Facts
The Petitioner (tenant) sought to challenge an eviction order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the learned ACJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts
Source reference: p. 1The Respondent (landlord) filed the original eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, for commercial premises in Karol Bagh
Source reference: p. 1The Petitioner challenged the landlord's title, alleging the Sale Deed was fabricated and pertained to a residential rather than commercial property
Source reference: p. 1-2Additionally, the Petitioner raised a statutory plea regarding the five-year embargo on filing eviction petitions after property acquisition
Source reference: p. 2The learned ARC dismissed the Petitioner’s application for leave to defend, leading to this revision
Source reference: p. 2, 4-7Issues
1. Whether the eviction petition was barred by the five-year statutory embargo under the Delhi Rent Control Act following the acquisition of the property
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 3-42. Whether the Petitioner raised a triable issue regarding the landlord’s ownership and the nature of the property (residential vs. commercial)
Source reference: p. 4-6 / para. 28-353. Whether the High Court should interfere with the findings of the Rent Controller under its revisional jurisdiction
Source reference: p. 3-4 / para. 9-12Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which grants the High Court limited revisional power to ensure a decision is "according to law" but does not permit a full appellate review
Source reference: p. 3-4It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which establish that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, confined to the decision-making process, and forbids a "roving inquiry"
Source reference: p. 3-4Furthermore, the court applied Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, asserting that a tenant is estopped from challenging the landlord’s title during the subsistence of the tenancy
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 33Reasoning
The Court found that the statutory five-year embargo was not violated, as the Sale Deed was dated 13.08.2020 and the petition was filed on 09.10.2025, satisfying the temporal requirement
Source reference: p. 2 / para. 4Regarding ownership, the Court observed that the Petitioner had admitted the landlord-tenant relationship by tendering rent and filing a prior injunction suit against the Respondent
Source reference: p. 5 / para. 30The Court held that even if the Sale Deed contained "wrong recitals" regarding the usage of the property (residential vs. commercial), it did not nullify the transfer of title or the landlord's right to seek eviction for bona fide requirement
Source reference: p. 5 / para. 29The Court emphasized that under Section 14(1)(e), a landlord need not prove absolute title but only a "better title" than the tenant
Source reference: p. 6 / para. 33-35Finally, since the Petitioner failed to file a counter-site plan, the landlord's site plan was correctly presumed accurate by the ARC
Source reference: p. 6-7 / para. 40-41Holding
The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record or procedural impropriety in the ARC’s judgment
The Court affirmed that the revisional power cannot be used to substitute the High Court's view for that of the Rent Controller when cogent reasons are provided. Consequently, the Revision Petition and all pending applications were dismissed
Source reference: p. 3-4, 7 / para. 11, 17Original Court PDF
Ramji LalvsSunita Ahuja
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in