Vijay Kumar Vs Madhu Rani and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vijay Kumar Vs Madhu Rani and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner/tenant. The revision petition and pending application(s) were dismissed with parties to bear their respective costs; the impugned judgment dated 18.11.2019 was affirmed, and the tenant was directed to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of Shop bearing no. 94/2, admeasuring 8.5x18.3, Shopping Complex, Shankar Market, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110 032, to the landlords (Ms. Madhu Rani and Ms. Richa Malhotra) forthwith, the six-month benefit under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act having already lapsed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the eviction petition filed by the landlords under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act was barred by Section 14(6) of the DRC Act, given the two Sale Deeds (dated 27.11.1996 in favour of landlord no.1 and 06.07.2007 in favour of landlord no.2) and filing of the eviction petition on 12.04.2012. +1 more

Court's answer

Section 14(6) of the DRC Act deals with "a landlord" and is silent when there are multiple landlords; the Act does not preclude more than one/joint owner/landlord from collectively filing an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e).

Ratio / Principle

Where more than one landlord is involved in an eviction petition, the five-year period under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act is to be calculated from the earliest/first date of purchase of a part of the subject premises, and not from the subsequent date of purchase of any other part of the same premises.

Key takeaways

On the admitted facts — landlord no.1's Sale Deed dated 27.11.1996 and filing of the eviction petition on 12.04.2012 — a gap of more than five years existed, so Section 14(6) of the DRC Act is not applicable.ratio¶¶18
Since the tenant filed no reply and led no evidence before the learned ARC and took no plea of Section 14(6) there, he is estopped and precluded from raising a fresh/new case on Section 14(6) in the revision proceedings under Section 25B(8).ratio¶¶19
In a revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, the tenant's challenge to the impugned judgment is possible only under exceptional circumstances — an error apparent on the face of the record, something glaringly amiss, or anything contrary to law — consistent with Sarla Ahuja, under which the High Court cannot come to a different fact-finding unless the Rent Controller's finding was so unreasonable that no Rent Controller should have reached it on the materials available.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Saurabh Banerjee, J.) dismissed the tenant's revision petition RC.REV. 78/2022 challenging eviction under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, and affirmed the ARC's judgment dated 18.11.2019. Held: (i) Section 14(6), which bars recovery of possession on bona fide requirement within five years of acquisition by transfer, speaks of "a landlord" and does not preclude joint/multiple owners from collectively maintaining such a petition; where several landlords acquired parts of the premises at different times, the five-year period runs from the earliest/first purchase — here landlord no.1's purchase on 27.11.1996 versus filing on 12.04.2012, so the bar did not apply; (ii) the tenant, having filed no reply and led no evidence before the learned ARC and taken no Section 14(6) plea there, was estopped from advancing it afresh in the Section 25B(8) revision; (iii) following Sarla Ahuja, interference under Section 25B(8) is confined to exceptional circumstances (error apparent on the face of the record, something glaringly amiss, or contrariety to law), and no such circumstance was disclosed. The tenant was directed to hand over vacant, peaceful possession of Shop no. 94/2, Shankar Market, Railway Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110 032 forthwith, the six-month period under Section 14(7) having lapsed.