Sarabjeet Kaur v. Rama Gupta

1. The present Revision Petition, filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [“DRC Act”], seeks to set aside the Impugned Order dated 28.04.2026 [“Impugned Order”] passed by the learned ARC, in Eviction Petition, being RC ARC No. 88/2024, titled “Smt. Rama Gupta vs. Sarabjeet Kaur”, whereby the leave to defend application filed by the Petitioner came to be dismissed and an eviction order was passed in favour of the Respondent.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Order has been passed without jurisdiction inasmuch as the son of the Respondent, in a suit instituted by him against the husband of the Petitioner, had specifically pleaded that rent was being paid at the rate of ₹14,800/- per month.

3. It is, therefore, submitted that the said pleading constitutes an admission on the part of the Respondent regarding the quantum of rent and consequently takes the premises outside the purview of the DRC Act. No other submissions were advanced by the Petitioner.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and, with his able assistance, perused the material available on record.

5. Before proceeding to examine the grounds of challenge urged on behalf of the Petitioner, it would be apposite to advert to the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction vested in this Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.

6. The contours of the aforesaid jurisdiction are well settled. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.1, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh[2], and, more recently, in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua[3], has consistently held that the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is supervisory and revisional in character and cannot be equated with the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

7. The aforesaid principles have also been reiterated and relied upon by Coordinate Benches of this Court, inter alia, in Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors.4, and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover[5].

8. In Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while elucidating the legislative intendment underlying Section 25B of the DRC Act, observed that the omission of an appellate remedy against

2024:DHC:9322 2025:DHC:11285 an Order passed by the learned Rent Controller is conscious and deliberate. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is, therefore, one of superintendence over the decision-making process, including the legality and propriety thereof, and does not permit the High Court to substitute its own view for that of the learned Rent Controller merely because another view on the material available on record may be possible. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court read as under:

9. In Pankaj Pahwa (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court, upon considering the principles enunciated in Abid-Ul-Islam (supra), reiterated that the jurisdiction exercised by this Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is limited in scope and that this Court is not expected to substitute or supplant its view for that of the learned ARC. The revisional scrutiny is confined to examining the decision-making process and determining whether the Impugned Order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or an absence of adjudication warranting interference.

10. In view of the foregoing discussion, the position which emerges is that, while exercising jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B (8) of the DRC Act, this Court is neither required nor permitted to undertake a fresh appreciation of the material on record with a view to arrive at an independent conclusion on the merits of the dispute. Interference would be warranted only where the Impugned Order suffers from a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity or perversity, or where the conclusion arrived at by the learned ARC is wholly unreasonable or founded upon an erroneous premise of law. Equally, where a material plea has been left unconsidered or the decision-making process otherwise discloses an error apparent on the face of the record, exercise of revisional jurisdiction may be warranted.

11. It is within the aforesaid limited parameters of revisional scrutiny that the grounds urged on behalf of the Petitioner against the Impugned Order are required to be examined.

12. Coming to the facts of the present case, the principal contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that the learned ARC lacked jurisdiction taking the premises outside the purview of the DRC Act, inasmuch as the son of the Respondent, in a civil suit instituted against the husband of the Petitioner, had pleaded that rent was being paid at the rate of ₹14,800/- per month.

13. This Court has considered the aforesaid submission and takes note of the fact that the learned ARC has specifically dealt with the aforesaid contention in the Impugned Order. The relevant discussion, contained in Paragraph No. 19 thereof, read as under: