Revision petition challenging Rent Controller orders dismissing leave to defend and later granting leave only on landlord-tenant relationship. Delay condoned citing Jai Prakash vs. Jean Conea. The court rejected the petitioner's unpleaded 'fraud' ground as impermissible at revision stage and dismissed the petition.
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.
$~52
INAM UL HAQ (SINCE DECEASED) (THROUGH LRS)
.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pratap Singh, Adv.
versus
SAJID KHAN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Arunk S., and Modh. A., Rehman, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
O R D E R % 19.12.2025
CM APPL. 80626/2025 (Exemption)
CM APPL. 80627/2025 ( Condonation of delay in filing revision petition ) & CM APPL. 80628/2025 ( Condonation of delay in re-filing revision petition )
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 26/12/2025 at 12:16:54
ARC No.191/2019 passed by the learned RC (referred to as impugned orders ), the petitioner’s review petition was allowed and leave to defend was granted on the aspect of the landlord tenant relationship alone.
“(a) Call the record of the Rent controller tribunal and set aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2022 passed in Misc. RC ARC No. 191/2019 in Eviction Petition No. 289/2013 (New No. 77237/2016) by Shri Balwinder Singh, SCJ-cumRC (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi to the extent that it failed to dismiss the eviction petition or grant leave to defend on all aspects/objections raised;
(b) Call the record of the Rent controller tribunal and set aside the impugned order dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Court of Shri Prashant Sharma, SCJ-CUM-RC, Central District, Delhi in Eviction Petition E. No. 289 of 2013 titled Sajid Khan vs. Inam-ul-Haq, whereby the learned ARC dismissed the application for leave to defend and ordered eviction of the petitioners from 1763-1764, First Floor, Hauz Sui Walan, Chandni Mahal, Delhi 110006; (c) pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
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 26/12/2025 at 12:16:54
contends that the whole case of the petitioner revolves around the ‘fraud’, allegedly committed by the respondent herein by claiming that the subject premises came to their share by virtue of an alleged unregistered Partition Deed dated 01.04.1999.
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 26/12/2025 at 12:16:54
220/2023 entitled ‘Sajid Khan & Ors. vs. Inam-Ul-Haq (Deceased) Thr LRs’ inter se the same parties, vide order dated 10.12.2025 passed by this Court the present petitioner was given “… …one last opportunity to address arguments only on the remaining aspects which are not similar and/ or been covered by the respondent in RC.REV. No.219/2023.” and that too on the basis of the request made by learned senior counsel who was appearing for the petitioner therein. Needless to say, the said petition is listed for arguments tomorrow.
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
DECEMBER 19, 2025/Ab
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 26/12/2025 at 12:16:54
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 47 days in filing and 25 days in re-filing the revision petition should be condoned.
Whether a fraud ground not pleaded before the Rent Controller can be raised at revision stage to challenge eviction and leave-to-defend orders.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jai Prakash vs. Jean ConeaRelied on¶4
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1724 of 1980, (Del)
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu vs JagannathReferred¶8
(1994) 1 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Inam Ul Haq (Since Deceased) (Through LRs)
Sajid Khan
& Ors.
Saurabh Banerjee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
