Ramji Lal v. Sunita Ahuja

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J. JULY 13, 2026/rk/va/m

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 13.07.2026 + RC.REV. 171/2026, CAV 228/2026, CM APPL. 32873/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL. 32874/2026 (Ex.) RAMJI LAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. M.S. Rohilla, Mr. Dinesh Rohilla, Mr. Ravi Kant and Mr. Jatin Kumar, Advs. versus SUNITA AHUJA .....Respondent Through: Mr. Dhruv Chawla and Mr. Huzaifa Ibrahim, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR % JUDGEMENT (Oral) 1. The present Revision Petition, filed under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581, seeks to assail the Judgment dated 16.03.20262 passed by the learned ACJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi3 in Eviction Petition No. RC ARC No.653/2025 for property bearing number 2, Municipal No. 924, Ward No. XVI, Khasra No. 1211/1140/1, Ground Floor, Naiwala, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi - 1100054. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contends that the Sale Deed relied upon by the Respondent is fabricated and 1 The Act 2 Impugned Judgment 3 Learned ARC 4 Subject Premises does not reflect the existence of any tenanted commercial premises. According to him, the Sale Deed pertains to a residential property and, therefore, the plea of bona fide requirement in respect of the subject premises cannot be sustained. 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the present case also raises a legal issue with regard to the embargo contained under the Act that an eviction petition cannot be instituted within five years of acquisition of the property. 4. Upon a pointed query from this Court, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Sale Deed is dated 13.08.2020, whereas the Eviction Petition came to be instituted on 09.10.2025. It is, therefore, submitted that the statutory period of five (05) years had admittedly expired before the institution of the eviction proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the Impugned Judgment has taken note of all these aspects in particular with respect to the aspect of the Sale Deed and the fact that the same was for residential premises. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent refers to and relies upon the Impugned Judgment and submits that all these aspects stand subsumed in the reasoning and analyses and have received more than adequate consideration by the learned ARC. He thus, submits that there arises no requirement for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction in revision proceedings which, in any event, are extremely circumvent. ANALYSIS: 7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and, with their able assistance, perused the material available on record. 8. 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. 9. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.5, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh6, and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua7, 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. 10. 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.8, and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover9. 11. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while elucidating the legislative intendment underlying Section 25B of the DRC Act, observed that the omission of an appellate remedy against an Order passed by the learned Rent Controller is conscious and deliberate. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is, therefore, one of superintendence over the deci