IMPORTANT POINT
A revision petition becomes infructuous when possession of the tenanted premises has been restored to the landlord, limiting the High Court's role to procedural compliance.

JUDGMENT :

(Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.)

The orders dated 12.12.2022, 19.03.2018, and 27.07.2016 reflect that it is the admitted case of both the parties that the possession of one Shop on the Ground Floor bearing No. B-372, Ashok Nagar, Main Mandoli Road, Shahdara, Delhi-110093 [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”] has been handed over to the Respondent/landlady through execution proceedings.

2. The issue of whether a Revision Petition is maintainable when the tenanted subject premises has been legally restored to the Respondent/landlady, either during or before the filing of the Revision Petition, has been addressed by the Supreme Court as well as by Coordinate Benches of this Court.

3. The Supreme Court in NC Daga v. Inder Mohan Singh Rana, (2003) 1 SCC 453, dealt with a similar situation while dismissing a challenge by a tenant to a judgment passed by this Court upholding an order declining leave to defend passed by the learned Trial Court. The facts in the case were that, possession of the tenanted premises had been taken pursuant to an order passed by the Executing Court. The Supreme Court dealt with the similar arguments raised on behalf of the Respondent/landlord that the Petition has become infructuous pursuant to the possession having been taken.

4. After briefly examining the contention of the parties, the Supreme Court in N.C Daga case held that in view of the admitted position of possession being taken in execution proceedings, it was not necessary to go into the further details since such a decision would be a purely an academic question. The Supreme Court in N.C Daga case held as follows:

“6. In view of the admitted position that pursuant to the order passed by the Rent Controller, possession has been taken on execution of the order permitting eviction, and absence of specific stand regarding implied consent it is, however, not necessary to go into the finer details and to examine the rival stand in the background of legal position as it would amount to rendering decision on a purely academic question. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed, without any order as to costs.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

5. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar Verma v. Manmohan Verma, Civil Appeal Nos. 5220-5221 of 2008 order dated 19.08.2008 where on an averment by the Respondent/landlord that possession of the premises has already been taken over, the Supreme Court held that nothing further survives in the Appeal and disposed the Appeals as being infructuous. The order being brief is extracted below:

“Leave granted.

At the time of hearing of these appeals, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landlord-respondent submits, on instructions, that the possession of the premises in question has already been taken over by the landlord-respondent. That being the position, these appeals have now become infructuous, which have been filed against the final judgment and order dt.25.02.2008 and 28.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in RCR No.49 of 2007 and C.M.No.119 of 2008 (Review) in RCR No.49 of 2007, by which the Revision Petition filed by the tenant/appellant was dismissed and order of eviction was affirmed. Since the possession has already been taken over by the landlord-respondent, in our view nothing survives in these appeals and accordingly, the appeals are disposed of as infructuous. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

There will be no order as to costs.”

[Emphasis Supplied]

6. Various Coordinate Benches of this Court have also similarly held that the tenant’s Petition have become infructuous in view of possession being taken. Reliance is placed on Neelam Sharma v. Ekant Rekhan, 2019 SCC Online Del 6487 and Bhawani Shankar v Nand Lal and Ors., 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4284.

6.1 In Om Prakash Ashok Kumar & Sons v. Ajay Khurana, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5228 while relying on the NC Daga case and several other cases, a Coordinate Bench held as follows:

“10. This Court in various decisions has followed the deci