Ajay Kumar Gupta vs Prakash Chand Gupta & Ors.

Court
Delhi High Court

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: October 09, 2026
% Pronounced on: October 16, 2026

# CNR No. DLHC010975382024
+ RC.REV. 397/2024

AJAY KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Beenashaw N Soni, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Mr.
Prashant Srivastav, Ms. Ann Joseph,
Ms. Mansi Jain and Ms. Katyani
Malhotra, Advs. (9205230113)
Versus

PRAKASH CHAND GUPTA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Viney Sharma, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

REVIEW PET. 640/2025 in RC.REV. 397/2024
1. By virtue of the present review petition under Section 114 read with
Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner/ tenant
seeks review of the order dated 02.12.2025 ( order under review ) passed by
this Court in the captioned revision petition filed by the tenant against the
order dated 09.08.2024 ( impugned order ) passed by the learned Additional
Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi ( ARC ) in RC
ARC No.170/2022 ( eviction petition ) of the respondents/ landlords under
Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( DRC Act ).
REVIEW PET. 640/2025 & RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 1 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:43:23

2. As recorded in the order under review, the primary ground for
challenge urged by learned counsel for the tenant before this Court was
regarding maintainability of the Eviction Petition filed by the landlords
before the learned ARC, in view of the Gift Deed dated 24.12.2021
executed in their favour which was forming a part of the record, thereby
barring the same in view of Section 14(6) DRC Act as the minimum period
of five years therein had not yet lapsed. For ease of reference, the relevant
portion of the Eviction Petition pertaining to the above is reproduced as
under:-
“(ii) That parents of the petitioners let out 1 (One) shop to
the respondent's father, Shri Jai Narain Gupta on the ground
floor in the property bearing No. E-22, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-
110007 since year about 1954 and he died on 31.01.1992
and, after his death, the respondent occupied the said
tenanted premises on the rent of Rs.15,00/- per month. The
other Legal Heirs of-Late Shri Jai Narain Gupta surrendered
their tenancy rights in favour of respondent vide Surrender
Deed dated 01.05.2010. Site Plan is enclosed as
ANNEXURE-C .

(iii) That the mother of the petitioners, namely, Smt.
Vidyawati died on 04.03.2020, leaving behind her husband,
Shri Rattan Lal and 7 (Seven) children, namely, Shri
Prakash Chandra Gupta, Shri Mukesh Kumar Gupta, Shri
Sunil Gupta, Smt. Kamlesh, Smt. Mithlesh, Smt. Renu
Gupta and Smt. Anju Gupta. It 1s submitted that Smt.
Vidyawati also had 1 daughter namely, Smt. Bimlesh who
predeceased Smt. Vidyawati leaving behind her 3 three
children. It is further submitted that all the children of Smt.
Vidyawati have relinquished their rights in the property
vide 2 relinquishment deeds dated 19.01.2021 & 24.03.2021,
in favour of Shri Rattan Lal (Father of the petitioners).
{Copy of Death Certificates of Smt. Vidyawati: and Smt.
Bimlesh and relinquishment deeds 24.03.2021 are enclosed
REVIEW PET. 640/2025 & RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 2 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:43:23

as ANNEXURE-D & E .

(iv) That Shri Rattan Lal, father of the petitioners is a far
sighted person of the age of more than 94 years and just to
avoid any controversy/ dispute which may arise in future
between his legal heirs has executed a gift deed dated
24.12.2021 in favour of his three sons i.e. petitioners,
having registration No. 12612 in Book No.1, volume No.
8850 on pages 91 to l00.

It is submitted that the transfer by Shri Rattan Lal of his
property bearing No. E-22, Kamla Nagar. Dlehi-110007 in
favour of his three sons is not a fraudulent transfer but a
bonafide transfer. It is submitted that, though, the
petitioners became co-owner of the suit property after death
of their mother, Smt. Vidyawati. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]

3. Based thereon, and noting that the above was undisputed, the learned
ARC proceeded to pass the impugned order holding that the transactions
inter se the family members, who were already the co-owners of the subject
premises, were of the nature of a mutual settlement only to ascertain their
respective shares, and as such, in view of the legal position, the Eviction
Petition was not hit by Section 14(6) DRC Act, and the same was allowed
on merits.
4. It is the said order passed by the learned ARC which was challenged
by the tenant before this Court in the form of the present revision petition.
5. After having heard the rival submissions addressed by learned
counsels for the parties at length, as also considering the legal position, this
Court negated the aforesaid contention qua Section 14(6) DRC Act urged
by the tenant by way of the order under review, observing as under:-
“8. The aforesaid reflects that the subject premises fell
into the hands of the landlords after members of the same
family initiated certain steps inter se themselves. Also, that
REVIEW PET. 640/2025 & RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 3 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:43:23

they all had been/ were co-owners of the subject premises at
some point of time. Thus, the said steps were of a nature akin
to a family settlement. The learned ARC has rendered his
findings
proceeding on the said basis, and in line with the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V. N. Sarin vs.
Major Ajit Kumar Poplai 1966 SCR (1) 349 on the scope
and intent of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act.

9. This Court is in complete agreement with the
aforesaid findings of the learned ARC. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the bar under Section 14(6) of the
DRC Act comes into play only when “… …a landlord has
acquired any premises by transfer… …”, and where, in the
present case, the landlords were not rank outsiders/ third
parties, were, admittedly, owners of the subject premise
before through lineage, and all subsequent documents were
executed inter se members of the same family, it cannot be
held that there was an acquisition by transfer as envisaged
in Section 14(6) of the DRC Act. Even otherwise, the tenant
was unable to show as to how the said Gift Deed dated
24.12.2021 would come under the ambit of the bar under
Section 14(6) of the DRC Act. This gives no reason for this
Court to disagree with the findings rendered by the learned
ARC qua the above. ”
[Emphasis Supplied]
6. Thereafter, the tenant filed the present review petition seeking
review of the order dated 02.12.2025, on the sole ground, once again, that
the Gift Deed dated 24.12.2021 was nothing but a simple ‘ transfer ’ as per
Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ( TP Act ). However, this
time, learned senior counsel for the tenant also sought to rely upon the
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.P. Saseendran vs. N.P.
Ponnamma & Others:(2025) 7 SCC 502 .
7. Learned counsel for the landlords, on the other hand, disputed the
maintainability of the present petition, submitting that the very same
REVIEW PET. 640/2025 & RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 4 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:43:23

contentions of the tenant raised herein have already been dealt with by this
Court in the order under review.
8. This Court has heard learned (senior) counsels for the parties and
perused the documents and pleadings on record.
9. Before adverting to the merits involved, this Court has to bear in
mind that the present is a review petition, wherein the scope and ambit is
not the same as that of an appeal or otherwise. In fact, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1):2023
SCC OnLine SC 140 has highlighted about the same as under:-
“9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then
was) “a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is
manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic
defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second
look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of
result......... A review in the Counsel's mentation cannot
repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest
in peace.”

10. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek
a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for
the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case.
The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the
Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified
only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling
character make it necessary to do so.

11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, this Court made very
pivotal observations:—

“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may
be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or
an error apparent on the face of the record. An
error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record justifying the court to exercise its power of
REVIEW PET. 640/2025 & RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 5 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:43:23

review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of
the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is
not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
“reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must
be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”

12. Again, in Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam
State Electricity Board, a three Judge Bench of this Court
followingParsion Deviv.Sumitri Devi(supra) dismissed the
review petitions holding that the scope of review is limited
and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have
already been addressed and decided .

13. Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal
Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat, this Court restated
the law with regard to the scope of review under Section 114
read with Order XLVII of CPC.

14. In R.P.(C) Nos. 1273-1274 of 2021 in Civil Appeal
Nos. 8345-8346 of 2018 (Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated
Sales Service Limited), this Court reiterated the law and held
that:—

“15. From the above, it is evident that a power to
review cannot be exercised as an appellate power
and has to be strictly confined to the scope and
ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1CPC. An error on the
face of record must be such an error which, mere
looking at the record should strike and it should
not require any long-drawn process of reasoning
on the points where there may conceivably be two
opinions.”

15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the
Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S.
Puttaswamy (Retired), held that even the change in law or
subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger
Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:-
REVIEW PET. 640/2025 & RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 6 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:43:23

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there
is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final,
and departure from that principle is justified only
when circumstances of a substantial and compelling
character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47
Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be “reheard and corrected.”
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and
cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot
be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions
which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an
error which, mere looking at the record should
strike and it should not require any long-drawn
process of reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/
judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for review.”
[Emphasis Supplied]

10. As evident therefrom, the present review petition and what has been
sought to be agitated by learned senior counsel for the tenant in furtherance
thereof, is nothing short of the tenant taking recourse to reargue and
reagitate the very same contentions which have duly been negated by this
Court vide the order under review. The same, thus, does not require any
fresh adjudication by this Court. Moreover, since the tenant has clearly not
been able to establish any mistake(s)/ error(s) apparent on the face of the
REVIEW PET. 640/2025 & RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 7 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:43:23

record. The present is not an appeal, which has to be seen/ taken from a
different perspective altogether.
11. It is worthwhile to reiterate that while specifically dealing with the
contention of the tenant qua Section 14(6) DRC Act, this Court not only
noted that the landlords were not merely asserting their rights in the
Eviction Petition on the basis of the Gift Deed dated 24.12.2021, clearly
stating that they were already co-owners of the subject premises by lineage,
but also endorsed reliance placed by the learned ARC on the dicta of the
Five-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.N. Sarin vs. Major
Ajit Kumar Poplai & Another:1965 SCC Online SC 301 to conclude that
the same, not being an “… acquisition by transfer …” as envisaged in
Section 14(6) DRC Act, pertaining to fraudulent transfers to rank outsiders,
was not hit by the bar therein.
12. Moreover, this Court also noted that, aside from harping on the
mechanical applicability of the definition of ‘ transfer ’ under other Act(s)/
Statute(s), the tenant was nowhere able to show how the said Gift Deed
dated 24.12.2021 fell within the ambit of the mischief sought to be
remedied by Section 14(6) DRC Act.
13. As borne out from the aforesaid order under review, especially the
relevant portions reproduced hereinabove, the tenant is merely trying to
give a different interpretation from its own earlier case before the learned
ARC and before this Court by way of the present review petition, which is
neither legally nor factually permissible.
14. In view of the factual matrix involved herein, reliance upon N.P.
Saseendran (supra) by learned senior counsel for the tenant is misplaced,
more so, since the same was pertaining to a civil dispute qua the title of a
REVIEW PET. 640/2025 & RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 8 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:43:23

property, and was involving completely a different set of facts and
circumstances, involving only general provisions of law and the TP Act,
and not to the specific provisions of the Special Statute being the DRC Act
as the case herein. Moreover, the law of the land in the aforesaid Five-
Judge Bench decision in V.N. Sarin (supra) , which specifically dealt with
the intent behind Section 14(6) DRC Act, was not considered. Thus, in
view of the settled position of law in V.N. Sarin (supra) , Section 122 TP
Act or the findings in N.P. Saseendran (supra) cannot be ipso facto read
into the DRC Act, particularly, in view of the existing provisions of
Sections 14(1)(e) and 14(6) DRC Act.
15. In view of the afore-going, especially considering the contours of a
review petition as laid out in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra) , the tenant
has failed to make out any case for interference with the order under
review, also not having pointed out any mistake(s)/ error(s) apparent on the
face of the record.
16. Accordingly, the present review petition is dismissed.
RC.REV. 397/2024, CM APPL. 75632-75633/2024, CM APPL. 25463-
25464/2025, CM APPL. 75545/2025, CM APPL. 80677/2025

17. In view of the order passed by this Court on 02.12.2025, after
dealing with the objections raised by the tenant on the maintainability of
the Eviction Petition before the learned ARC, and since learned senior
counsel for the tenant has not reverted with any instructions qua the
feasible time period for vacation of the subject premises, as also REVIEW
PET. 640/2025 of the tenant has also been dismissed hereinabove, the
present petition is dismissed.
REVIEW PET. 640/2025 & RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 9 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:43:23

18. As such, the interim order dated 20.12.2025, granting interim relief
to the tenant, stands vacated.
19. Consequently, the learned Executing Court is free to proceed with
the execution petition, already filed by the landlords, in accordance with
law.
20. The present petition, alongwith the pending applications, is
accordingly disposed of.


SAURABH BANERJEE, J.
OCTOBER 16, 2026/ab/rs
REVIEW PET. 640/2025 & RC.REV. 397/2024 Page 10 of 10

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:BABLOO SHAH
Signing Date:16.10.2026
16:43:23