RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 1 of 16

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: December 11, 2025

% Pronounced on: January 05, 2026

+ RC.REV. 213/2023, CM APPL. 38871/2023, CM APPL.

22940/2024

MOHD BURHAN & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Manu Nayar, Mr. Sahil Moga,

Mr. Nitin Kumar, Ms. Kanishka

Sharma, Mr. Lalit Kumar and Ms.

Esha Goyal, Advs.

Versus

SHRI TRILOKI NATH (SINCE DECEASED)

THROUGH LRS & ORS. ....Respondents

Through: Mr. Asutosh Lohia, Mr. Shraddha

Bhargava, Ms. Rishika Jain, Mr.

Mohd. Atif Abdullah Khan and Ms.

Princy Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE

J U D G M E N T

1. The respondent/ landlord

1

filed an Eviction Petition being E.P.

No.5926/ 2012 under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi

Rent Control Act, 1958

2

, against the petitioners/ tenants

3

before the

learned ACJ/ CCJ/ ARC (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi

4

, seeking their

eviction from property bearing no. E-45/1, measuring 12'7' 112" X 9' ft.

situated on the ground floor of E-45, Main Market, Hauz Khas, New

1

Hereinafter referred to as “landlord”

2

Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”

3

Hereinafter referred to as “tenants”

4

Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC”

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 2 of 16

Delhi-110 016

5

. Since the application seeking leave to defend of the

tenants stood allowed, after a full-fledged trial, vide earlier order dated

22.10.2021

6

, the Eviction Petition of the landlord was allowed and an

order of eviction passed against the tenants qua the subject premises.

2. Thereafter, the tenants filed a review petition which has been

dismissed by the learned Review Court vide an order dated 19.07.2023

7

.

3. Succinctly put, the landlord filed an Eviction Petition before the

learned ARC as he was the owner-landlord of the subject premises by

virtue of a registered Will dated 17.11.1995 executed by his late mother

Smt. Surajwati, the erstwhile owner of the entire property wherein the

subject premises is situated, by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated

24.09.1954. Since, late Sh. Mohd. Zikria, father of the tenants herein was

recognised as a tenant on or around 03.04.2001 and was paying monthly

rent of Rs.300/- pursuant to a compromise arrived inter se the landlord and

one Sh. Yahyah Khan, and that after the demise of late Sh. Mohd. Zikria,

his legal heirs being the present tenants, assumed the status/ position of the

tenants. Hence, there was a landlord tenant relationship between the

parties.

4. The landlord also professed a bona fide requirement of the subject

premises to start a general merchant shop for earning a living for himself

and his wife as there were no suitable alternative accommodations for the

said purpose.

5. Upon being served, the tenants filed their application seeking leave

5

Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”

6

Hereinafter referred to as “first impugned order”

7

Hereinafter referred to as “second impugned order”

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 3 of 16

to defend, which was first declined by the learned ARC on 18.02.2013, and

the challenge thereto by the tenants was also dismissed vide order dated

01.10.2013 passed by this Court in RCR no.240/2013. Eventually, the same

came to be set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated

18.04.2017 passed in SLP(C) no.29167/2014 whereby the tenants were

granted leave to defend. Pursuant to the said order dated 18.04.2017 of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, the tenants filed their written statement.

6. Further, although the tenants initially admitted the landlord tenant

relationship between the parties, however, since the tenants raised an issue

of ownership, the same was first negated by the learned ARC vide order

dated 09.02.2018 and then the same was upheld by this Court vide order

dated 27.04.2020. It was also the case of the tenants that there was no bona

fide requirement of the landlord owing to his old age, his son residing

elsewhere in Uttar Pradesh and his daughter being happily married and also

residing separately and all of them being financially stable. Barring this, as

per tenants, the landlord was having various alternative accommodation

available with him. It was also the case of the tenants that there are some

settlement talks for enhancing the rent were also going on inter se the

parties.

7. After proceeding with a full-fledged trial, the learned ARC passed

the first impugned order in favour of the landlord finding that there existed

a landlord tenant relationship between the parties and the landlord was

having a bona fide requirement for the subject premises as he had no other

alternative accommodation available with him. As such, being all the three

essential limbs of an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC

Act satisfied, the learned ARC passed the first impugned order allowing the

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 4 of 16

eviction petition of the landlord.

8. Thereafter, the tenants filed a revision petition before this Court on

the ground that since the landlord had expired on 11.11.2021, as also his

wife had also pre-deceased him, and as there was no averment in the

Eviction Petition of his son, daughter and/ or any other family member

requiring the subject premises for commercial use nor was there even a

suggestion that they were dependent upon the landlord financially, the bona

fide requirement for which the subject premises was sought, had been

extinguished in the wake of the subsequent events of their demise.

9. The said revision petition of the tenants was allowed by this Court

vide order dated 23.12.2022 and the proceedings were remanded to the

learned ACJ/ CCJ/ ARC (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi

8

for taking the

said subsequent events into consideration.

10. As such, the tenants proceeded with the same line of arguments as

above, i.e. qua the after effect of the demise of the landlord.

11. In response, it was the case of the legal heirs of landlord that the said

review petition was not maintainable since the bona fide requirement ought

to be considered on the date of filing of the Eviction Petition, as also that

the power of a review cannot be extended to the plea raised by the tenants

therein, if done so, the same would result in excess of jurisdiction by the

learned Review Court.

12. Based on the above, the learned Review Court vide order dated

19.07.2023 held that an Appellate Court may consider subsequent events

for the purpose of moulding relief, however, as the proceedings before it

were confined to review jurisdiction, the aforesaid grounds raised by the

8

Hereinafter referred to as “Review Court”

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 5 of 16

tenants were not permissible, and that the existence of a review ground is to

be assessed as on the date of the eviction order, and any subsequent events,

including the death of the erstwhile landlord, were beyond the scope of

review and cannot be regarded as an error apparent on the face of the

record.

13. Being aggrieved thereby, the tenants have filed the present revision

petition seeking setting aside of the aforesaid two order(s) dated

22.10.2021 and 19.07.2023.

14. During pendency of the present proceedings herein, vide order dated

23.01.2024, this Court granted stay of the execution arising out of the first

impugned order dated 22.10.2021.

15. Mr. Manu Nayar, learned counsel for the tenants whilst relying upon

Jungli vs. Syed Waris Ali

9

, Seshambal (dead) Through LRs vs. M/s

Chelur Corporation Chelur Building & Ors.

10

, Hasmat Rai & Anr. vs.

Raghunath Prasad

11

, Ramesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram

12

, United Spirits

Ltd. vs. Sam Fragrances Pvt. Ltd.

13

, Jatinder Khanduja vs. Jagdish

Khanuja

14

, Gopal Krisha Sawhney vs. Vinod Kumar

15

and Seema Thakur

vs. UOI & Ors.

16

, submitted that the learned Review Court erred by not

considering the subsequent events pertaining to the demise of the erstwhile

landlord as also his late wife, that extinguished the bona fide requirement,

for which the subject premises was sought. The same was a germane

9

1975 11 DLT 132

10

(2010) 3 SCC 470

11

(1981) 3 SCC 103

12

AIR 1992 SC 700

13

2021 Supreme (Del) 160

14

2018 169 DRJ 395

15

2018 Supreme (Del) 472

16

2015 223 DLT 132

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 6 of 16

consideration owing to the fact that the Eviction Petition was admittedly

bereft of any averments qua the subject premises being sought by the son

and/ or daughter in law, who in fact were never dependent on the erstwhile

landlord and even till date they are finically independent.

16. Mr. Manu Nayar, learned counsel based on the aforesaid referring to

the judgments entitled Premchand vs. Subhash Chand Saini

17

,

Inderchand Jain (D) Through LRs v. Motilal (D) Through LRs.

18

and

Director Directorate of Education vs. Mohmd. Shamim

19

further

submitted that the relief was liable to be moulded as per the changed

circumstances/ subsequent events, i.e., the demise of the persons for whom

the subject premises was sought, and the same was within the domain of

the learned Review Court to adjudicate. Additionally, since Section 25B(9)

was exercisable in accordance with Section 114 read with Order XLVII of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), the impugned order passed by

the learned Review Court was vitiated by non-consideration of Seshambal

(supra) which clearly states that if the landlord passes away and ‘need/

requirement’ of dependents was not pleaded in the Eviction Petition, then

the legal heirs cannot be permitted to continue the eviction proceedings on

the bona fide requirement of the erstwhile landlord.

17. Lastly, Mr. Manu Nayar, learned counsel submitted that there were

multiple alternative accommodations available with the erstwhile landlord

for satisfying the bona fide requirement as also the fact that both legal heirs

of the landlord are financially affluent and are doing well in life, as such,

there is no bona fide requirement for the subject premises.

17

2012 Supreme (Del) 2925

18

(2009) 14 SCC 663

19

2019 Supreme (Del) 2518

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 7 of 16

18. Since no arguments were addressed by Mr. Manu Nayar, learned

counsel on the aspect of existence of a landlord tenant relationship

between the parties, the findings qua the same being established as

rendered by the learned ARC are taken to be final and binding and this

Court need not to delve into the same.

19. Per contra, Mr. Asutosh Lohia, learned counsel for the landlord

placing reliance upon the judgement entitled Shakuntala Bai & Ors. vs.

Narayan Das & Ors.

20

wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

categorically held that the bona fide requirement of the landlord is to be

assessed as on the date of institution of the proceedings and once a decree

of eviction is passed, the subsequent death of the landlord during the

pendency of an appeal preferred by a tenant does not affect the decree, as

the legal heirs are fully entitled to step in and defend the estate.

20. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties as also gone

through the documents and pleadings on record and the case law cited by

them at the Bar.

21. Regarding the first impugned order, as per the factual matrix

involved, since there was/ is no dispute that the landlord was a senior

citizen aged seventy five years at the time of filing of the Eviction Petition

by him; and further his elder son, being a bureaucrat, was (then) living in

Uttar Pradesh and his daughter was happily married, he needed the subject

premises for financial stability, the same, in view of the findings rendered

by the learned ARC, were sufficient for the landlord to have established a

bona fide requirement for the subject premises. Also, though it was the

case of the tenants that the landlord was running a business of private buses

20

2004 (5) SCC 772

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 8 of 16

and that he was a contractor, however, there was sufficient evidence that

the said business of buses had already stopped and there was no evidence

as to when he was a contractor. It would also be wrong to conclude that

being an old senior citizen, the landlord could not start and run general

merchant shop, particularly, since, as held in Ragunath G. Panhale vs.

Chaganlal Sundarji & Ors.,

21

income, job, financial capacity and/ or

capability of a landlord was his choice and how he runs it and also since

there was no dispute by the tenants that he did not have the means to

employ staff/ personnel for it. On the contrary, it was the case of the

tenants that his children were financially well-off. Based on the facts

herein, the talks of settlement, if any, inter se the parties can be of no

assistance to the tenants.

22. Similarly, since the tenants had failed to provide any cogent

evidence, and the two shops were not exclusively belonging to the landlord

but to his family members of his deceased brother, as also since the subject

premises was situated just below his own residence and since he was a

senior citizen aged seventy five years, there was nothing to deny the relief

of eviction to the landlord on the ground that the tenants were able to show

that he had any other alternative accommodation available with him. In any

event, as held in Akhileshwar Kumar vs. Mustaqim

22

and Kanahaiya Lal

Arya vs. Md. Eshan and Ors.

23

, it is not for the tenant to dictate terms to

the landlord and choose what he deciphers to be a substitute to the subject

premises, more so, that the same was just below the residence of the

landlord who was an old senior citizen.

21

(1999) 8 SCC 1

22

(2003) 1 SCC 462

23

2025 SCC Online SC 432

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 9 of 16

23. Perusal of the first impugned order reveals that the learned ARC has

also rendered similar, well-reasoned and detailed, findings regarding bona

fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord and there being no

other suitable alternative accommodation available with him. As such, in

view of the aforesaid, this Court is agreeable with the aforesaid findings

rendered by the learned ARC qua bona fide requirement of the subject

premises by the landlord. Thus, the same requires no interference.

24. Lastly, in view of the order dated 27.04.2020 passed by this Court,

the landlord tenant relationship between the parties duly stands

established.

25. Resultantly, there is no interference required in the first impugned

order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the learned ARC.

26. Based on the second impugned order, this Court is to adjudge, firstly,

the scope of a revision under Section 25B(9) of the DRC Act read with

Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC and secondly, the extinguishment

of bona fide requirement of a landlord after his demise, particularly, if the

need was per se only that of the landlord. Both the aforesaid issues being

intertwined are being adverted together herein below.

27. The power of review in Order XLVII rule 1 of the CPC

24

is

24

Application for review of judgment-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has

been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the

exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him

at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or

error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to

obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review

of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 10 of 16

circumscribed of an extremely limited nature as specifically mandated

therein as “discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,

despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or

could not be produced at the time of passing of the decree or order”;

“existence of a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record”

and lastly, any “other sufficient reason justifying exercise of the power of

review”. More so, since after pronouncing the order/ final order/

judgement, the Court passing the same becomes functus officio, and can

exercise jurisdiction under Order XLVII rule 1 of the CPC only whence

there is a glaring omission, patent mistake or alike grave errors has crept in

a judgment and/ or order. The core purpose of review being to prevent

miscarriage of justice as also multiplicity of litigations and since review is

certainly not akin to an appeal, it cannot partake the character of an appeal

thereof, review is an exception to the general rule.

28. A review is also certainly not permissible under the guise of

rehearing/ reagitating of what has already been adverted to during the

pendency of the proceedings, much less, and more so, of such new/

subsequent facts regarding the demise of the landlord herein which

nowhere existed prior to passing of the order/ final order/ judgement sought

to be reviewed. The tenants cannot be allowed to invoke a new ground by

filing a review petition based on the subsequent demise of the landlord. The

said demise of the landlord is certainly not such a “discovery” calling for

review of the first impugned order. A review can also not be used a step to

stop execution. Being mindful thereof, the legislature also, in its wisdom,

has not included any such new/ subsequent facts under review jurisdiction,

if that be the case, there will be no end to a litigation.

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 11 of 16

29. The yardstick for maintaining a review petition has been culled out

in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State

of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr.

25

and the same has

recently been followed in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court

entitled Government of NCT of Delhi through its Secretary, Land and

Building Department & Anr. vs. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited & Ors.,

26

the

relevant excerpts whereof are reproduced herein as under:-

“35. The principles which can be culled out from the above

noted judgments are:-

a. The power of the Tribunal to review its

order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is

akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under

Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

b. The Tribunal can review its decision on either of

the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not

otherwise.

c. The expression "any other sufficient reason

appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in

the light of other specified grounds.

d. An error which is not self-evident and which can

be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot

be treated as an error apparent on the face of record

justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).

e. An erroneous order/decision cannot be

corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.

f. A decision/order cannot be reviewed under

Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent

25

(2008) 8 SCC 612

26

(2024) 7 SCC 315

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 12 of 16

decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of

the tribunal or of a superior court.

g. While considering an application for review the

tribunal must confine its adjudication with

reference to material which was available at the

time of initial decision. The happening of some

subsequent event or development cannot be taken

note of for declaring the initial order/ decision as

vitiated by an error apparent.

h. Mere discovery of new or important matter or

evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The

party seeking review has also to show that such

matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and

even after the exercise of due diligence, the same

could not be produced before the court/ tribunal

earlier.

[Emphasis Supplied]

30. In the present case, since the landlord was very much alive at the

time of, and also till the passing of the first impugned order, whereby it was

established that the order of eviction was passed in his favour as his

requirement was found to be genuine, truthful, and benign when he filed

the Eviction Petition, and that too after withstanding the prolonged trial and

test of time, there could be no extinguishment of his legal and valid right

for seeking execution qua the subject premises. On the date of filing and

passing of the first impugned order by the learned ARC, as the landlord

was alive, the cause of action for initiating the Eviction Petition by the

landlord was validly surviving, existing and subsisting. For ease of

reference, reliance is placed upon Shakuntala Bai & Ors. (supra) wherein

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly held as under:-

“11. … …Therefore, the legal position is well settled that the

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 13 of 16

bona fide need of the landlord has to be examined as on the

date of institution of proceedings and if a decree for eviction

is passed, the death of the landlord during the pendency of the

appeal preferred by the tenant will make no difference as his

heirs are fully entitled to defend the estate.

xxx xxx xxx

15. As the preamble shows, the Madhya Pradesh

Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has been enacted for

expeditious trial of eviction cases on the ground of bona fide

requirement of landlords and generally to regulate and

control eviction of tenants. If the subsequent event like the

death of the landlord is to be taken note of at every stage till

the decree attains finality, there will be no end to litigation.

By the time a second appeal gets decided by the High Court,

generally a long period elapses and on such a principle if

during this period the landlord who instituted the

proceedings dies, the suit will have to be dismissed without

going into merits. The same thing may happen in a fresh suit

filed by the heirs and it may become an unending process.

Taking into consideration the subsequent events may, at

times, lead to rendering the whole proceedings taken

infructuous and colossal waste of public time. There is no

warrant for interpreting a rent control legislation in such a

manner, the basic object of which is to save harassment of

tenants from unscrupulous landlords. The object is not to

deprive the owners of their properties for all times to

come.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

31. Same is the view expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Kamleshwar Prasad vs. Pradumanju Agarwal

27

.

32. A perusal of Premchand (supra), Indershand Jain (supra),

Director, Directorate of Education (supra), Jungli (supra) and Seshambal

27

(1997) 4 SCC 413

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 14 of 16

(dead) through LRs (supra) reveal that none of them are/ can be applicable

to the facts and circumstances involved herein as they were all cases

wherein the landlord expired during the pendency of the litigation, i.e.

before passing of the final judgment or there were concealment. Those

were cases wherein the right of the landlord(s) therein stood extinguished

by default. Here is a case where, admittedly, the landlord was very much

alive when the first impugned order was passed by the learned ARC.

33. Similarly, perusal of Hasmat Rai (supra) and Ramesh Kumar

(supra) also reveal that they cannot come to the aid of the tenants as they

all are not pertaining to the DRC Act, where there is no scope of an appeal

against an order of eviction passed by the learned ARC while disposing of

an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and the only

remedy available is one under the revisional jurisdiction. This Court cannot

be expected to import provisions of another/ parallel statute, and that too of

an appeal into the DRC Act, when it is in itself silent about the same, just

to somehow expand the already available scope there. Doing so, would be

against the very purport, intent and principles of the DRC Act. This Court

cannot ignore that Section 14(1)(e) and the intent of introducing Section

25B in the DRC Act thereafter was/ is as a summary procedure as per the

prevailing circumstances within Delhi.

34. Lastly, in the context of the DRC Act, where there is no provision of

an appeal and the only remedy available is that of a review, as held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Joginder Pal vs. Naval Kishore Behal

28

and

followed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Labhu Lal vs. Smt.

28

(2002) 5 SCC 397

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 15 of 16

Sandhya Gupta

29

, in a pari-materia provision, the bona fide need cannot

be interpreted narrowly or restrictively as being confined only to the

personal use of the landlord. The expression “own use” in DRC Act is of

wide import and encompasses the legitimate needs of the members of the

landlord’s family as also it is a moral obligation of a parent to settle their

children and help them to attain economic independence, and such a need

by a landlord is undoubtedly bona fide. Merely because the landlord in a

proceedings under the DRC Act has expired does not mean that his need

for the subject premises has extinguished, particularly, whence there is no

dispute that both the son and daughter are his legal heirs and both of them

are alive.

35. Although, principles of natural justice, equity, conscience and

balance of convenience are not factors on merits, however, before parting,

this Court wishes to express that under the given facts and circumstances

involved, agreeing with the interpretation sought to be given by the learned

counsel for the tenants would amount to relegating the parties to another

long drawn litigation only because the landlord has expired after having an

order of eviction from a Court of law in his favour, and that too after a full-

fledged trial.

36. Therefore, there is no scope of interference by this Court in the

second impugned order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the learned Review

Court as well. Consequently, based on the foregoing, there is no

interference warranted by this Court in either of the two impugned order(s).

37. As such, this Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction,

although cannot assume the role of an Appellate Court so as to supplant its

29

173 (2010) DLT 318

RC.REV. 213/2023 Page 16 of 16

own views in lieu of the what has been expressed by the learned ARC,

however, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja vs. United

India Insurance Co. Ltd.

30

and Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua

31

, it is

trite that in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, if a patent and manifest

error(s) are discernible on the face of the record, it becomes obligatory for

this Court to exercise its revisional powers to correct the miscarriage of

justice. Since there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.10.2021

passed by the learned ARC as also in the impugned order dated 19.07.2023

passed by the learned Review Court, the said orders are upheld.

38. Accordingly, the order dated 23.01.2024 granting stay of the

execution proceedings, is vacated.

39. As such, the tenants are liable to hand over vacant and peaceful

physical possession of the property bearing no.E-45/1, admeasuring 12'7'

112" X 9' ft. situated on the ground floor of E-45, Main Market, Hauz

Khas, New Delhi-110 016 to the landlord/ his legal heir(s) as the time

period in terms of the Section 14(7) of the DRC Act has already lapsed.

40. Accordingly, the present revision petition along with the pending

applications is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

JANUARY 05, 2026/So/aks

30

(1998) 8 SCC 119

31

(2022) 6 SCC 30