Mr. Umesh Arora, Mr. Akshay Thakur and Mr. Raghav Arora, Advocates v. RADHA DEVI AGGARWAL ANR

Judgment

1. By way of present revision petition filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter, ‘DRC Act’), the petitioner seeks to set aside the judgment dated 05.06.2024 passed by Ld. ACJ-CCJ-ARC (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in RC/ARC No. 01/2017 (hereinafter, ‘impugned judgment’).

Vide the impugned judgment, learned Trial Court allowed the eviction petition filed by the respondents under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Act and an eviction order came to be passed against the petitioner.

2. The proceedings before the learned Rent Controller were instituted by the respondents-landlords seeking eviction of the petitioner-tenant from a Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:08.04.2025 15:36:33 RC.REV. 368/2024 Page 1 of 7 shop located at the ground floor of property bearing no. A-64, Guru Nanak Pura, Vikas Marg, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110092, admeasuring 78 sq. yards (hereinafter, ‘the tenanted shop’). The respondents, with respondent No.1 being the wife of respondent No.2, claimed that they had a bona fide requirement of the said premises for themselves and their son, Shyam Aggarwal, who was stated to be unemployed, a divorcee and fully dependent on the respondents. The respondents pleaded their need for operating readymade garments shop from the tenanted shop. In the leave to contest, the petitioner had denied the respondents’ ownership as well as the existence of landlord-tenant relationship between them. Rather, the petitioner itself claimed ownership of the tenanted shop on the basis of an Agreement to Sell dated 18.11.1992 claiming to have been entered into with the erstwhile owner. Petitioner’s leave to defend application was allowed vide order dated 17.11.2020. The Trial Court, after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned eviction order.

3. Before this Court, the petitioner assails the impugned judgment by contending that the learned Rent Controller erred in recording that the petitioner had failed to prove the Agreement to Sell dated 18.11.1992 in its favour. It is further submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the rent receipts produced by the respondents were denied, the same having been forged and fabricated by them. The respondents, on the other hand, have defended the impugned judgment.

4. The scope and ambit of revisional powers of this Court under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is now well settled. The exclusive power of revision given to the High Court by the proviso to Section 25-B (8) DRC Act against an order of the Rent Controller is one of superintendence and not Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Date:08.04.2025 15:36:33 RC.REV. 368/2024 Page 2 of 7 appellate in nature. Therefore, the High Court must restraint itself in not supplanting its views upon that of the Trial Court, but only examining as to whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record, going to the very root of whether proper adjudication is undertaken or not. Thus, the Court may only examine the legality or propriety of the proceedings before the Trail Court and not go into evidentiary analysis beyond its permissible scope. [Ref: Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua,1 Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,2 and Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal3]

5. The petitioner firm, while claiming ownership of the shop in question averred that on 22.06.1979, it had paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- to Smt. Sudarshan Rani Sethi, the original owner/landlady, towards security deposit/pagdi. It was further averred that the original owner had also entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 18.11.1992 with the petitioner with regard the tenanted premises for a sale consideration of Rs.1,40,000/- and that the previously paid sum of Rs.60,000/- was agreed to be adjusted and sum of Rs.60,000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement. It is claimed that the remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of the Sale Deed on or before 31.03.1993. The petitioner also claimed that no rent or other charges were collected thereafter by Smt. Sudarshan Rani Sethi or the respondents and the petitioner continued to be in continuous and peaceful possession of the tenanted shop. In this backdrop, the petitioner while claiming ownership denied any landlord- tenant relationship after execution of agreement dated 18.11.1992. On the