The High Court dismissed a revision petition under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act as infructuous because the landlord had already been restored to possession of the tenanted premises via execution proceedings, rendering the petition devoid of substance.
Revision petition and pending applications dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~49
versus
LEENA KAPOOR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN O R D E R % 23.08.2024
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2024 at 12:33:28
7. The issue which needs Judicial consideration is whether the revision petition which is filed as per section 25B (8) of the Act to impugn the order of eviction as per section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act and if during the pendency of the revision petition, the possession is restored back to the landlord/owner, whether, in that eventuality the revision petition is maintainable or not. 8. In N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana 2003 (1) SCC 453 the respondent/landlord filed the petition for eviction primarily on the ground of bona fide requirement which was opposed by the petitioners/tenant. The eviction order was passed as per section 14(1)(e) of the Act in favour of the respondent/landlord with the direction that the possession of the tenanted premises shall not be taken before the expiry of 06 months in terms of section 14(7) of the Act. The revision petition before the High Court of Delhi was also dismissed by holding that no prima facie case was made out by the tenant. The Supreme Court dealt with the arguments raised on behalf of the landlord that the petition has become infructuous because the possession has already been taken in pursuant to the execution of the order passed by the rent controller. The Supreme Court has observed that in view of the admitted position that pursuant to the order passed by the rent controller, the possession has already been taken on execution of order permitting eviction did not examine the rival stand of the parties and accordingly dismissed the petition.
9. The Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Verma V Manmohan Verma & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.5220-5221 of 2008 arising out of SLP (C) nos. 11268-11264/2008 vide order dated 19.08.2008 has also disposed of the appeals as infructuous as the possession of the
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2024 at 12:33:28
tenanted premises was taken over by the landlord. 10. This Court in various decisions has followed the decision given by the Supreme Court in N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana. The Co-ordiate Bench of this Court in Poonam Bangia V Harbhagwan Dass Chandiramani in RC. REV. no.16/2021 vide order dated 22.07.2021 after following the law laid down in N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana, dismissed the revision petition after observing that the landlord has received the possession of the tenanted premises through execution proceedings. Another Coordinate Bench of this Court in Mange Ram V Rajesh Narain Goel, in RC. REV. no. 147/2021, decided on 19.03.2024 after following N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana and Vinod Kumar Verma V Manmohan Verma & Anr., in Civil Appeal nos. 5220-5221/2008 passed by the Supreme Court and in Poonam Bangia V Harbhagwan Dass Chandiramani in RC. REV no. 16/2021passed by this Court as mentioned hereinabove also dismissed the revision petition as became infructuous due to the reason that the possession of the subject premises has been restored to the respondent/landlord. The same view was also taken by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ram Avtar V Anuradha Shukla in RC. Rev. Bearing no. 104/2021 vide order dated 03.11.2023, the revision petition was ordered to be dismissed as the possession of the tenanted premises has already been taken by the respondent/landlord in accordance with law.
12. In the present case as reflected from the order dated 10.05.2024, the possession of the tenanted premises has already been restored back to the respondent/landlord in execution of warrant of possession in accordance with law. This Court is also of the view that the present petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the present petition, along with pending applications stands dismissed being infructuous.
This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2024 at 12:33:28
application.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
AUGUST 23, 2024/ j/am
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 28/08/2024 at 12:33:28
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a revision petition to impugn an eviction order becomes maintainable if possession is restored to the landlord during pendency.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh RanaReferred¶15
2003 (1) SCC 453 · Who else cites this
Vinod Kumar Verma V Manmohan Verma & Anr.Referred¶16
Civil Appeal No.5220-5221 of 2008
Poonam Bangia V Harbhagwan Dass ChandiramaniReferred¶18
RC. REV. no.16/2021
Mange Ram V Rajesh Narain GoelReferred¶18
RC. REV. no. 147/2021
Ram Avtar V Anuradha ShuklaReferred¶18
RC. Rev. Bearing no. 104/2021
Shashi Malhotra
Leena Kapoor
Sudhir Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
