MOHD BURHAN & ORS. v. SHRI TRILOKI NATH (SINCE DECEASED)

Judgment

#1. The respondent/ landlord1 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, 19582, against the petitioners/ tenants3 before the learned ACJ/ CCJ/ ARC (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi4, 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:05.01.2026 15:15:23 Delhi-110 0165. Since the application seeking leave to defend of the tenants stood allowed, after a full-fledged trial, vide earlier order dated

22.10.20216, 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 19.07.20237. 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:05.01.2026 15:15:23 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:05.01.2026 15:15:23 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 Delhi8 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:05.01.2026 15:15:23 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 Ali9, Seshambal (dead) Through LRs vs. M/s Chelur Corporation Chelur Building & Ors.10, Hasmat Rai & Anr. vs. Raghunath Prasad11, Ramesh Kumar vs. Kesho Ram12, United Spirits Ltd. vs. Sam Fragrances Pvt. Ltd.13, Jatinder Khanduja vs. Jagdish Khanuja14, Gopal Krisha Sawhney vs. Vinod Kumar15and 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