Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J
Mohd Burhan – Appellant
Versus
Triloki Nath – Respondent
RC.REV. 213/2023 | CM APPL. 38871/2023 | CM APPL. 22940/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manu Nayar, Sahil Moga, Nitin Kumar, Kanishka Sharma, Lalit Kumar, Esha Goyal
For the Respondents: Asutosh Lohia, Shraddha Bhargava, Rishika Jain, Mohd. Atif Abdullah Khan, Princy Sharma

Bona fide requirement for eviction is assessed as on the date of filing the petition. A landlord's subsequent death does not extinguish the need or vitiate the decree; legal heirs may enforce the order. Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the record and excludes subsequent events.

Headnote:(A) Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(e) and 25B(9) - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII Rule 1 - Bona fide requirement - Assessment date - The necessity of the landlord is to be evaluated as on the date of filing the eviction petition. The death of the landlord during the pendency of proceedings, particularly after the passing of a decree, does not render the eviction order infructuous, as the legal heirs are entitled to defend and benefit from the estate. (Paras 21, 30)

(B) Review Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Review is not an appellate mechanism and cannot be invoked to reassess an order based on subsequent events, such as the demise of a party, which were not in existence when the order was passed. A review is strictly restricted to errors apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of new evidence that was previously inaccessible despite due diligence. (Paras 27, 28)

Facts of the case:
The landlord initiated an eviction petition against tenants on the grounds of bona fide necessity for commercial use. The eviction decree was granted after a full trial. Following the demise of the landlord, the tenants filed a review petition arguing that the requirement had extinguished. The review court dismissed the application, and the present revision petition challenged the validity of the eviction order in light of the landlord's subsequent death.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the requirement was established as genuine at the time of the petition's institution. The subsequent death of the landlord does not extinguish the claim, as the legal heirs succeed the interest in the estate. The review petition was rightfully dismissed as it sought to re-litigate the matter based on developments occurring after the impugned order, which is beyond the scope of review.

Issues: Whether the demise of a landlord after an eviction decree renders the established bona fide need extinct, and whether subsequent events can constitute a ground for review under the civil procedure code.

Ratio Decidendi: Bona fide requirement is adjudicated based on the facts existing at the time of the petition's filing. Judicial precedent clarifies that a decree for eviction does not lapse upon the landlord's death, and personal requirements include the needs of the landlord's family members. Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting glaring omissions or errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a guise for an appeal.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. eviction under section 14(1)(e) requires landlord-tenant relationship and bona fide requirement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. review proceedings are distinct from appeals and do not automatically account for subsequent events. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. parties' contentions on whether landlord's death extinguishes the bona fide requirement. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 19)
4. tenants cannot dictate terms to landlords regarding usage of alternative space. (Para 18 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. bona fide requirement is assessed at filing; death does not nullify established eviction grounds. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
6. dismissal of revision petition confirming eviction order is final. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)

J U D G M E N T

1. The respondent/ landlord¹Hereinafter referred to as “landlord” filed an Eviction Petition being E.P. No.5926/ 2012 under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958²Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”, against the petitioners/ tenants³Hereinafter referred to as “tenants” before the learned ACJ/ CCJ/ ARC (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi⁴Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC”, seeking their eviction from property bearing no. E-45/1, measuring 12'7' 112" X 9' ft. situated on the ground floor of E-45, Main Market, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110 016⁵Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”. Since the application seeking leave to defend of the tenants stood allowed, after a full-fledged trial, vide earlier order dated 22.10.2021⁶Hereinafter referred to as “first impugned order”, the Eviction Petition of the landlord was allowed and an order of eviction passed against the tenants qua the subject premises.

2. Thereafter, the tenants filed a review petition which has been dismissed by the learned Review Court vide an order dated 19.07.2023⁷Hereinafter referred to as “second impugned order”.

3. Succinctly put, the landlord filed an Eviction Petition before the learned ARC as he was the owner-landlord of the subject premises by virtue of a registered Will dated 17.11.1995 executed by his late mother Smt. Surajwati, the erstwhile owner of the entire property wherein the subject premises is situated, by virtue of registered Sale Deed dated 24.09.1954. Since, late Sh. Mohd. Zikria, father of the tenants herein was recognised as a tenant on or around 03.04.2001 and was paying monthly rent of Rs.300/- pursuant to a compromise arrived inter se the landlord and one Sh. Yahyah Khan, and that after the demise of late Sh. Mohd. Zikria, his legal heirs being the present tenants, assumed the status/ position of the tenants. Hence, there was a landlord tenant relationship between the parties.

4. The landlord also professed a bona fide requirement of the subject premises to start a general merchant shop for earning a living for himself and his wife as there were no suitable alternative accommodations for the said purpose.

5. Upon being served, the tenants filed their application seeking leave to defend, which was first declined by the learned ARC on 18.02.2013, and the challenge thereto by the tenants was also dismissed vide order dated 01.10.2013 passed by this Court in RCR no.240/2013. Eventually, the same came to be set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 18.04.2017 passed in SLP(C) no.29167/2014 whereby the tenants were granted leave to defend. Pursuant to the said order dated 18.04.2017 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the tenants filed their written statement.

6. Further, although the tenants initially admitted the landlord tenant relationship between the parties, however, since the tenants raised an issue of ownership, the same was first negated by the learned ARC vide order dated 09.02.2018 and then the same was upheld by this Court vide order dated 27.04.2020. It was also the case of the tenants that there was no bona fide requirement of the landlord owing to his old age, his son residing elsewhere in Uttar Prad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 109

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISaurabh Banerjee, JMohd Burhan – AppellantVersusTriloki Nath – RespondentRC.REV. 213/2023 | CM APPL. 38871/2023 | CM APPL. 22940/2024

Bona fide requirement for eviction is assessed as on the date of filing the petition. A landlord's subsequent death does not extinguish the need or vitiate the decree; legal heirs may enforce the order. Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the record and excludes subsequent events.

Cases Referred (5)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J
Mohd Burhan – Appellant
Versus
Triloki Nath – Respondent
RC.REV. 213/2023 | CM APPL. 38871/2023 | CM APPL. 22940/2024