Court May Remand Matters for Fresh Adjudication Based on Material Subsequent Developments Affecting Right to Relief

The petitioners challenged an eviction order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the ARC under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act

The ARC’s decision was primarily based on a 2016 communication from the Custodian of Enemy Property, which suggested the suit property was not "enemy property"

The petitioners contended this communication was merely interlocutory and that a final determination was only reached via a Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Order dated 11.11.2024—issued five years after the impugned judgment

1. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can take cognizance of subsequent events that fundamentally impact the right to relief

2. Whether an eviction order founded on an interlocutory opinion remains sustainable after a final statutory determination on the property’s status has been issued

The court applied the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act, noting that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and not appellate in character

It relied on Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, establishing that the High Court’s role is to ensure the legality of the decision-making process

the court applied the doctrine from Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders, which empowers a court to take "cautious cognisance" of subsequent events that have a fundamental impact on the right to relief to ensure justice is legally and factually in accord with current realities

The Court observed that the ARC’s 2019 judgment relied heavily on the 2016 Communication, which was an "opinion" rather than a final order

It noted that the 2024 MHA Order constitutes a "material development" with a direct nexus to the suitability of the eviction petition

While the High Court cannot substitute its own findings for the ARC's under revisional powers, it held that where the decision-making process is materially affected by developments that the ARC could not have considered, the matter must be remanded

The Court reasoned that the legal effect and evidentiary value of the final 2024 Order must be examined by the court of first instance (the ARC) rather than for the first time in revision

It held that the subsequent 2024 Order necessitated a fresh adjudication to ensure justice based on the complete factual position

The matter was remanded to the learned ARC for fresh consideration, granting parties the liberty to file additional pleadings and documents regarding the new evidence

The parties were directed to appear before the ARC on 27.07.2026