Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sh.Ram Avtar Sharma Vs Smt. Alka Sharma — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Delhi HC
2026
Sh.Ram Avtar Sharma Vs Smt. Alka SharmaSh.Ram Avtar Sharma v. Smt. Alka Sharma

Dismissed¶24

Sh.Ram Avtar Sharma v. Smt. Alka Sharma

Delhi HC24 Apr 2026RC.REV./243/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RC.REV. 243/2025 & CM APPL. 50859/2025, High Court of Delhi, Amit Sharma J., 24.04.2026. Revision under Section 25-B(8) DRC seeking setting aside of Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari order dated 09/07/2025 in petition no. 296 of 2014 (Alka Sharma vs. Ram Avtar Sharma) and leave to defend. Predecessor bench (19.08.2025) had noted under Section 14(1)(e) r/w Section 25B, Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, landlord need not prove absolute ownership, only 'more than a tenant', and ownership cannot be a tenant's defence; four weeks sought for instructions on vacation and user charges. Petitioner absent on 16.10.2025, 02.02.2026 and final date; process fee not filed; petition dismissed in default for non-prosecution; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The present petition is dismissed in default for non-prosecution and disposed of accordingly.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 09/07/2025 passed by the Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in petition no. 296 of 2014 (Alka Sharma vs. Ram Avtar Sharma) should be set aside and the petitioner granted leave to defend on revision. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is dismissed in default for non-prosecution and disposed of accordingly.

Key takeaways

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision petition (RC.REV. 243/2025) under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act by Ram Avtar Sharma seeking setting aside of the order dated 09/07/2025 passed by Sh. Vivek Kumar Agarwal, ARC-02, Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in petition no. 296 of 2014 (Alka Sharma vs. Ram Avtar Sharma) and grant of leave to defend. By order dated 19.08.2025 the predecessor bench had recorded that, under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, a landlord is not required to prove absolute ownership as under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and need only show he/she is 'more than a tenant'; ownership disputes fall to be decided in appropriate proceedings and are not available to the tenant as a defence; counsel was granted four weeks to revert with instructions on the feasible vacation period and user charges. The petitioner thereafter failed to appear on 16.10.2025, 02.02.2026 and on the date of this order, and did not file process fee. Amit Sharma, J. dismissed the petition in default for non-prosecution and disposed of pending applications (order dated 24.04.2026).

A

$~14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

- RC.REV. 243/2025 & CM APPL. 50859/2025

SH.RAM AVTAR SHARMA .....Petitioner

Through: None.

versus

SMT. ALKA SHARMA .....Respondent

Through: None. CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 24.04.2026

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

The present petition under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC seeks the following prayers:-

“ Under the facts and circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may please to set aside the order dated 09/07/2025 p..ssed by the court of Sh. Vivek Kumar Agarwal, ARC-02, Controller (central district), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in petition no. 296 of 2014 titled as ALKA SHARMA VS. RAM AVTAR SHARMA and revision of the petitioner be admitted in the form of granting leave to defend in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

Any other relief which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper be also passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.”

Vide order dated 19.08.2025, learned Predecessor Bench of this Court made the following observations:-

“6. In any event, as per trite law for the purpose of proceeding

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 27/04/2026 at 13:39:03

under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958, a landlord is not supposed to prove absolute ownership as required under Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and he/ she is only required to show that he/ she is more than a tenant. Moreover, any issue qua the ownership has to be decided in appropriate proceeding and the same is not available for the tenant as a defence in such proceedings.

In view of the aforesaid, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent is not the owner of the property falls flat.

After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks, and is granted, a period of four weeks for reverting with appropriate instructions qua the feasible time period within which the petitioner would be able to vacate the subject property, as well as the terms of payment/ user charges the petitioner is willing to pay to the respondent for the extended period.”

None appears on behalf of the petitioner today. There has been no appearance on behalf of the petitioner on last two dates of hearing as well i.e. 16.10.2025 and 02.02.2026. Even the process fee has not been filed by the petitioner.

The present petition is dismissed in default for non-prosecution and disposed of accordingly.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

Order be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.

AMIT SHARMA, J

APRIL 24, 2026 / nk/sg

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 27/04/2026 at 13:39:03

Issues for consideration

2 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the order dated 09/07/2025 passed by the Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in petition no. 296 of 2014 (Alka Sharma vs. Ram Avtar Sharma) should be set aside and the petitioner granted leave to defend on revision.¶14
2.
Whether the revision petition, in which the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear (including on 16.10.2025 and 02.02.2026) and did not file process fee, should be dismissed for non-prosecution.¶23
The court held
The present petition is dismissed in default for non-prosecution and disposed of accordingly.ratio¶24

Statutes considered

4 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Delhi Rent Control Act, 195825-B(8)¶13 14(1)(e)¶20 25B¶20
Transfer of Property Act, 1882Transfer of Property Act, 1882¶20

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 09/07/2025 passed by the court of Sh. Vivek Kumar Agarwal, ARC-02, Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in petition no. 296 of 2014 titled 'Alka Sharma vs. Ram Avtar Sharma', which the petitioner prays to be set aside with leave to defend granted on revision.¶14
Court of Sh. Vivek Kumar Agarwal, ARC-02, Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi · 09/07/2025
Prior proceeding
Underlying Rent Control proceeding: petition no. 296 of 2014 titled 'ALKA SHARMA VS. RAM AVTAR SHARMA' before the Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.¶14
Prior proceeding
By order dated 19.08.2025, the predecessor bench of this Court recorded (as trite law) that under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 a landlord need not prove absolute ownership as under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, only that he/she is 'more than a tenant'; ownership disputes are to be decided in appropriate proceedings and are not available to the tenant as a defence; the petitioner's submission that the respondent is not the owner was rejected; counsel was granted four weeks to revert with instructions on the feasible period for vacating the subject property and the user charges payable for the extended period.¶16
Prior proceeding
The petitioner failed to appear on the last two dates of hearing (16.10.2025 and 02.02.2026) as well as on the date of the present order, and did not file process fee.¶23

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma¶4
respondent
Smt. Alka Sharma¶7

Coram

AI extract

Amit Sharmaauthor¶9

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Delhi HC
Decided on: 24 Apr 2026 · April
Registered: 18 Aug 2025
Case no.: RC.REV./243/2025
CNR: DLHC010588172025
Bench: Amit Sharma
Case type: RC.REV.

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Amit Sharma

Himanshu Pokharia & Anr. Vs Neha Chauhan
23 Apr 2026Civil Miscellaneous (Main)
M/S Forever Exim India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Number One Advertising and Marketing Co.
23 Apr 2026Transfer Petition (Civil)
Suresh Khera Vs Deepak Prohit & Ors.
23 Apr 2026Contempt Case (Civil)
Sanjay Vs Manju Devi
24 Apr 2026
Atul Mohan Sharma Vs Delhi Development Authority and Anr.
24 Apr 2026Writ Petition (Civil)
Dhara Singh (Deceased) through His Lrs Vs Estate Officer & Anr.
24 Apr 2026Writ Petition (Civil)

Cite this judgement

Sh.Ram Avtar Sharma v. Smt. Alka Sharma, RC.REV./243/2025 (DEL), decided on 24 April 2026.

The High Court of Delhi publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes4

Delhi Rent Control Act, 195825-B(8) · 14(1)(e) · 25B
Transfer of Property Act, 1882Transfer of Property Act, 1882

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Order dated 09/07/2025 passed by the court of Sh. Vivek Kumar Agarwal, ARC-02, Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in petition no. 296 of 2014 titled 'Alka Sharma vs. Ram Avtar Sharma', which the petitioner prays to be set aside with leave to defend granted on revision.Court of Sh. Vivek Kumar Agarwal, ARC-02, Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi · 09/07/2025
Underlying Rent Control proceeding: petition no. 296 of 2014 titled 'ALKA SHARMA VS. RAM AVTAR SHARMA' before the Controller (Central District), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
By order dated 19.08.2025, the predecessor bench of this Court recorded (as trite law) that under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 a landlord need not prove absolute ownership as under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, only that he/she is 'more than a tenant'; ownership disputes are to be decided in appropriate proceedings and are not available to the tenant as a defence; the petitioner's submission that the respondent is not the owner was rejected; counsel was granted four weeks to revert with instructions on the feasible period for vacating the subject property and the user charges payable for the extended period.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Amit Sharma

Parties & counsel