Delhi High Court - Orders
Sh. Rakesh Gulati vs Sh Kanwarjit Singh Kochar & Ors on 22 November, 2025
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 64/2025, CM APPL. 11523/2025-Stay, CM APPL.
11524/2025-Exp
SH. RAKESH GULATI .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Sajal Dhamija, Ms. Shristi
Borthakur, Mr. Neeraj Kumar
Mishra, Mr. Pradeep Chhindra, Mr.
Parth Dhawan and Mr. Devarshi
Mishra, Advocates
versus
SH KANWARJIT SINGH KOCHAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Anil Airi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Aman Madan, Mr. Satyam
Bhatia, Mr. Shubham Bhatia and
Mr. Pranav Gupta, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
ORDER
% 22.11.2025
1. The landlord had filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) seeking eviction of the subject premises being shop no. B-2, 30 - DLF Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, Moti Nagar, New Delhi, New Delhi - 110015 as there was a bona fide requirement thereof for running their vehicle workshop/ service station business and there were no other alternative accommodation available with her for the said purpose.
2. Upon service, the tenant filed its application seeking leave to defend, raising various issues, however, not denying the landlord tenant This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 21:06:08 relationship between the parties.
3. After hearing the parties, and going through the documents on record as well taking the judgments cited by them into consideration, since the tenant was not able to raise a triable issue, the learned ARC dismissed the said application whereby the tenant had sought leave to defend vide the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 and directed to vacate the subject premises after the lapse of the statutory period of six months in terms of Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.
4. It is the said impugned order which the tenant is seeking setting aside of.
5. Of the many grounds raised herein by the tenant, learned senior counsel for the tenant, at the outset, submits that though there were no assertions, and thus no arguments addressed qua the Master Plan for Delhi-2021 (MPD-2021) before the learned ARC, however, relying upon National Textile Corporation Ltd. vs. Nareshkumar Badirkumar Jaga & Ors. (2011) 12 SCC 695, she submits that since the said contention is qua a "legal issue", which, according to her can be raised at any point of time during the pendency of the proceedings, including before this revisional Court as well.
6. Learned senior counsel for the tenant, relying upon ANNEXURE- 7.0(III), which is relating to "PROHIBITED/NEGATIVE LIST OF INDUSTRIES" as also Table 7.3: Development Control Norms of the said MPD-2021, submits that the Eviction Petition of the landlord as filed before the learned ARC was itself not maintainable since the purpose for which the landlord was/ is seeking eviction of the tenant from the subject premises is not allowed.
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 21:06:08
7. For the above, learned senior counsel for the tenant draws the attention of this Court to paragraph 18(a)(A)(ix), (xiii) and (xviii) of the Eviction Petition wherein it is categorically stated that the petitioners are Directors in a Private Limited Company involved in the business of commercial operations relating to automobile and car dealership/ showrooms/ workshop of vehicles belonging to Maruti Suzuki/ Nexa/ True Value, under the trade name M/s. Magic Auto Pvt. Ltd.
8. Lastly, she submits that since the subject premises has only one/ common ingress and egress, the purpose for which the landlord is seeking eviction of the tenant from the subject premises is not permissible as per law. Therefore, there was no bona fide requirement of the landlord for the learned ARC to adjudicate upon, and the impugned order is liable to be set aside for want of jurisdiction.
9. In essence it is the case of learned senior counsel for the tenant that the learned ARC did not have the appropriate jurisdiction to entertain the present eviction petition filed by the landlord.
10. With that, learned senior counsel closed her submissions. As such, since barring the aforesaid no other submissions were advanced, this Court is not to deal with the other grounds raised by the tenant herein and restricts the findings qua the aforesaid submissions only.
11. In response to the aforesaid, learned senior counsel for the landlord submits that there was/ is no foundation for any legal issue(s) in any of the pleadings made by the tenant which can allow the tenant to raise the same here, and that too, in the present revisional proceedings, wherein the scope is extremely limited. Relying upon the celebrated judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithipal Singh vs. Satpal Sing (Dead) through LRs This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 21:06:08 (2010) 2 SCC 15, which has been followed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in Ms. Madhu Gupta vs. M/s Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd., ILR (2012) 1 DELHI 558, he submits that it is well settled that no amendment and/ or fresh grounds can be asserted by the tenant after the expiry of the statutory period of fifteen days after the service of summons.
12. Learned senior counsel for the landlord, then, relying upon "7.8 INDUSTRY USE ZONE-GUIDELINES" of the same MPD-2021, submits the activity for which the landlord is seeking eviction of tenant from the subject premises is very much permissible. In fact, the landlord has been carrying on similar activities in the nearby commercial locations similar to the subject premises.
13. In rejoinder, learned senior counsel for the tenant submits that reliance upon the said "7.8 INDUSTRY USE ZONE-GUIDELINES" of the MPD-2021 is misconceived since the landlord has not been able to show the conversion of land use of the subject premises.
14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, who have concluded their respective arguments, as also having perused the records along with the judgments cited by them, this Court, prima facie, is not convinced.
15. Admittedly, the MPD-2021 was already in existence when the tenant filed his application seeking leave to defend before the learned ARC within the statutory period of fifteen days, as also considering the nature of services provided and the place from which he is providing the said services, it is not wrong to assume that the tenant had knowledge thereof. It is despite that the said MPD-2021 was neither asserted nor argued by the tenant at any point of time therein. Since the said MPD- 2021 never formed a part of the pleadings before the learned ARC, the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 21:06:08 same could not have been considered as a triable issue. As such, the same could not be considered by the learned ARC.
16. In fact, the same is the position before this Court as well, as there is a complete silence qua the applicability of the said MPD-2021. The tenant has not sought any permission to rely upon the same, much less, shown the relevance thereof in an eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. There is no iota of averment as to when and how the tenant came to know about it or what prevented the tenant from bringing the same on record/ filing it. Simply bringing a new document by a party like the tenant before this Court today in a revisional jurisdiction to evade the statutory binding provision of fifteen days cannot be permitted, more so, when the provisions of the DRC Act are sacrosanct. The position of law qua that in Prithipal Singh vs. Satpal Sing (Dead) through LRs (2010) 2 SCC 15 as also in Ms. Madhu Gupta vs. M/s Gardenia Estates (P) Ltd., ILR (2012) 1 DELHI 558 is well settled and needs no reiteration.
17. Even otherwise, the existence and the reliance upon said MPD-2021 is a purely factual issue and the applicability thereof was beyond the purview of the learned ARC and also this Court in the present revisional jurisdiction. The tenant cannot be allowed to take recourse to fresh pleadings by setting up a totally new case and giving it a colour of a "legal issue". Reliance, for this, is placed upon National Textile Corporation Limited (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"12. Pleadings and particulars are necessary to enable the court to decide the rights of the parties in the trial. Therefore, the pleadings are more of help to the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 21:06:08 parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issued. It is settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted". A decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the pa rties. The pleadings and issues are to ascertain the real dispute between the parties to narrow the area of conflict and to see just where the two sides differ. (Vide Trojan & Co. v. Nagappa Chettiar, State of Maharashtra v. Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. and Kalyan Singh Chouhan v. C.P. Joshi.) xxx xxx
19. There is no quarrel to the settled legal proposition that a new plea cannot be taken in respect of any factual controversy whatsoever, however, a new ground raising a pure legal issue for which no inquiry/proof is required can be permitted to be raised by the court at any stage of the proceedings. [See Sanghvi Reconditions (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Greater Mohali Area Development Authority v. Manju Jain.] "
18. In view thereof, though learned senior counsel for the tenant has raised the aforesaid issue, however, the same cannot be allowed to be raised at this juncture.
19. Furthermore, relevance, purpose and nature of business are all issues which were/ are beyond the domain of the learned ARC. The learned ARC in an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act was only to adjudicate upon the three essential requirements of there being existence of a landlord tenant relationship between the parties, the bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord and availability of any reasonably suitable alternative accommodation with the landlord. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, have not only been duly looked into by the learned ARC and qua which appropriate findings This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 21:06:08 have also been rendered. Admittedly, since the tenant has given up his challenge thereto, the same are deemed accepted. In any event, this Court is also agreeable with the impugned order wherein all the aforesaid essential requirements in an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) of the DRC Act have been dealt with and answered in detail by the learned ARC in the impugned order. The same, thus, hardly calls for any interference of this Court in the present revisional jurisdiction.
20. In view thereof, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment upheld.
21. However, at this stage, learned senior counsel for the tenant seeks, and is granted, a period of one week to seek instructions qua the feasible time period within which the tenant would vacate the subject premises and hand over the possession thereof to the landlord, along with the terms of payment qua user and occupation charges for the concerned period.
22. As such, renotify for the aforesaid purpose only on 01.12.2025 at 04:30 P.M. SAURABH BANERJEE, J NOVEMBER 22, 2025/NA This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 26/11/2025 at 21:06:08