Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 722

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
AMIT SHARMA, J.
Mr. Som Nath Kharbanda - Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Manoj Kumar Mittal And Ors. - Respondents
RC.REV. 313 of 2018, CM APPL. 27702-27703 of 2018, CM APPL. 53087 of 2018, CM APPL. 37836 of 2022, RC.REV. 376 of 2018, CM APPL. 31399 of 2018, CM APPL. 53081 of 2018
Decided On : 19-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Piyush Pahuja and Mr. Upender Kumar, Advocates.

In rent control proceedings, a substantial dispute raised by a tenant regarding the landlord's ownership, substantiated by conflicting property claims or pending legal title litigation, creates a triable issue necessitating the grant of leave to defend, thereby barring summary eviction.

Headnote:(A) Rent Control - Eviction petition - Grounds of bonafide requirement - Leave to defend - Essential criteria - Where a tenant raises a substantial dispute regarding the landlord’s ownership, especially when supported by evidence of competing claims and pending civil litigation, such a dispute constitutes a triable issue under rent control legislation - Summary eviction orders are inappropriate when the fundamental right to initiate proceedings on the basis of title is in contest. (Paras 12, 34)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Revisionary powers - When a lower authority fails to account for documentation challenging the landlord's title or disregards active legal proceedings concerning ownership of the subject property, the resulting eviction order is legally unsustainable and liable to be set aside. (Paras 35, 37)

Facts of the case:
The landlord initiated an eviction action against tenants for commercial premises, citing the bonafide requirement of a family member. The tenants sought leave to defend, challenging the landlord's ownership status and asserting that another individual held exclusive title based on specific legal instruments. Evidence of a separate, ongoing civil suit regarding property partition and ownership claims was presented. The lower court rejected the application for leave to defend and ordered immediate eviction, leading the tenants to file revision petitions.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the lower authority did not adequately assess the significance of the competing ownership claims. The existence of active litigation where different parties asserted exclusive title to the property meant the landlord’s standing was not sufficiently established for a summary disposal of the case. Consequently, the denial of the leave to defend was found to be erroneous.

Issues: Whether a dispute regarding the landlord's ownership, supported by evidence of conflicting and contemporaneous legal claims to the property, constitutes a triable issue that prohibits summary eviction and necessitates granting leave to defend.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that when a tenant produces material facts during the leave to defend stage that challenge the landlord's title—provided these claims are not frivolous and are substantiated by supporting evidence such as pending litigation—the court is obligated to grant leave to defend. Summary procedures are designed for clear-cut cases and cannot be invoked when the basic landlord-tenant relationship and the right of the landlord to seek eviction are under active, unresolved judicial dispute.

Result: Revision petitions allowed; impugned eviction orders set aside and the matter remanded to the initial authority for further proceedings.

Table of Content
1. factual background involving eviction petitions under drca. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. petitioner challenges eviction and claims dispute regarding property ownership. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. landlord asserts ownership and right to evict based on co-ownership principles. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
4. judicial assessment of conflicting ownership claims and site plans. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
5. disputed ownership necessitates granting leave to defend in eviction proceedings. (Para 34)
6. eviction order set aside; matters remanded for further trial. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petitions under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, (for short, “DRCA”) have been filed assailing common impugned order dated 29.05.2018 passed in Case No. E-616/2017 ( CIS No. 713/2017) passed by learned ARC, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, whereby, the applications seeking leave to defend filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed and an eviction order was passed against them in the eviction petition filed on behalf of respondent No.1-Manoj Kumar Mittal.

2. During the pendency of the proceedings in the present petitions, petitioner in RC REV. 313/2018-Somnath Kharbanda had passed away on 25.10.2023. An application, CM APPL. 13416/2024, was filed on behalf of the legal heirs of the said deceased revisionist under Order XXII Rule 3 read with Section 151 of the CPC, and they were impleaded in the present petition vide order dated 23.11.2023 passed by learned Predecessor of this Court as learned counsel for respondent No.1 had given no objection to their impleadment.

3. Brief facts of the present case are that, respondent no. 1-Manoj Kumar Mittal had filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the petitioners-tenants from demised premises, i.e., one shop on the ground floor of the property bearing no. 17-A, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007, on the ground of bonafide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA. It was stated that respondent No.1 is a co-owner of the aforesaid property. Earlier, one Chandgi Ram was the owner of the demised premises having purchased the said property by way of a Sale Deed dated 11.08.1964. It was stated that he had three sons and five daughters namely, Sunder Lal Mittal, Rattan Lal Mittal, Ram Autar Mittal, Umra Devi, Triveni Devi, Pushpa Devi, Munni Devi, Bimla Devi. Tusla Devi wife of Chandgi Ram, and Umra Devi, Triveni Devi, Pushpa Devi, Munni Devi, Bimla Devi, and Ratan Lal Mittal, had executed a relinquishment deed dated 15.01.1985 in favour of Sunder Lal Mittal, father of respondent No.1, and Ram Avtar Mittal, uncle of respondent No.1. It was further stated that partition took place between Sunder Lal and Ram Avtar Mittal vide registered Partition Deed dated 21.12.1989 and father of respondent No.1 became absolute owner of the subject property. Thereafter, Sunder Lal Mittal, father of the respondent No.1, passed away on 05.03.2000 and was survived by his wife-Bhagirathi, and respondent No.1 including other siblings, namely, Ashok Mittal, Dinesh Mittal, J.K. Mittal, Manoj Kumar Mittal, Asha Singhal, Usha Goyal, Madhu Garg. Bhagirathi Devi, mother of respondent No.1, died on 20.12.2006.

4. It was stated that the subject premises comprise of one shop on the ground floor of the subject property, and were let out to Permanand & Nihal Chand. Both of them have expired and the demised premises are now in possession of the petitioners-tenants/sons of Permanand. Family of the respondent No.1 consists of his wife, three children including two daughters, a son, and himself. The ground on which respondent No.1 has preferred eviction petition was that the said premises are required bonafidely by his younger daughter, Sonika Mittal, who wants to do business of Management Consultant and Financials Strategic Solution Provider for which she requires a proper office consisting of 300 sq

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 722

In rent control proceedings, a substantial dispute raised by a tenant regarding the landlord's ownership, substantiated by conflicting property claims or pending legal title litigation, creates a triable issue necessitating the grant of leave to defend, thereby barring summary eviction.

Cases Referred (20)