This revision petition challenging an eviction order was dismissed as infructuous because the possession of the tenanted premises had already been restored to the respondent landlord in execution of a warrant of possession.
Revision petition along with 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.
$~55
ASHOK KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneet Yadav, Advocate
versus
SHANTI DEVI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Yadav and Mr. Sourabh Gupta, Mr. Vasu Dev and Dr. Suman Chaudhary, Advocates
CORAM:
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 03/07/2025 at 04:43:56
respondent. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed the present petition.
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
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 03/07/2025 at 04:43:56
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 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 03/07/2025 at 04:43:56
execution of warrant of possession in accordance with law, as such, the present revision petition has become infructuous. Hence, the present petition along with pending application, stands dismissed being infructuous.
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J
SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 N/TK
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 03/07/2025 at 04:43:56
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision petition impugning an eviction order becomes maintainable when possession of the premises is restored to the landlord during its pendency.
Whether the present revision petition has become infructuous since possessio n has been restored to the respondent.
Whether the petition along with pending applications stands to be dismissed as infructuous.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Om Prakash Ashok Kumar & Sons V Shri Ajay KhuranaFollowed¶4
N. C. Daga V Inder Mohan Singh Rana 2003 (1) SCC 453Followed¶16
Vinod Kumar Verma V Manmohan Verma & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.5220-5221 of 2008Referred¶17
Poonam Bangia V Harbhagwan Dass Chandiramani in RC. REV. no.16/2021Followed¶17
Mange Ram V Rajesh Narain Goel, in RC. REV. no. 147/2021Followed¶17
Ram Avtar V Anuradha Shukla in RC. Rev. Bearing no. 104/2021Followed¶17
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Ashok Kumar
Shanti Devi
Sudhir Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sudhir Kumar Jain
Parties & counsel
