Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2778
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Tara Vitasta Ganju, J
MUNNI DEVI – Appellant
Versus
M/S OLIVE EXIM PVT. LTD. – Respondent
REVIEW PET.-37/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Samrat Nigam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ghulam
For the Respondents:
Corporate entities have the right to maintain a petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for bona fide needs.
Headnote:The present Petition seeks to challenge an order dismissing the Revision Petition based on the interpretation of Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court finds that the review basis was not established as there was no error or omission warranting reconsideration. The legal right of a corporate entity to maintain an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) was affirmed. The application for review is therefore dismissed.
CM APPL. 4606/2025 [Exemption from filing certified copies]
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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed RC.REV. 294/2024 Page 1 of 5 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 , [(2013) 8 SCC 693] . 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:
“55. Be that as it may, the pendency of a similar matter before a larger Bench has not prevented this Court from dealing with the issue on merits. Even on earlier occasions, the pendency of the matter before the larger Bench did not prevent this Court from dealing with the issue on merits. Indeed, a few cases including Pawan Pratap Singh [(2011) 3 SCC 267 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 481] were decided even after the issue raised in Asis Kumar Samanta [(2007) 5 SCC 800 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 262] was referred to a larger Bench. We, therefore, do not feel constrained or precluded from taking a view in the matter.”
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 Signature Not Verified
Industries Ltd., [2023 SCC OnLine Del 3517], 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:
“50. Firstly, this Court is in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that pendency of a similar matter in reference to a larger Bench, would not preclude the Court from dealing with the issue on merit. The observations made in the judgment of Coordinate bench in WhatsApp LLC (Supra) is clear on the said issue.
The relevant extract of the said judgment reads as under:
31. Similarly, in P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao [ P. Sudhakar Rao v. U. Govinda Rao (2013) 8 SCC 693], the Supreme Court observed that the pendency of a similar matter before a larger Bench did not prevent the Supreme Court from dealing with the issue on merit.
32. The Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. V.K.
Vashisht [Union of India v. V.K. Vashisht 2012 SCC OnLine Del 6312] has also observed on the question of effect of a reference to the larger Bench as under:
“14. With regard to the contention that a similar matter is pending before a larger Bench of the Suprem
