A revision challenging an eviction order becomes infructuous once possession is delivered in execution.

The Petitioner-tenant challenged, under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), the order dated 11 August 2025 by which the Additional Rent Controller dismissed his application for leave to defend and passed an eviction order in favour of the Respondent-landlord concerning a shop measuring approximately 8.8 × 7.2 square feet situated at property Nos. 997–998, Madarsa Hussain Baksh, Bazar Matia Mahal, Jama Masjid, Delhi

During the pendency of the revision, warrants of possession were issued on 21 February 2026, executed by the Bailiff on 7 March 2026, and the execution proceedings were disposed of as satisfied on 9 March 2026 after vacant and peaceful possession was delivered to the Respondent

Although the Petitioner conceded that possession had been delivered, he pressed the revision on merits, contending that the Will relied upon by the Respondent’s predecessor conferred only a half share in the premises and that the Respondent, therefore, could not individually maintain the eviction petition

Whether the revision petition challenging the eviction order survived for adjudication after the eviction order had been executed and vacant, peaceful possession had been delivered to the Respondent-landlord?

Whether the Respondent’s alleged ownership of only a share in the premises, pursuant to the Will, raised a triable issue requiring leave to defend under Section 25-B of the DRC Act?

Whether the Additional Rent Controller’s decision warranted interference under the limited revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act?

The Court applied Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act, under which the High Court exercises supervisory and revisional—not appellate—jurisdiction and does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless the Controller’s decision suffers from jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record

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 for the restricted scope of revision

The Court further applied the rule from N.C. Daga v. Inder Mohan Singh Rana, Vinod Kumar Verma v. Manmohan Verma, and Neelam Sharma v. Ekant Rekhan that, once an eviction order has been executed and possession delivered to the landlord, a pending challenge ordinarily becomes infructuous because no effective relief survives

On ownership, the Court applied the principle that in rent-control proceedings the landlord need not establish an indefeasible title as in a title suit; it is sufficient to show a title superior to that of the tenant, and a co-owner may maintain an eviction petition without impleading all other co-owners, as recognised in Bharat Bhushan Vij v. Arti Techchandani, Plastic Chemicals Company v. Ashit Chadha, and M/s Indian Umbrella Manufacturing Co. v. Bhagabandei Agarwalla

The Court first held that execution of the eviction order had extinguished the practical substratum of the revision. Since the Respondent had obtained vacant and peaceful possession through lawful execution proceedings, the Court could no longer grant meaningful or executable relief against the already-satisfied eviction order; the revision was therefore liable to be dismissed as infructuous

Nevertheless, because the Petitioner pressed the merits, the Court examined the ownership objection within the narrow scope of Section 25-B(8). The Will showed that the Respondent’s father had received a half share in the premises, and the Respondent had succeeded to that interest along with the other legal heirs. This was sufficient to establish a title better than that of the tenant for purposes of the DRC Act

The fact that the Will did not confer the entire property did not create a triable issue, since a co-owner is competent to institute eviction proceedings against a tenant and the Petitioner had neither disclosed a competing title nor identified a person with a superior claim

The Additional Rent Controller had also considered the objections concerning the earlier proceedings and the alleged Custodian status of the property, and no jurisdictional or apparent legal error was demonstrated

In any event, on merits, the Respondent’s co-ownership and superior title were sufficient to maintain the eviction petition, and the Petitioner’s objection did not disclose a triable issue or any ground for revisional interference

The revision petition was accordingly dismissed, the pending applications were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs