$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 22/2026, CM APPL. 3937/2026, & CM APPL. 3939/2026 (exemption from filing trial court record)

SH MANOJ KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Adv.

versus MASTER AARUSH KUMAR .....Respondent Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

O R D E R

% 20.01.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CM APPL. 3938/2026(exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. This application is disposed of. RC.REV. 22/2026, CM APPL. 3937/2026, & CM APPL. 3939/2026 (exemption from filing trial court record)

3. The present petition under Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeks the following prayers: -

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the petitioner’s petition and set-aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 in RC ARC No. 19/2023 titled as ‘Master Aarush Kumar Vs. Sh. Manoj Kumar’ passed by the Court of Ld. ACJ/CCJ/ARC, New Delhi District, Patiala House Court, New Delhi in the interest of justice.

Any other relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court deems just, fit and proper may also be awarded in the favour of the petitioner against the respondent, in the interest of justice.”

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ tenant submits that the learned ARC while disposing of the leave to defend application of the petitioner vide order dated 09.10.2025, did not adjudicate upon the objections taken by him with respect to the maintainability of the eviction petition in view of the bar under Section 14(6) of Delhi Rent Control, Act, 1958. It is pointed out that it was the case of the respondent that he had acquired the subject property by way of a registered sale deed dated 01.08.2022, executed by his father, who in turn claimed to had received it through certain unregistered documents from his own father i.e. respondent’s grandfather.

5. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 in RC ARC No. 19/2023, wherein the learned ARC while dealing with the aforesaid issue observed as under: -

“Before discussion on the necessary ingredients required for proving the petition u/s 14 (1) (e) R/w Sec 25-B DRC Act, it is relevant to mention that the respondent side has raised an objection with regard to maintainability of the present petition, being hit by Section 14 (6) of the DRC Act. The said objection has been dealt with by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2024 and the said order has attained finality and accordingly, there is no need for adjudication on the said issue.”

6. Reliance has been placed upon the Judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs. Ram Avtar Gupta, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 9150, and particularly on the following paragraphs: -

“23. Though the petitioners/tenants, neither in the leave to defend application nor before the ARC nor in the Memorandum of this petition nor before this Court have taken the said ground and did not even bother to file the copy of the relinquishment deed or the Will along with the paper book but the aforesaid being a legal ground and it being the duty of the Court to ensure that the order of eviction is in accordance with law, this Court is entitled to consider the said aspect.

24. Rather, I am surprised that the learned Additional Rent Controller, inspite of being a specialised Tribunal, glossed over the said fact and even without the petitioners/tenants taking the said ground not considering the same before passing an order of eviction.”

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order dated 06.08.2024 was passed by the predecessor learned ARC at the time of issuing notice, which means without hearing the petitioner herein. It is further submitted that the learned ARC ought to have dealt with the said objections before passing the impugned order dated 09.10.2025.

8. Issue notice to the respondent on petitioner taking necessary steps through al