant houses/rooms are being given local numbers.
27. In reply, the petitioner has denied that House No. 21 has been
kept locked. As regards Houses No. 20A, 18 and 27, the petitioner
stated that they are in possession of old tenants, namely Mahesh
Chand Jain, Subhash Aneja and Raj Kumar Jain, respectively. It is
also stated that although eviction order has been passed against
tenants Mahesh Chand Jain and Raj Kumar Jain, their rent revision
petitions are pending before Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
28. With respect to House No. 2, the petitioner denied that it was
vacated and re-let 2 years prior to the filing of eviction petition and
as regard House No. 13, the petitioner denied that it was sealed by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
11:29:56
RC.REV. 401/2025 Page 8 of 10

MCD.
29. After examining the pleadings, this court is of the considered
view that the respondent has failed to prima facie establish the
availability of the above said residential accommodations with the
petitioner. Notably, the respondent has not filed any cogent
document, such as photographs or site plan MCD records or rent
agreement or receipts to substantiate the claim that the properties
mentioned are vacant or available for use or were recently let out.
30. On the other hand, the petitioner has not only controverted the
assertions of the respondent but has also provided specific and
clear explanation with respect to each of the above said premises.
The petitioner has clarified that these premises are either under
tenancy or subject to litigation or otherwise not in its possession or
control.
31. In such circumstances, it was not enough for the respondent to
merely claim that certain premises are vacant or locked. He should
have prima facie demonstrated by filing some documents that these
premises are usable, suitable and available to meet the petitioner's
projected need. It is settled position of law that mere assertions do
not raise any triable issue and if these bald assertions are
entertained, then every tenant would get away with leave to defend,
defeating the intent of the legislature.
32. Hence, in the absence of supporting documents, the bald
averments of the respondent regarding existence of alternative
vacant accommodation cannot be believed. The petitioner has
sufficiently demonstrated that no suitable alternative
accommodation is available to it and the respondent has failed to
raise any triable issue on this aspect.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. A perusal of the aforesaid findings would reveal that the learned
RC has considered each of the properties and other spaces alleged by
the Petitioner to be available with the Respondent and has found that
the assertions regarding their availability, suitability and usability
were unsupported by any cogent material.
28. The learned RC has also taken note of the specific explanation
furnished by the Respondent with respect to the individual premises
and has consequently found that no triable issue arose on the aspect of
alternate accommodation.
29. In exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction under Section
25-B(8) of the DRC Act, this Court finds no error apparent on the face
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
11:29:56
RC.REV. 401/2025 Page 9 of 10

of the record, material irregularity or perversity in the aforesaid
approach. The Petitioner has also not been able to point out any such
infirmity in the decision-making process which would warrant
interference by this Court.
30. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in
the present Petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
31. The present Petition, along with all pending application(s), if
any, stands disposed of in the above terms.


HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
SEPTEMBER 03, 2026/nd/jk

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:HARVINDER KAUR
BHATIA
Signing Date:08.09.2026
11:29:56
RC.REV. 401/2025 Page 10 of 10