Munni Devi v. M/S Olive Exim Pvt. Ltd.

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 37/2025

3. The present Petition has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 18.12.2024 passed by this Court whereby the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Review Petitioner submits that the only ground that has been taken by the Petitioner in the Review Petition is that the issue as to whether a company is entitled to invoke the provisions of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 [hereinafter referred to as the “DRC Act”] has not been placed before the Court which is also the subject matter of a reference before the Division Bench of this Court in RC. REV. 18/2016 captioned K.S. Bhandari v. International Security Printers Pvt Ltd. It is contended by Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that this aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the Court during arguments and thus, the Order dated 18.12.2024 is required to be reviewed.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, however fairly submits that there was no objection taken as to the maintainability of the Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act before the learned Trial Court.

6. The issue as to whether the pendency of a similar matter in a larger bench would preclude a Court from dealing with the issue on merits has been dealt with by the Supreme Court in the case of P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao[1]. It has been held that the pendency of a matter before a larger bench would not preclude a Court from dealing with the matter on merits. The Supreme Court observed as under:

7. In addition, the specific issue which is sought to be challenged by the Review Petitioner has also been dealt with by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Bhaskar Refractories & Stoneware Pipes (P) Ltd. v. Ishwar

Industries Ltd.2, where the view of the Supreme Court has been followed and it has been held that an entity/Company is entitled to maintain a Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The relevant extract of the Bhaskar Refractories & Stoneware Pipes (P) Ltd. case is reproduced below:

2023 SCC OnLine Del 3517 pending before the larger Bench of the Supreme Court, in my opinion, they show that even during such pendency, the other courts may and should continue to decide the cases and applying the law as it then prevails. This is so, as mere pendency of a reference before the larger bench does not denude the other courts of their jurisdiction to decide on the lis before them. Similarly merely because of the pendency of the above proceedings before the Supreme Court and before this Court, Respondent 1 cannot be said to be bound to necessarily hold its hands and not exercise the jurisdiction otherwise vested in it under the statute. Maybe, it would have been prudent for Respondent 1 to have awaited the outcome of the abovereferred petitions before the Supreme Court and before this Court, however, merely for its decision not to wait, the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction or so perverse so as to warrant to be quashed by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction.

51. The law as it stands today recognises the right of a corporate entity to maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, for its bona fide need. In this regard, it would relevant to refer to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Ravinder Kumar Verma v. Laxmi Narayan Mandir Nirman Sabha, 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6024.” [Emphasis Supplied]

8. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Rajhans Realtors (P) Ltd. v. Rajinder Kumar Goyal[3], has held that Section 22 of the DRC Act does not bar the filing of an eviction petition, on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord/company.

9 This Court has already examined the matter on merits in view of the settled legal position, and by its order dated 18.12.2024 in RC.REV. 294/2024, found the Petition to be devoid of merits.