Jay Prakash v. Sh. Vijay Gaur & Ors

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J JULY 14, 2026/v/dj/m

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 14.07.2026 + RC.REV. 165/2026 & CM APPL. 31141/2026 (Stay) JAY PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Shruti Munjal, Advocate. versus SH. VIJAY GAUR & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sidharth Joshi, Mr. Tejender Singh and Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (Oral) 1. In view of the fact that the lawyers are abstaining from work today, the learned counsel for the parties were specifically queried whether they are willing that the matter be taken up for hearing. Upon their consent, the present matter was taken up for hearing. 2. The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 25- B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside the Order dated 03.11.2025 ["Impugned Order"] passed by the learned ARC-02 (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in the matter, being RC ARC No. 80185/2016, titled as "Sh. Anurag Bindwala v. Sh. Jagdish Chand 1 DRC Act Satynarain". 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has raised the challenge to the Impugned Order, rendered by the learned ARC, on three planks, as delineated in the ensuing paragraphs. 4. The first plank relates to the title of the landlord. In this regard, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Respondent/landlord has been unable to conclusively establish their ownership of the premises. 5. She submits that the family Will on which reliance has been placed is incapable of conferring any title on the Respondent/landlord. 6. The second plank relates to availability of an alternative accommodation. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in this regard, submits that there was ample alternate accommodation which was available and that the same was clearly delineated and enumerated in detail in the leave to defend. 7. It is submitted that despite the same, the learned ARC has ignored the various averments made in respect of alternative accommodations and rendered the Impugned Order. 8. The third plank relates to the issue of there being a lack of bona fide requirement. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that there was in fact no bona fide requirement, since the eviction notice issued to the tenant stated that the premises were required since renovation were to be carried out whereas in the eviction Petition, the bona fide requirement urged was that Mr. Shivam Gaur, who has completed his LL. B. degree, required the premises for setting up his office. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the grounds of the challenge, as raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, have already been dealt with by the learned ARC in the Impugned Order. In this regard, learned counsel for the Respondent draws the attention of this Court to various paragraphs of the Impugned Order. 11. Learned counsel for the Respondent, in this regard, submits that the contours of revisional jurisdiction of this Court is limited and circumscribed, and therefore the challenge raised by the Petitioner, having been already raised before the learned ARC and dealt with in the Impugned Order, merely seeks re-appreciation of evidence and re- adjudication upon the merits. ANALYSIS 12. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the material available on record. 13. Before proceeding to examine the grounds of challenge urged on behalf of the Petitioner, 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. 14. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.2, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh3, and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua4, has consistently held that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Cou