Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, declined to grant a stay on eviction in a set of petitions challenging the orders passed by the Additional Rent Controller, North, Rohini Courts. The court firmly held that the power of revision under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is supervisory in nature, not appellate, and is only to be exercised in cases involving errors apparent on the face of the record.

While addressing urgent applications by tenants facing imminent dispossession due to pending execution proceedings, the court stated that the scope of interference in revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of facts or substitution of findings unless a glaring illegality is evident. The court rejected arguments alleging lack of findings, procedural irregularities, and the effect of an unregistered tenancy agreement, stating that none of the issues raised demonstrated a prima facie case warranting the stay of eviction. The applications for stay were dismissed without costs, with all matters directed to be listed before the Roster Bench on the next scheduled date.

Also Read: Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof In Criminal Trial | Supreme Court Acquits Man Of Murder As Prosecution Fails To Prove Who Pulled The Trigger

The matter arose from the eviction petitions filed by Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust against three tenants occupying distinct commercial premises. The eviction petitions were allowed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC) vide judgment dated 23.08.2024. Consequently, execution proceedings were initiated against the tenants, prompting urgent applications seeking a stay from the High Court.

Each tenant was represented by Mr. Sanjeev Sahay and Ms. Shagun Saproo, Advocates. The respondent-landlord, Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust, was represented by Mr. Shiv Charan Garg and Mr. Imran Khan, Advocates.

The tenants challenged the eviction orders on multiple grounds, arguing that the ARC had committed errors apparent on the face of the record, thereby warranting interference by the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction.

Three primary issues were raised by the petitioners:

(i) The ARC allegedly failed to deliver any finding on the tenant's claim regarding the landlord's possession of alternative accommodations, despite the tenant listing 15 such properties and submitting related pleadings.

(ii) The ARC, despite acknowledging that the tenant had filed an alternative site plan contradicting the one filed by the landlord, rendered no finding or consideration of the same.

(iii) The tenancy agreement executed in 1993, which allegedly included a clause prohibiting eviction even if the landlord's management changed, was disregarded on the ground that it was unregistered.

In support of these contentions, the tenants referred to various paragraphs in the eviction pleadings and the impugned judgment. Particular reliance was placed on para 33 of the ARC's judgment to support the claim that no finding had been recorded regarding the landlord's alternate accommodations.

To support the second ground, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Babu Ram Gupta vs. Chander Prakash (2023 SCC OnLine Delhi 1467), where the Court had discussed the legal implications of a tenant submitting an alternative site plan.

As regards the third contention, the petitioners argued that even though the agreement was unregistered, its contents, particularly Clause 5, should be admissible as evidence for collateral purposes, i.e., the understanding between the parties about the continuation of tenancy.

The respondent landlord, through their counsel Mr. Garg, countered all three claims:

On issue (i), Mr. Garg argued that para 33 and para 34 of the ARC's judgment directly addressed the alleged alternate accommodations. He also cited specific paragraphs from the eviction petition and the landlord's reply to the leave to defend applications to show that the landlord had adequately addressed and denied the tenants' claims.

On issue (ii), Mr. Garg stated that the reliance on Babu Ram Gupta was misplaced since, in that case, the tenant had not filed a site plan. Further, he noted that the tenant in the current matter had admitted the tenancy and its terms, thereby reducing the materiality of competing site plans.

On issue (iii), Mr. Garg stated that the tenancy agreement was unregistered and, therefore, not admissible to establish substantive rights. He also pointed out that the tenants had failed to provide any documentary proof of the alleged Rs. 7.5 lakh payment referred to in Clause 5 of the agreement.

The High Court proceeded to examine the legal framework under which it was required to adjudicate the applications, placing significant reliance on the Supreme Court's judgement in Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30. Justice Gedela quoted the Supreme Court as follows:

"The proviso to Section 25-B (8) gives the High Court exclusive power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance. Thus, the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction."

The Court further cited: "The scope of interference by the High Court is very restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision."

On the first issue of non-consideration of alternate accommodations, Justice Gedela observed: "Contrary to what has been vehemently argued, the learned ARC has only noted the arguments of the parties in para 33 and no more. Ergo, to contend that those are observations of the Court, is fallacious and unmerited."

He added that the ARC had, in para 34, clearly stated: "Mere bald averments that petitioner owns certain other properties will not be sufficient. Respondent needs to substantiate the same by documents, which has not been done in the present case."

On the second issue relating to the site plan, the Court held: "The reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Babu Ram Gupta (supra) is completely misplaced... It is trite that a judgement is an authority for the ratio it lays down on the basis of the peculiar facts obtaining in that case and not what may flow logically from it."

Further, the Court reasoned: "The tenant has neither denied the landlord-tenant relation nor the factum of requirement to pay rent... the emphasis that the site plan filed by the tenant shall necessarily be considered as a triable issue does not, prima facie, appeal to this Court."

On the third issue concerning the unregistered tenancy agreement, the Court found: "The said submissions are neither here nor there... The unregistered tenancy agreement is conspicuous by the absence of any reference to the purported payment of Rs.7.5 Lakhs... Even if it is assumed, that the said clause had been inserted by the parties with consent, the same cannot bar the landlord from maintaining a suit or a petition for eviction."

The Court stressed: "There cannot be any estoppel against law. A landlord by virtue of such clause, cannot be compelled to give up a right which is conferred upon him or her by law."

Ultimately, the Court concluded: "The argument, predicated on an unconscionable covenant, that too in an admittedly unregistered tenancy agreement, surely would not propel this Court to exercise its revisional jurisdiction."

After a detailed review of submissions and judicial precedents, the High Court issued the following directions:

Also Read: Bombay High Court Rejects Konkan Railway’s Plea to Scrap Arbitration Panel in Chenab Bridge Dispute | No Case Made Under Section 29-A as SAT’s Delay Not Undue, Nor Are Arbitrators Biased

"This Court finds no merits in the arguments on the stay applications of the tenant and the same are dismissed without any orders as to costs."

The Court clarified that its detailed analysis would not prejudice the merits of the pending revision petitions: "Needless to observe that the analysis and recording of facts above will not tantamount to any expression on merits of the cases."

Finally, the Court scheduled the matter for further proceedings:

"RC.REV. 60/2025 & CM APPL. 31166/2025; RC.REV. 61/2025 & CM APPL. 31169/2025; RC.REV. 85/2025 & CM APPL. 31163/2025 be listed before the Roster Bench on 28th July, 2025."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay and Ms. Shagun Saproo, Advocates

For the Respondents: Mr. Shiv Charan Garg and Mr. Imran Khan, Advocates

Case Title: Pawan Kumar through LRs vs. Harnarain Dass Charitable Trust & connected matters

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:4928

Case Number: RC.REV. 60/2025, RC.REV. 61/2025, RC.REV. 85/2025

Bench: Justice Tushar Rao Gedela

[Read/Download order]