Delhi District Court
Harsh Bajaj vs Santosh Khandelwal on 12 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE- 02,
CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided By- Sh. Sandeep Kumar Sharma, DHJS
MCA DJ No. 38/2025
CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025
In the matter of:-
Harsh Bajaj
Prop. of M/s Madan Lal Bajaj & Co.
At : 3368, Hauz Qazi
Delhi - 110006
.......... Appellant
Versus
Smt. Santosh Khandelwal
W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Khandelwal
R/o 3370, Hauz Qazi,
Delhi - 110006
.......... Respondent
ORDER
1. This Court is rendering present Order to decide the maintainability of the present MCA No. 38/25 by Sh. Harsh Order dated 12.07.2025 MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 1 of 11 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12 16:53:32 +0530 Bajaj (hereinafter to be referred to as 'appellant') preferred against the order dated 07/05/2025 passed by Ld. SCJ Cum RC, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in the RC No. 434/2024 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'impugned order'), filed by Ms. Santosh Khandelwal (hereinafter to be referred to as 'respondent') by which the application of the appellant filed under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 CPC read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed.
Facts pleaded in the appeal (In brief)
2. It is averred by the appellant that the respondent has filed an eviction petition against the appellant under Section 14(1)
(e) read with Section 25 (B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'DRC Act') to obtain the possession of the shop no. 3368, Ground Floor, Hauz Qazi, Delhi-110006, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Suit property').
3. It has further been averred that after receiving summons from the Ld. Court the defendant applied for the leave to defend and in reply to the same the respondent has concealed material details and documents such as bank account and financial status details of respondent, her husband, son and daughter in law and also the details of the residence where the respondent and her immediate family members are residing Order dated 12.07.2025 MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 2 of 11 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12 16:53:42 +0530 etc. which are necessary for the appellant to defeat the eviction petition of the respondent.
4. Therefore, in order to produce and bring all those documents on record the appellant has filed an application under Order XI Rule 12 and 14, read with Section 151 CPC, though Ld. Rent Controller dismissed the same by the impugned order. Hence, the present appeal is filed under Section 38 of the DRC Act to set aside the impugned order and to bring the documents on record so that the real facts and truth may come out.
Query raised by the Court on its maintainability
5. This Court has raised a question on the maintainability of the present appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act to which it has been replied by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that the said Section provides that every order of the Ld. Rent Controller is appealable before this Court and thus, it is maintainable and liable to be decided on merits.
Analysis and conclusion
6. It is essential to deal with the question that whether an appeal under Section 38 of the Act is maintainable against the impugned order. The appellant has an argument that every order passed by the Ld. ARC is appealable under Section 38 Order dated 12.07.2025 MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 3 of 11 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12 16:53:49 +0530 of the DRC Act and therefore, the present appeal is maintainable.
7. In the present case it is a matter of record that the present appeal is an outcome of the proceedings initiated under Sec 14 (1) (e) read with Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act. It is well- settled law that Section 25 (B) DRC Act provides a special procedure for the disposal of an application for eviction under the ground of bona-fide requirement. The Section 25(B)(8) of DRC Act provides that no appeal shall lie against an order for recovery of possession or any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure prescribed under this section. The law is settled that order for recovery include eviction or dismissal order. At this stage it is appropriate to reproduce the Section 38, 25(A) and 25 (B) (8) of the DRC Act, as under, "38. Appeal to the Tribunal.
(1)An appeal shall lie from every order of the Controller made under this Act [only on questions of law] [Inserted by Act 57 of 1988, section 16 (w.e.f. 1-12-1988).] to the Rent Control Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) consisting of one person only to be appointed by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette:[Provided that no appeal shall lie from an order of the Controller made under section 21.] [Inserted by Act 57 of 1988, section 16 (w.e.f. 1-12- 1988).] (2)An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be preferred within thirty days from the date of the order made by the Controller: Provided that the Tribunal may entertain the appeal Order dated 12.07.2025 MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 4 of 11 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12 16:53:56 +0530 after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time...."
"25A. Provisions of this Chapter to have overriding effect.-
The provisions of this Chapter or any rule made thereunder shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force. Section 25(B) Special procedure for the disposal of applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.
......
(8) No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the recovery of possession of any premises made by the Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this section:
Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying itself that an order made by the Controller under this section is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such order in respect thereto as it thinks fit. ...."
8. It is necessary to mention that the non-obstante Clause in Section 25(A) DRC Act provides that "the provisions of this Chapter or any rule made there under shall have the effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained elsewhere in this Act or any other law for the time being in force".
9. Further, Section 25 (B) of the DRC Act provides that if an application is made under Clause (e) of the proviso to Section 14 (1) it has to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure Order dated 12.07.2025 MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 5 of 11 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12 16:54:05 +0530 specified therein and not under the provisions contained in Chapters other than Chapter III-A. The procedure laid down in Section 25(A) read with Section 25(B)(1) envisages a separate and concise procedure for proceedings before the Ld. Rent Controller. The rationale of providing the present mechanism is to provide an expeditious remedy to the landlord/owner in respect of his bonafide needs of the tenanted property.
10. Coming back to the facts of the present case where the proceedings were initiated on the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and during the proceedings the application of the appellant filed under Order XI Rule 12 and 14 read with Section 151 CPC was dismissed by the impugned order. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant emphasized that Section 38 of DRC Act specifically provides that an appeal would lie from every order passed by the Ld. Rent Controller and the words 'every order' are wide enough to encompass the impugned order as well. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant further argued that the appeal is excluded only when the Controller decides an application seeking eviction but such bar would not come into play while dealing with any subsequent or interlocutory applications.
11. The arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant are not legally tenable in view of the observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as 'Mohd. Arshad & Order dated 12.07.2025 MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 6 of 11 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12 16:54:13 +0530 Ors. vs Sayed Mohd. Yahaya Nizami: 2024 SCC Online Del 7173', wherein after getting a decree under Section 14(1)(e) of DRC Act, the landlord filed an execution petition for implementation of the decree.
12. However, the tenant filed objections against the executing court but the same were dismissed and against the said order tenant filed an appeal which was held to be not maintainable by the Rent Tribunal. Against that order tenant went to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi but the Hon'ble High Court did not interfere in the orders of the Tribunal. The relevant para 56 and 57 are reproduced as follows, "56. The remedial procedure prescribed for challenging any order of eviction is, admittedly, an accelerated one and, therefore, it will be incomprehensible to hold that the remedial procedure for any such order passed in execution thereof should be any different. Any interpretation, to the contrary, would, manifestly, mitigate against the legislative intention behind introduction of swift procedure for such like eviction petitions.
57. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed."
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. Further, in another case it has been observed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Bata India Ltd. Vs. Sarla Sharma & Ors, MANU/DE/0774/2021' as follows, "27. A reading of the above quoted provisions of the Act as also the above-referred judgments, would clearly show that Section 25A of the Act gives primacy to the procedure contained in Section 25B of the Act for an Eviction Petition filed under Section 14(1)(e), or 14A, 14B, 14C or 14D of the Act, and a Order dated 12.07.2025 MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 7 of 11 SANDEEP Digitally by SANDEEP signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12 SHARMA 16:54:21 +0530 remedy of an appeal under Section 38 of the Act would not be available to the parties to such Eviction Petition against any order passed in exercise of such procedure...
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. From the above referred to judgments it may safely be hold that the any proceedings which may arise in pursuance of the proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act squarely covered within the ambit of Section 25(A) and 25(B) of the DRC Act. The bar on the right of appeal against any order passed in such proceedings shall apply to all the related proceedings as well be it execution or objections filed in it.
15. The facts of present matter provides that the present appeal is an outcome of the proceedings of the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, therefore, it is absolutely lucid that no appeal would lie under Section 38 of the DRC Act against any order passed at interim stage or at final stage in the proceedings under Section 38 of the DRC Act with regard to the proceedings which have been initiated under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
16. Further, in the case of 'Kewal Singh vs Lajwanti (supra) 1980 SCR (1) 854, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the special procedure provide a speedy remedy to the landlord to get the eviction of the tenant and to plugs all the loopholes which may cause delay in getting the relief by the landlord. It has also been observed Order dated 12.07.2025 MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 8 of 11 SANDEEP Digitally by SANDEEP signed KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12 SHARMA 16:54:30 +0530 that Section 25(8) merely bars the appeal before the Rent Tribunal but remedy by way of revision to the High Court against the order has been provided. It was further observed that the legislature has not taken away the right of the tenant in cases falling within the ambit of Section 14 A and 14 (1)
(e) of the Act but has limited it to a right to file revision.
17. It is important to mention that recently the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as 'Rambeti vs Pandit Ram Kishan Sharma' CM(M) 835/2025 & CM APPL. 27132- 27133/2025, wherein the Ld. Additional Rent Controller dismissed an application of the tenant to examine additional witnesses in an eviction petition instituted under Section 14(1)
(e) DRC Act. Feeling aggrieved by the order, the tenant filed an appeal under Section 38 of the DRC Act, which was also dismissed on merits by the Ld Appellate Court. Thereafter, the tenant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the judgment passed by the appellate court.
18. On 05.05.2025, after hearing the tenant, the Hon'ble High Court issued notice to the landlord, though in para 5 of that order it was observed that the appeal under Section 38 DRC Act was not maintainable against the order of Ld. Additional Rent Controller by which application to examine additional witness was rejected, since the proceedings were initiated under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act. The para 3 and 4, which provide the factual matrix of the dispute, and in para 5, Order dated 12.07.2025 MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 9 of 11 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12 16:54:42 +0530 which has the observations of the Hon'ble High Court, are reproduced here as under:
"3.During pendency of the trial, the tenant sought permission to summon additional witnesses. The endeavour of the tenant was to dispute the ownership of the landlord. However, such request has been declined, holding that when the leave to defend application was decided, the relationship of landlord and tenant was held to have been established and, therefore, no such evidence can be permitted to be led.\
4. Fact, however, remains that, feeling aggrieved by such order dated 11.02.2025, an appeal was filed and even such appeal has been dismissed "5. Since matter was concerning bona fide requirement, it is not comprehensible as to how an appeal could have been filed under Section 38 of Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 as only remedy, to any aggrieved party, was to file a Revision Petition (Emphasis Supplied)
19. Therefore, it is lucid that 'any order' passed by the Ld. Additional Rent Controller in the proceedings initiated under Section 14(1)(e) DRC Act, cannot be challenged by way of an appeal under Section 38 of DRC Act and the only remedy is to file a revision petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in terms of the Section 25(8) of the DRC Act.
20. In the light of the above discussed facts, circumstances and established legal position, appeal under Section 38 of DRC against the impugned order is held to be not maintainable. The only remedy available with the respondent Order dated 12.07.2025 MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 10 of 11 Digitally signed SANDEEP by SANDEEP KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.07.12 16:54:54 +0530 is to go in revision challenging the impugned order before the Hon'ble High Court. Consequently, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.
21. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. SCJ cum RC.
22. The file be consigned to record room after due compliances.
SANDEEP Digitally
SANDEEP
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA
Date: 2025.07.12
SHARMA 16:55:11 +0530
Pronounced in the open Court (Sandeep Kumar Sharma)
on July 12th, 2025 DJ-02/Central/THC/Delhi
Order dated 12.07.2025
MCA DJ No. 38/2025 CNR No. DLCT01-009565-2025 Harsh Bajaj VS Santosh Khandelwal Page No. 11 of 11