Rajesh Kumar & Anr v. Sanjeev Kumar

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 17, 2026/v/dj/ma

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 17.07.2026 + RC.REV. 121/2026, CM APPL. 23950/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL. 23951/2026 (Ex.) RAJESH KUMAR & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ayush Gupta, Adv. versus SANJEEV KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Ashima Puri & Mr. Auritro Mukherjee, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (Oral) 1. The present Rent Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19082 seeking to assail the Judgment dated 11.11.20253 passed by the learned ACJ-cum-CCJ- cum-ARC, South East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi4 in RC ARC No. 30/2024 titled as "Sanjeev Kumar v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr.". 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners submits that the Impugned Judgment cannot be sustained primarily on the ground that the Respondent failed to establish his ownership over the 1 DRC Act 2 CPC 3 Impugned Judgment 4 Learned ARC tenanted premises, bearing No. A, 1893/A, Uday Chand Marg, Kotla, Mubarakpur, New Delhi-1100035. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that, even assuming, arrguendo, the Respondent to be one of the owners of the property, the Petitioners never attorned to him as their landlord. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Eviction Petition itself was not maintainable as the Respondent had sought the relief of eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act along with a claim for recovery of arrears of rent in the same proceedings. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, accordingly, submits that such a composite Eviction Petition is not maintainable under the summary procedure prescribed under Section 25B of the DRC Act. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners further submits that the Respondent was in possession of sufficient alternate reasonably suitable accommodation and, therefore, the plea of bona fide requirement was not made out. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent, therefore, submits that the Impugned Judgment warrants interference by this Court, and consequently be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent supports the Impugned Judgment wholeheartedly and submits that each of the aforesaid contentions had specifically fallen for consideration before the learned ARC and had been dealt with comprehensively. It is submitted that the learned ARC has examined the objections relating to ownership, maintainability of the eviction petition as well as the plea of alternate accommodation in considerable 5 Subject Premises detail and has returned reasoned findings on each aspect. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court. ANALYSIS: 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, with their able assistance, perused the material placed on record, including the Impugned Judgment. 9. Before proceeding to examine the grounds of challenge urged on behalf of the Petitioners, it would be apposite to advert to the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act. 10. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.6, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh7, and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua8, has consistently held that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is supervisory and revisional in character and cannot be equated with the exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 11. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia, in Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors.9, and Sanjeev Hiranandani v