Delhi High Court
Rajinder Kumar Gupta vs Sushila Devi Jain (Since Deceased) … on 6 July, 2026
Author: Amit Sharma
Bench: Amit Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 12th May, 2026
Pronounced on: 6th July, 2026
+ RC.REV. 101/2026, CM APPL. 20127/2026, CM APPL. 20128/2026,
CM APPL. 20129/2026, & CM APPL. 24388/2026
RAJINDER KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Uttam Datt, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Tanmay Nagar, Mr. Gurpreet
Singh Sethi, Ms. Srishti Kamboj, Mr.
Yasheshvi, Mr. Kumar Bhaskar and
Mr. Naman Kumar, Advocates.
versus
SUSHILA DEVI JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HER LR
SH. DEVENDER KUMAR JAIN .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Yadav, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Ruchika Vashist, Mr. Arvind
Kumar Gupta, Ms. Pratima K. Gupta,
Mr. Ishan Parashar, Mr. Ashish Singh
& Mr. Abhiesumat Gupta, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
JUDGMENT
AMIT SHARMA, J.
CM APPL. 21311/2026 (Delay)
1. The present application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/applicant
seeking the following prayers: –
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 1 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
“In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Kindly condone the delay of 388 days in filing present Revision
Petition against Eviction Order dated 06.07.2020 in RC ARC 6037/2016
titled as Smt. Sushila Devi Jain V/s Sh. Rajender Kumar Gupta.
b) To order to take the accompanying Revision Petition for hearing on
merits.
(c) Any other further order or relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the fact and circumstance of the case may also be
passed/granted in favour of Petitioner and against the respondent.”
2. By way of the captioned petition filed under Section 25B(8) of the
Delhi Rent Control Act, 19581, the petitioner, inter alia, is seeking quashing
of impugned eviction judgment dated 06.07.2020 passed by learned Rent
Controller, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi, in RC ARC 6037/2016 titled as,
‘Sushila Devi Jain v. Rajinder Kumar Gupta‘, whereby, the eviction petition
filed on behalf of the Late Sushila Devi Jain/respondent herein (since
deceased and now represented through her Legal Representatives) was
allowed, and an eviction order was passed against the petitioner herein in
respect of demised premises, i.e., Shop bearing Private No.2 of premises
No.12/3, Yusuf Sarai, Main Market, New Delhi, measuring 10×45 feet. The
reliefs sought in the captioned petition read thus: –
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
please to:
a) accept the present Rent Control Revision with costs throughout;
1
For short, ‘DRCA’
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 2 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
b) set aside and quash the eviction order dated 06.07.2020 passed by the
court of Sh. Sushant Changotra, RC, South Distt., Saket Courts, New
Delhi in RC/ARC no.6037/16 titled as Smt. Sushila Devi Jain Vs Sh.
Rajinder Kumar Gupta, in respect of shop bearing private no.2, of
premises bearing no. 12/3, Yusuf Sarai, Main Market, New Delhi-
110016.)
c) also to set aside and quash the order dated 25.09.2025 passed in Misc
SCJ 21/2020, titled as Smt. Sushila Devi Jain Vs Sh. Rajinder Kumar
Gupta, by the Court of Ms. Neha Priya, RC (SOUTH), Saket Courts,
New Delhi.
d) and also, to set aside the order dated 14.03.2026 passed in EX .NO
236/2021 by the Court of Ms. Neha Priya, RC (SOUTH), Saket Courts,
New Delhi, in the interest of justice.
e. Any other further order or relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be
passed/granted in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.”
BRIEF BACKGROUND
3. The initial respondent-Lt. Sushila Devi Jain had initiated eviction
proceedings against the petitioner herein in respect of demised premises. It
was stated that her husband – Om Prakash Jain was landlord/owner of the
demised premises, and after his demise, she became the owner of the same.
The demised premises were let out to the father of the petitioner – Kishan Lal
Gupta, and after his demise, the petitioner became the occupant of the
premises in question. The subject eviction proceedings were instituted on
behalf of Sushila Devi by her son-Devinder Kumar Jain as she had executed
special power of attorney in his favour. It was stated that she was suffering
from various ailments like hypertension and heart disease and it was difficult
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 3 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
for her to come from Kolkata to take care of her properties situated in Delhi.
The demised premises were required as she wanted to settle her grandson
before her last breath. Her grandson – Shubham Jain was then 26 years old
and had completed his BBA and CA and was finding it difficult to get a job
and to start his own office as he had articleship experience and had also
undergone the mandatory computer course to start his own practice for which
space was required for establishing an office. It was stated that grandson-
Shubham Jain is dependent upon her for starting his business as the son of the
said, respondent was also not having any alternative shop in order to establish
business for his son.
4. An application seeking leave to defend was filed on behalf of the
petitioner and the same was allowed vide order dated 26.08.2015. Thereafter,
written statement was filed on behalf of the petitioner taking certain
preliminary objections as well as disputing bonafide requirement and non-
availability of alternate suitable accommodation with the respondent/landlady.
Trial was held, and vide impugned judgment dated 06.07.2020, learned Rent
Controller concluded that initial respondent has proved all the ingredients of
Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA, and accordingly, passed an eviction order in
her favour and against the petitioner herein in respect of demised premises.
5. On 27.07.2020, the petitioner herein then filed a review petition, Misc
SCJ 21/2020, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC before learned Rent
Controller seeking review of judgment of eviction dated 06.07.2020, on the
ground that subsequent to the passing of impugned judgment, new important
evidence and facts came to the knowledge of the petitioner which had bearing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 4 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
on the merits of the case. Learned Rent Controller vide impugned order dated
25.09.2025, dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner as no ground
for review was made out. During the pendency of the review petition,
respondent/decree holder-Sushila Devi Jain passed away on 18.05.2021, and
vide order dated 26.02.2022 passed by learned RC, in an application under
Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC, her legal representative, i.e., her son-
Devendra Kumar Jain, was impleaded as the demised premises were alleged
to have been devolved upon him as per Will dated 21.12.2018.
6. In the review petition, on 07.12.2024 before learned Rent Controller
fresh vakalatnama was filed, and learned Rent Controller on said date closed
the right to advance oral arguments, and reserved the order in view of the
written submissions which were already on record. Against this order dated
07.12.2024, an appeal, RCT ARCT No.26 of 2024, was filed by the petitioner
before learned District Judge, South, Saket, which was dismissed vide
judgment dated 20.12.2024, which was further challenged by the petitioner by
way of a petition, CM(M) 4116/2025, before this Court. Learned Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2025, gave opportunities to the
parties to argue the review application afresh.
7. Against the order dated 25.09.2025, petitioner preferred an appeal,
RCT ARCT No.13/2025, before learned Rent Control Tribunal under Section
38 of the DRCA which was subsequently, on 27.03.2026, withdrawn by the
petitioner/appellant with liberty to ‘take recourse to appropriate remedy as
permissible in law; of course subject to law of limitation’.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 5 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
8. It is pertinent to note that, in the meanwhile, on 08.04.2021, execution
proceedings, EX. 236/2021, were initiated on behalf of the respondent
wherein objections raised on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor were
dismissed by learned Executing Court.
9. The petitioner herein filed the present petition on 24.03.2026, and the
same was listed for hearing on 30.03.2026. The present application, CM
APPL.21311/2026, under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation
Act, 1963, filed on behalf of the petitioner/applicant was listed before this
Court on 06.04.2026.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER/APPLICANT
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/applicant has made the
following submissions in support of the latter’s case: –
i) The impugned eviction judgment was passed on 06.07.2020, i.e.,
during the period when Covid-19 restrictions were imposed. The petitioner,
on 25.07.2020, well within the prescribed time period preferred an application
under Order XLVII of the CPC seeking review of judgment dated 06.07.2020.
It is submitted that subsequent to the passing of the impugned eviction
judgment, new important evidence and facts came to the knowledge of the
petitioner which had bearing on the merits of the case, and notice in the
review application was issued on 28.07.2020. It is further submitted that
during the pendency of the review application, original respondent-Sushila
Devi Jain expired on 18.05.2021, which added to further delay in disposal of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 6 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
the review application. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been
diligently pursuing his remedy under law, and vide order dated 31.07.2025
passed in CM(M) 4116/2024, learned Coordinate Bench had granted leave to
the petitioner to raise additional grounds on account of subsequent events. It
is further submitted that the impugned eviction judgment was passed on
06.07.2020, and in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in In Re- Cognizance on Extension of Limitation2, he is entitled to
benefit of extension of limitation and period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 is
to be excluded for the purposes of limitation. Thus, the period of limitation
for assailing the judgment dated 06.07.2020 for filing the revision petition
will commence from 01.03.2022, and would expire on 28.02.2025.
ii) It is further submitted that during the pendency of review application,
an application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC dated 19.11.2020 filed
on behalf of the petitioner for placing on record certain documents was
allowed vide order dated 20.09.2025, and documents, namely, MCF Tax Bill,
copy of ledger record of property, F7/1, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurugram, copy
of proper assessment report of premises, JE1160, Bharat Diamond, Mumbai,
copy of Cibil report of Mr Shubham Jain, copy of CBN Pan base query,
photographs of property No.122/A-17, Gautam Nagar, Delhi, copy of MCG
Tax Bill of property situated at Gurugram, copy of relinquishment deed were
taken on record. It is pointed out that this application was allowed on no
objection given on behalf of original respondent/landlord. Attention of this
Court has been drawn by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner towards
the following observation made by learned Rent Controller in paragraph 66 of
2
(2022) 3 SCC 117: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 27
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 7 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
impugned judgment dated 06.07.2020: –
“66. Moreover, it is necessary to note that in the evidence, the respondent
completely abandoned the aforementioned plea that Sh. Shubham Jain
was employed in M/s Accenture. In the cross-examination of PW-2 Sh.
Devinder Jain, a case was set up by the respondent by putting a
suggestion that Sh. Shubham Jain is having ample space and he is
already running a business. Thereafter, in his evidence by way of
affidavit, the respondent categorically deposed that Sh. Shubham Jain
was carrying on business from JE-1160, Bharat Diamond Building,
Bandra, Mumbai. The respondent did not plead or depose that earlier Sh.
Shubham Jain was working in M/s Accenture and subsequently he
started his own business in Mumbai. Infact in the evidence, the
respondent introduced completely new plea which is contradictory to the
earlier plea that he was employed in M/s Accenture. The said plea cannot
be accepted because firstly it is beyond pleadings and secondly besides
making bald assertion, the respondent did not bring forth any cogent
evidence to substantiate the same.”
It is further submitted that learned RC had erred in concluding, in the
impugned eviction judgment dated 06.07.2020, that the plea of the petitioner
that Shubham Jain is having ample space and is already running a business,
cannot be accepted. It is submitted that there was an error apparent on the face
of the record and for rectification of the same, the aforesaid application under
Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC dated 19.11.2020 was filed on behalf of the
petitioner for placing on record certain documents, as noted hereinbefore, to
show that grandson of the landlord-Shubham Jain was already running a
business and was having ample space to satisfy his need and requirement.
iii) Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
latter had filed an application under Section 151 of the CPC for placing on
record subsequent developments, i.e., the death of original respondent and the
alleged Will dated 21.12.2018 propounded by one legal heir-Mr. Devender
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 8 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
Kumar, and the filing of possession suit by supreme landlords-Rohit
Dhankard & Ors., who served a legal notice dated 26.12.2020 to the petitioner
herein claiming themselves to be the supreme owner landlords of the demised
premises/suit property after filing of the review application by the petitioner
herein. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the review petition,
it came to the knowledge of the petitioner herein that the respondent-
Devender Kumar Jain has impleaded himself as the only legal heir of Late
Smt. Sushila Jain as per Will dated 21.12.2018, and in execution proceedings,
said Will has been disputed by other legal heirs of the original
respondent/landlord, and owing to such subsequent developments, the
eviction judgment dated 06.07.2020 cannot be executed at all. It is further
submitted that as per Will dated 21.12.2018 the demised premises along with
2nd floor has been bequeathed to Devender Kumar who is the absolute owner
of the demised premises in terms of the alleged Will, and the need for
Shubham Jain can no longer be considered in terms of transfer of property in
favour of 3rd party as said Shubham for whose bonafide requirement, the
subject petition was filed is the attesting witness to the said Will and was well
aware of the fact that the original respondent had bequeathed the demised
premises to Devender Kumar which was totally contradictory to the stand
taken by the respondent in the eviction petition. It is further pointed out that
the original respondent was survived by five sons and one daughter and her
legal heirs were disputing the execution of the aforesaid alleged Will. It is
further argued that the supreme landlord-Rohit Dhankard & Ors. who had
served a legal notice dated 26.12.2020 had also filed a suit for possession
titled as, ‘Roshni Devi & Ors. v. Jai Pal Jain & Ors.‘ which is pending in the
Court of learned ADJ, Saket Court, New Delhi, against the respondent herein
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 9 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
in respect of the suit property where the demised premises are situated
claiming themselves to be owners of the demised premises. It is further
submitted that aforesaid facts were placed on record by the petitioner during
the pendency of review proceedings, and an opportunity was granted by
learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 31.07.2025 passed in CM(M)
4116/2024, had granted leave to the petitioner to raise additional grounds on
account of subsequent events before learned RC which were ignored by
learned RC while passing the impugned judgment dated 06.07.2020. It is case
of the petitioner that said facts were also not taken into consideration while
passing order dated 25.09.2025 in review application by learned RC.
iv) The case of the petitioner is that there is no delay on his part in filing
the present petition, if the period for filing the same is reckoned from the
order dated 25.09.2025 whereby, his review application was dismissed. It is
further the case of the petitioner that the present application has been filed
bonafidely to avoid the technicality on account of delay in challenging the
impugned eviction judgement dated 06.07.2020. It is submitted that the
petitioner was bonafidely and diligently pursuing his legal remedies in
accordance with law and owing to such genuine reasons as explained herein
before, the alleged delay, if any, had occasioned. It is further the case of the
petitioner that the limitation period to challenge the eviction order dated
06.07.2020 by way of a revision petition under Section 25B (8) of the DRCA
is 3 years as provided under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Reliance
has also been placed on judgment passed by learned Coordinate Bench in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 10 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
Nira Garg v. Om Prakash Grover3, particularly on paragraphs 8, 8.1, and
8.2 thereof, to contend that limitation period to file a petition under Section
25B (8) of the DRCA is 3 years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act,
1963.
v) It is further the case of the petitioner that he preferred an appeal, RCT
ARCT 13/2025, under Section 38(1) of the DRCA against order dated
25.09.2025, whereby, his application seeking review under Order XLVII of
the CPC of judgment dated 06.07.2020 was dismissed. During the pendency
of said appeal, issue with respect to maintainability had transpired, and the
petitioner withdraw the appeal with liberty to avail appropriate remedy as
available under law vide order dated 27.03.2026. It is submitted that the
petitioner was pursuing the appeal under bonafide mistake before Rent
Tribunal, and therefore, he being a lay man cannot be penalised for pursuing
wrong remedy and cannot be rendered remediless. Thus, the petitioner is
entitled for exemption of limitation period till 27.03.2026 while he was
pursuing appeal filed under Section 38(1) of the DRCA.
vi) It is further submitted that the present revision petition was filed on
24.03.2026, and there is delay of 1 year 23 days, i.e., 01.03.2025 to
23.03.2026, in filing the same. It is further submitted that the application
seeking review of judgement dated 06.07.2020 was filed by the petitioner
within limitation period, and same was pending and was finally decided on
25.09.2025. The delay which has occasioned in filing of the captioned petition
was owing to various reasons including restrictions of COVID-19, demise of
3
2025 SCC OnLine Del 939
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 11 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
original respondent, delay in disposal of review application by learned RC,
which were beyond the control of the petitioner. Thus, the delay occasioned
was not attributable to the petitioner in view of the facts and circumstances of
the present case.
vii) It is further submitted that the petitioner was pursuing his remedies
before Rent Tribunal on the basis of legal advice and was diligently pursuing
the appeal filed before the Tribunal. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to
exemption under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as he was under
belief of bonafide mistake was pursuing his appeal. It is further submitted that
the delay in filing the present petition was neither deliberate nor intentional,
and the time spent was due to overlapping and parallel pending proceedings
before wrong forum, i.e., Rent Appellate Tribunal. It is further submitted that
the petitioner has good prima facie case on merits, and will suffer an
irreparable injury if the delay is not condoned, and the present petition is
dismissed on the basis of this technicality.
viii) Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by learned
Coordinate Benches of this Court in Bata India Limited v. Smt. Sarla
Sharma Through Lrs. & Ors.4, particularly on paragraphs 14, 15, 27, and 29
thereof, and Mohd. Arshad & Ors. v. Syed Mohd Yahaya Nizami 5 ,
particularly on paragraphs 2, 7, and 55 thereof, to contend that the present
petition is maintainable against the impugned order dated 25.09.2025
whereby, the review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
4
2021 SCC OnLine Del 2538
5
2024 SCC OnLine Del 7173
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 12 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
ix) Reliance has also been placed on judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Karnataka State Electronics Developments Corporation
Ltd v. Kumaon Entertainment and Hospital Pvt. Ltd. 6 particularly on
paragraph 25 thereof, to contend that the time spent by the petitioner in
diligently pursuing review proceedings before learned RC and appeal before
learned Rent Appellate Tribunal bonafidely should be excluded, and benefit
under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, should be extended to the
petitioner.
x) Reliance has also been placed on judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 7 ,
particularly on paragraph 25.3 thereof, to contend that the time spent by the
petitioner in diligently pursuing the remedy by way of review may in
appropriate cases be excluded from consideration while condoning the delay
in fling the appeal/revision.
11. Reliance has also been placed on following precedents by learned
Senior Counsel in support of aforesaid contentions: –
a) Rahimal Bathu and Ors v. Ashyal Beevi8;
b) Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More and
Ors.9;
6
2023 SCC OnLine SC 1250
7
(2012) 6 SCC 782
8
(2024) 20 SCC 328
9
(2019) 6 SCC 387
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 13 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
c) Hasmat Rai and another v. Raghunath Prasad10;
d) Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram11;
e) Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal12;
f) Sheshambal thr LRs v. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building
and Ors.13;
g) S.P. Chelgal Varata Naidu v. Jagannath and Ors.14;
h) Mangat Ram and Anr. v. Sardar Meharban Singh and
Ors.15;
i) D. Satyanarayan v. P. Jagdish16;
j) Munisami v. Raghunatha17;
k) Kundan v. Gurudutta18;
l) Navin Chander v. Union of India19;
m) Sh. Ranbir Yadav v. Life Insurance Corporation of India20;
n) M/s Narain Jewlers v. Col Sohan Singh & Ors.21 .
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT/NON-
APPLICANT
12. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/non-applicant, while
10
1981 (3) SCC 103
11
1992 SUPP (2) SCC 623
12
(2001) 5 SCC 705
13
2010 3 SCC 470
14
1994 1 SCC 1
15
(1987) 4 SCC 319
16
(1987) 4 SCC 424
17
(1991) 2 SCC 139
18
(1989) 1 SCC 522
19
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 9902
20
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 11287
21
(2018) SCC OnLine Del 12905
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 14 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
refuting the case of the petitioner/applicant has made the following
submissions in support of the respondent’s case: –
i) The petitioner has misused the process by adopting dilatory tactics and
had successfully delayed the disposal of the review application despite being
well aware of the fact that properties were maintained by the respondent. It is
further submitted that the petitioner has been enjoying the demised premises
even after passing of an eviction judgment/order against him and even
without paying market rent after expiry of six months from the passing of
impugned eviction judgement. It is further submitted that during the review
proceedings, there was no stay on the operation of eviction judgment dated
06.07.2020, and execution proceedings initiated on behalf of the
respondent(s) were also pending. It is further submitted that the petitioner had
delayed the disposal of execution proceedings as objections under Order XXI
Rule 47 of the CPC against the said judgment were filed by the petitioner
through one Amit Dhankard on 04.12.2021. It is further submitted that the
petitioner was neither diligently pursuing the review proceedings, nor the
execution proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel during the course of
arguments had handed over a table of list of dates of events to demonstrate
that the proceedings were delayed on account of petitioner’s conduct. The
relevant dates and events from the said table read thus: –
28.07.2020 Review application filed. Notice issued to the petitioner, i.e.,
Sushila Devi.
27.11.2020 Another application filed under Order VIII Rule 1A CPC
read with Order VII Rule 14 CPC by the non-applicant.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 15 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
31.03.2021 to Covid Protocol and en-bloc dates were given.
02.07.202104.08.2021 It was intimated to the Hon’ble Court that Smt. Sushila Devi
died. The review applicant sought time to implead the legal
heirs of the deceased Smt. Sushila Devi Jain.
17.08.2021 Application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC was filed.
04.12.2021 Non-applicant filed yet another application to bring on
record subsequent development.
Arguments on application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC were
heard and the matter was posted for orders on 07.01.2022.
07.01.2022 Matter was at the stage of Order on application under Order
22 Rule 3 CPC. However, on submission of the parties, the
application was treated under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. Review
applicant raised objection with regard to the issuance of
notice to all the legal heirs. The Ld. Court observed that
objections by all the legal heirs has been filed in the
execution petition to cut short the controversy of the Ld.
Court and asked all the legal heirs to appear through VC.
13.01.2022 Statement of legal heirs were recorded.
26.02.2022 Ld. Court allowed application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC.
09.09.2022 Application for recall of order dated 26.02.2022 was filed
and was dismissed.
28.04.2023 Matter was listed for arguments. However, the review
applicant took the date on the ground that RC Rev. No.
210/2020 titled as “Sushila Devi Vs. Adesh Kumar Gupta” is
pending before the Hon’ble High Court. The respondent did
not argue the matter, but the petitioner i.e., Smt. Sushila
Devi Jain was ready to argue the matter. Copy of the order
dated 28.04.2023 passed by the Ld. Court is annexed
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 16 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
herewith as Annexure R-2.
01.07.2023 Again time was sought by the review applicant for placing
on record the subsequent documents and the matter was
adjourned for 15.07.2023. Copy of the order dated
01.07.2023 passed by the Ld. Court is annexed herewith as
Annexure R-3.
15.07.2023 Put up for order on 19.08.2023.
ii) It is submitted that notice in the review application was issued on
15.09.2020, and an application under Order VIII Rule 1A of the CPC as an
attempt to delay the disposal of review application was filed by the petitioner
on 19.12.2020. It is further submitted that the original respondent had passed
away on 18.05.2021 and time was taken by the petitioner on several occasions
to address arguments in the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the CPC
for impleading the LRs of original respondent-Sushila Devi Jain. It is further
submitted that another application for placing on record subsequent events
during the review proceedings was filed by the petitioner on 28.11.2022. Said
application was dismissed by learned RC vide order dated 27.07.2024. It is
pointed out that during review proceedings, petitioner filed an appeal under
Section 38(1) of the DRCA against the order dated 27.07.2024 passed by
learned RC which was dismissed by learned Rent Tribunal on 16.10.2024.
Thereafter, new counsel was engaged by the petitioner to address arguments
in review application. Learned RC closed the right of the petitioner to address
oral arguments on 07.12.2024 and reserved the order in view of written
submissions already placed on record. Said order was challenged by learned
RC in appeal before learned Rent Tribunal, which was dismissed vide
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 17 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
judgment dated 20.12.2024 passed by learned District Judge. It is further
submitted that the petitioner was not diligent in pursuing his case, and
therefore, the application seeking condonation of delay is liable to be
dismissed.
iii) It is further submitted that the petitioner is seeking condonation of
period spent before learned Rent Tribunal in appeal preferred against order
25.09.2025; however, learned Rent Tribunal on the very first hearing, i.e.,
04.12.2025, had put the petitioner to notice that the said appeal is not
maintainable and the appropriate remedy to be exercised is revision. It is
further submitted that the petitioner himself chose to proceed with the said
appeal and therefore is not entitled to benefit under Section 14 of the
Limitation Act. It is the case of the respondent that the period of limitation to
file the present revision petition had expired on 06.07.2023, and the
conditions prevailing during COVID-19 pandemic did not prevent the
petitioner from interacting with his counsel and taking recourse to appropriate
remedies in accordance with law, and therefore, the judgment of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in In Re- Cognizance on Extension of Limitation22 (supra),
would not be applicable to the present case. Reliance has been placed on a
judgment passed learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in HT Media
Limited & Anr. v. Barinlink International, Inc. & Anr.23, in support of this
contention.
iv) Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme
22
(2022) 3 SCC 117: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 27
23
2021 SCC OnLine Del 5398
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 18 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
Court in Rabinder Nath Samuel, Dawson v. Sivakasi & Ors.24, to contend
that benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to a party, who persisted in
earlier proceedings, despite repeated objections being taken by the opposite
party cannot be granted. It is submitted that in the present case, on the very
first date of hearing before learned Rent Tribunal objection with respect to
maintainability of the appeal assailing order dated 25.09.2025 was taken and
despite being the same, it was withdrawn belatedly after arguments were
addressed by the petitioner.
v) In these circumstances, it is submitted that the present application is to
be dismissed and the petitioner is not entitled to benefit under Section 14 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in filing the captioned
revision petition.
13. Reliance has also been placed on following precedents by learned
Senior Counsel in support of aforesaid contentions: –
a) Brainlink International, INC & Anr. v. HT Media Limited &
Anr.25;
c) Maniben Devraj Shah v. Municipal Corporation of Brihan
Mumbai27;
d) Sesh Nath Singh and Anr. V. Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative
24
(1973) 3 SCC 381
25
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 3579/2022
26
(2010) 8 SCC 685
27
(2012) 5 SCC 157Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 19 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
Limited & Anr.28;
e) Suryachakra Power Corporation Ltd. V. Electricity Department29.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
14. Heard learned Senior Counsels for the parties, and perused the record.
15. The case of the petitioner is that there is no delay on his part in filing
the present petition, if the period for filing the same is reckoned from the
order dated 25.09.2025 whereby, his review application was dismissed. It is
further the case of the petitioner that the present application has been filed
bonafidely to avoid the technicality on account of delay in challenging the
impugned eviction judgement dated 06.07.2020. It is submitted that the
petitioner was bonafidely and diligently pursuing his legal remedies in
accordance with law and owing to such genuine reasons as explained herein
before, the alleged delay, if any, had occasioned. The limitation to challenge
an order/judgement by way of revision petition under Section 25B (8) of the
DRCA is three years as held in Jai Prakash v. Jean Conea30.
16. It is also not in dispute that Hon’ble Supreme Court In Re-
Cognizance on Extension of Limitation (supra) had given benefit of
extension of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. The period of
limitation, therefore, for challenging the judgment dated 06.07.2020 for filing
the revision petition would have commenced from 01.03.2022 and would
28
(2021) 7 SCC 313
29
(2016) 16 SCC 152
30
Civil Misc. Appeal No.1724 of 1980, order dated 18-11-1980 (Del)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 20 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
have expired on 28.02.2025. The review application filed by the petitioner in
exercise of remedy available to him under Section 25B (9) of the DRCA
cannot said to be malafide only because the same was subsequently dismissed
after a substantial period of five years. In DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the
Hon’ble Supreme Court while determining the issue of limitation in respect of
an appeal filed against an original order of Tribunal against which a review
petition had also been dismissed, had observed and held as under: –
“25. Different situations may arise in relation to review petitions filed
before a court or tribunal.
25.1. One of the situations could be where the review application is
allowed, the decree or order passed by the court or tribunal is vacated
and the appeal/proceedings in which the same is made are reheard and a
fresh decree or order passed in the same. It is manifest that in such a
situation the subsequent decree alone is appealable not because it is an
order in review but because it is a decree that is passed in a proceeding
after the earlier decree passed in the very same proceedings has been
vacated by the court hearing the review petition.
25.2. The second situation that one can conceive of is where a court or
tribunal makes an order in a review petition by which the review
petition is allowed and the decree/order under review is reversed or
modified. Such an order shall then be a composite order whereby the
court not only vacates the earlier decree or order but simultaneous with
such vacation of the earlier decree or order, passes another decree or
order or modifies the one made earlier. The decree so vacated reversed
or modified is then the decree that is effective for the purposes of a
further appeal, if any, maintainable under law.
25.3. The third situation with which we are concerned in the instant
case is where the revision petition is filed before the Tribunal but
the Tribunal refuses to interfere with the decree or order earlier
made. It simply dismisses the review petition. The decree in such a
case suffers neither any reversal nor an alteration or modification.
It is an order by which the review petition is dismissed thereby
affirming the decree or order. In such a contingency there is noSignature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 21 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
question of any merger and anyone aggrieved by the decree or
order of the Tribunal or court shall have to challenge within the
time stipulated by law, the original decree and not the order
dismissing the review petition. Time taken by a party in diligently
pursing the remedy by way of review may in appropriate cases be
excluded from consideration while condoning the delay in the filing
of the appeal, but such exclusion or condonation would not imply
that there is a merger of the original decree and the order
dismissing the review petition.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had
vehemently argued that the petitioner cannot get benefit of pendency of the
review petition for the purposes of condonation of delay inasmuch as the
same was a malafide attempt to delay the proceedings so that the respondent
could not reap the benefit of the judgment of eviction dated 06.07.2020.
Reliance was also placed on the judgment rendered by learned Single Bench
of this Court in HT Media Limited & Anr. v. Barinlink International, Inc.
& Anr. (supra) to submit that the extension of limitation period in terms of
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in In Re- Cognizance on Extension
of Limitation (supra) would not be available to the petitioner as the Covid-
19 pandemic did not actually affect the petitioner from interacting with the
counsels and take recourse to appropriate proceedings inasmuch as review
petition was filed by him, and had been pursued by the petitioner before the
concerned Court/learned RC. However, the fact remains that the petitioner
could not have filed the review petition and revision petition simultaneously.
Review petition, as noted hereinabove, was filed within prescribed limitation
time and had to be brought to its logical end for the petitioner to challenge the
impugned judgment dated 06.07.2020. The delay in disposal of the review
petition has been attributed by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 22 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
to the conduct of the petitioner in moving frivolous applications and raising
unnecessary objections to the impleadment of the legal heirs of the original
respondent. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent had placed on record a
list of dates in order to demonstrate the attempts made by the petitioner at
various stages during the pendency of the review petition in order to delay the
same. A perusal of the aforesaid list of dates would show that the proceedings
were being adjourned not only on account of petitioner’s
applications/objections; but also, for other reasons, including on account of
COVID-19 protocol when en-bloc dates were given. It is also an admitted fact
that there was no stay of operation of the impugned judgment dated
06.07.2020 passed in the aforesaid proceedings in the review petition and the
respondent had parallelly initiated execution proceedings with regard to the
same.
18. In view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in DSR
Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the period of limitation for challenging the original
order would start from date of the order itself and not from the date of the
dismissal of the review petition. However, as noted above, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that, in cases, where the review petition had been
pursued diligently, then the benefit of the said period would be given for the
purposes of limitation. Taking legal recourse to a remedy available in law,
cannot be said to be malafide exercise. Outcome of said remedy would have
no bearing on the issue of limitation as in the present case. Delay in
proceedings cannot be solely attributed to the petitioner in order to deny the
benefit of the said period for computing the prescribed period of limitation.
The period for the challenging the impugned judgment dated 06.07.2020 after
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 23 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
giving the benefit of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in In Re-
Cognizance on Extension of Limitation (supra) would end on 28.02.2025,
and since the review petition was pending and was disposed of on 25.09.2025,
further period from 01.03.2025 till 25.09.2025 would not be reckoned in
computing limitation for challenging the impugned judgment dated
06.07.2020 and the benefit of the same would be given to the petitioner. Thus,
the said judgment dated 06.07.2020 ought to have been challenged by the
petitioner immediately after dismissal of review application vide order dated
25.09.2025 but it was not done.
19. It is pertinent to note that the order of dismissal of the review petition
was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal, RC ARCT No.
13/2025, before learned Rent Control Tribunal under Section 38 of the
DRCA, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to take
recourse to appropriate remedy as permissible in law vide order dated
27.03.2026. It is the case of the petitioner that he is also entitled to exemption
of the said period as the aforesaid exercise of the remedy of appeal under
Section 38 of the DRCA before learned RCT was under bonafide mistake.
The appeal was filed by the petitioners on 04.12.2025. Learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent had pointed out that on the very first date of
hearing, i.e., on 04.12.2025, in the said appeal, learned RCT had raised issue
of maintainability, and time was given to learned counsel for the petitioner to
file written submissions alongwith relied upon precedents and the matter was,
thereafter, listed for 05.01.2026. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent
has placed on record various ordersheets of the learned RCT showing that on
05.01.2026, petitioner had sought further time to place on record the written
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 24 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
submissions, and had also moved an application under Order XXI Rule 22
read with Section 151 of the CPC for placing on record substantial question of
law by way of additional affidavit. Learned RCT further adjourned the matter
for the petitioner to file written submissions. Thereafter, the matter was
adjourned from 03.02.2026 till 06.03.2026 on the request of the petitioner to
place on record more precedents, and finally, the said appeal was disposed of
as withdrawn on 27.03.2026 with liberty as noted hereinbefore.
20. Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, reads as under: –
“14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in court without
jurisdiction.–(1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the
time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence
another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first instance or of appeal
or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the
proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good
faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like
nature, is unable to entertain it.
(2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the
time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due
diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a court of first
instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same
relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good
faith in a court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a
like nature, is unable to entertain it.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 2 of Order XXIII of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), the provisions of sub-section
(1) shall apply in relation to a fresh suit instituted on permission granted
by the court under rule 1 of that Order, where such permission is granted
on the ground that the first suit must fail by reason of a defect in the
jurisdiction of the court or other cause of a like nature.
Explanation. –For the purposes of this section,–
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 25 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
(a) in excluding the time during which a former civil proceeding
was pending, the day on which that proceeding was instituted and the
day on which it ended shall both be counted;
(b) a plaintiff or an applicant resisting an appeal shall be deemed
to be prosecuting a proceeding;
(c) misjoinder of parties or of causes of action shall be deemed to
be a cause of a like nature with defect of jurisdiction.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. To bring the case of the petitioner within Section 14(2) of the
Limitation Act, 1963, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to show that the
proceedings were prosecuted “for the same relief” and in “good faith”. It is
pertinent to note that impugned eviction judgment dated 06.07.2020 was not
challenged after the dismissal of the review vide order dated 25.09.2025 by
learned RC. As already noted hereinbefore in DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. (supra),
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in case the review petition is
dismissed, there is no question of any merger and anyone aggrieved by the
original decree/order of the Tribunal or Court shall have to challenge within
the time stipulated by law, the original decree and not the order dismissing the
review petition. Therefore, the limitation to challenge the original eviction
judgment would commence from 06.07.2020 and as already noted
hereinbefore, the same, even after giving benefit of In Re- Cognizance on
Extension of Limitation (supra) expired on 28.02.2025. Further, even if, the
period till the passing of order/disposal of review application, i.e., 25.09.2025,
is excluded, then also, the present petition qua judgment dated 06.07.2020 is
time barred by 180 days as the present petition is dated 24.03.2026. The
petitioner had not challenged said judgment dated 06.07.2020 after dismissal
of the review application vide order dated 25.09.2025.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 26 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
22. After dismissal of review application/petition, the petitioner could have
separately challenged the original eviction judgment dated 06.07.2020. Even
in the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the eviction judgment
dated 06.07.2020, order dated 25.09.2025 whereby, review application was
dismissed, and order dated 14.03.2026 passed in Execution proceedings
together.
23. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 25.09.2025 whereby, the
review application was dismissed by way of an appeal, RC ARCT 13/2025,
before learned Rent Control Tribunal. The said appeal was filed and listed for
hearing on 04.12.2025, and learned Rent Control Tribunal on the first date of
hearing, i.e., 04.12.2025, had put the petitioner to the notice as to how the said
appeal under Section 38 of the DRCA was maintainable. The petitioner still
did not challenge the eviction judgment dated 06.07.2020 by way of a petition
under Section 25B (8) of the DRCA. In any case, the benefit of Section 14(2)
of the Limitation Act cannot be granted to the petitioner as before learned
Rent Control Tribunal order dated 25.09.2025 was challenged. The judgment
dated 06.07.2020 and order dated 25.09.2025 are two distinct and separate
orders. The reliefs sought in prayer ‘(b)’ of the instant petition is with respect
to judgment dated 06.07.2020 and not order dated 25.09.2025 which was
challenged way of an appeal under Section 38 of the DRCA before learned
Rent Control Tribunal. Thus, the proceedings in appeal before the learned
Rent Control Tribunal was not “for the same relief”. At this stage, a useful
reference can be made to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 27 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
Yeswant Deorao Deshmukh v. Walchand Ramchand Kothari 31 . In the
said case, an execution application was filed after 12 years from the date of
the final decree and to overcome the bar of limitation, amongst other
contentions, the appellant therein sought the exclusion of period occupied in
insolvency proceedings under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963. In
such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed and held as
under: –
“5. Points 1 to 3 abovementioned are of no avail to the appellant. The
decree was not a conditional one in the sense that some extraneous event
was to happen on the fulfilment of which alone it could be executed. The
payment of court fees on the amount found due was entirely in the power
of the decree-holder and there was nothing to prevent him from paying it
then and there; it was a decree capable of execution from the very date it
was passed. There could be no exclusion of the time occupied by the
insolvency proceedings which clearly was not for the purpose of
obtaining the same relief. The relief sought in insolvency is obviously
different from the relief sought in the execution application. In the
former, an adjudication of the debtor as insolvent is sought as
preliminary to the vesting of all his estate and the administration of
it by the Official Receiver or the Official Assignee, as the case may
be, for the benefit of all the creditors; but in the latter, the money
due is sought to be realised for the benefit of the decree-holder alone,
by processes like attachment of property and arrest of person. It
may be that ultimately in the insolvency proceedings the decree-
holder may be able to realise his debt wholly or in part, but this is a
mere consequence or result. Not only is the relief of a different
nature in the two proceedings but the procedure is also widely
divergent.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. In the present case, by way of the appeal, RC ACRT 13 of 2025, under
Section 38 of the DRCA before learned Rent Control Tribunal, the relief
sought was distinct from the relief sought in prayer ‘(b)’ of the instant
31
1950 SCC 766: 1950 SCC OnLine SC 44
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 28 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
petition, i.e., impugned eviction judgment dated 06.07.2020 passed by learned
RC.
25. No explanation has been forthcoming from the petitioner as to why the
judgment of eviction dated 06.07.2020 was not challenged immediately after
the dismissal of review application vide order dated 25.09.2025.
26. In these circumstances, the present application is dismissed and
disposed of accordingly.
CM APPL. 20128/2026, CM APPL. 20129/2026
27. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Applications are
disposed of accordingly.
RC.REV. 101/2026, CM APPL. 20127/2026, & CM APPL. 24388/2026
28. List this petition with respect to remaining prayers ‘c’ and ‘d’ on
24.08.2026 before Roster Bench.
29. Judgment be uploaded on the website of this Court, forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA
(JUDGE)
JULY 06, 2026/bsr/ns
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed RC.REV. 101/2026 Page 29 of 29
By:SHIWANI NEGI
Signing Date:06.07.2026
19:08:47
