ARC Must Adjudicate Specific Pleas Regarding Identity of Tenanted Premises Before Rejecting Leave to Defend

The Petitioner (tenant) challenged an eviction order dated 10.04.2026 passed by the Ld. ARC-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958.

In his leave to defend application, the Petitioner specifically pleaded in Paragraph 5 that while the Respondent claimed ownership of Property No. 6603, the Petitioner was actually a tenant in a distinct property, No. 9/6604-B.

The Petitioner provided electricity, telephone, and registration records to support this claim of distinct identity.

However, the Ld. ARC dismissed the leave to defend, concluding that the landlord-tenant relationship was established based on rent receipts and a sale deed naming the tenant’s predecessor.

The Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act on the ground that the specific plea regarding the identity of the premises was never adjudicated.

1. Whether the learned ARC failed to consider and adjudicate a specific plea raised in the leave to defend application regarding the identity and number of the tenanted premises.

2. Whether the omission to consider a plea that goes to the identity of the tenanted premises constitutes a failure of justice requiring the setting aside of the eviction order.

The Court applied Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which governs the High Court’s revisional powers to ensure orders are "according to law".

It relied on the principle that if a plea giving rise to a triable issue is raised under Section 25B(4), it is incumbent upon the ARC to adjudicate it.

The Court referenced Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022) to note that while mere assertions are insufficient for leave to defend, the court must still address pleas that involve the core identity of the property.

The doctrine of "approbate and reprobate" (doctrine of election) was noted as a principle preventing parties from taking inconsistent legal positions to gain unfair advantage.

The High Court observed that the Petitioner had raised a specific, documented plea that he occupied Property No. 6604, whereas the eviction was sought for Property No. 6603.

Upon perusing the Impugned Order, the Court found that while the Ld. ARC discussed the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship generally, it completely omitted any finding or discussion regarding the discrepancy in property numbers.

The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that the outcome would have remained the same even if the plea were considered. It reasoned that under revisional jurisdiction, the High Court cannot perform the initial adjudicatory function that the Trial Court failed to undertake.

A plea affecting the identity of the tenanted premises is a fundamental issue that cannot be left unaddressed, as the rejection of a plea upon consideration is legally distinct from its total omission from consideration.

The Court set aside the Eviction Order dated 10.04.2026 and remanded the matter to the Ld. ARC for fresh consideration of the leave to defend application on 17.07.2026. The Petition and all pending applications were disposed of with a request to the Ld. ARC to expedite the proceedings.