A party cannot resile from an unequivocal representation on which the court has acted.

The Respondent obtained an eviction order against the Petitioner concerning premises at 2449, First Floor, Ward No. XV, Nalwa Street, Chuna Mandi, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi.

The Rent Controller had dismissed the Petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 14 CPC and his application for leave to defend under Section 25-B(5) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), and passed an eviction order on 16 December 2025

In the revision, the Court’s order dated 8 April 2026 recorded that, on the Petitioner’s instructions, he would vacate the premises by 31 December 2026 and directed him to file an affidavit of undertaking.

The Respondent stated that, in light of that commitment, it would not insist on use-and-occupation charges

When the Petitioner appeared in person on 22 May 2026, he sought time to engage new counsel but did not dispute the recorded commitment; the Court noted that the affidavit had not been filed and directed that it be filed before the next hearing.

The Petitioner later contended that his former counsel had made the statement without instructions.

He also challenged the Rent Controller’s decision on its merits

1. Whether the Petitioner could resile from the recorded statement that he would vacate the premises by 31 December 2026, on the ground that his former counsel lacked instructions.

2. Whether the Rent Controller’s dismissal of the leave-to-defend application and consequent eviction order disclosed an error warranting interference under the Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

Section 25-B(5) of the DRC Act governs an application for leave to defend in summary eviction proceedings, while the proviso to Section 25-B(8) confers a limited revisional jurisdiction that is not equivalent to appellate review; interference is warranted for jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity, not merely because another view is possible

An unequivocal representation or undertaking made in pending proceedings, on the faith of which the Court or the opposing party acts, cannot ordinarily be repudiated to frustrate the course of proceedings; a formal written undertaking is not necessarily decisive where the Court was induced to act on the representation

The Court relied on *Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar v. Kalu Ram*, *Kashmere Gate Charitable Trust v. M.G. Shahani & Co. (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd.*, and *Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari v. Hiralal Somabhai* on the effect of court-directed representations and undertakings

For the scope of revisional review, it relied on *Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.*, *Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh*, and *Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua*

The Court treated the statement recorded on 8 April 2026—that the Petitioner “shall” vacate by 31 December 2026—as unequivocal and made on instructions.

The Respondent had acted on it by agreeing not to insist on use-and-occupation charges

The Petitioner’s appearance in person on 22 May 2026, without disputing the statement or alleging that counsel lacked instructions, and his failure to take contemporaneous steps against former counsel, undermined his later challenge

Applying the principles on representations acted upon by a court, the Court rejected the attempt to resile, while noting the cited authorities arose in the context of contempt proceedings

Separately, on the merits, it found that the Rent Controller had considered the record and given cogent reasons, and that the Petitioner had identified no jurisdictional error, perversity or material irregularity warranting revision

The revision petition was dismissed, and the Respondent was left at liberty to take such steps to execute the eviction order as permitted by law; the pending application(s), if any, were also disposed of