The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition challenging its earlier order that upheld the maintainability of an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court reiterated that a review is not an appeal in disguise and can be entertained only when a mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, without requiring any reasoning process. It found no such error in its prior decision holding that a gift deed executed by a father in favour of his sons did not constitute a 'transfer' triggering the bar under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act, as the landlords were already co-owners of the premises by lineage.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from an eviction petition filed by the landlords (Prakash Chand Gupta & Ors.) before the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (ARC) under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). The tenant (Ajay Kumar Gupta) challenged the maintainability of the eviction petition, contending that the landlords had acquired the suit premises by a gift deed dated 24.12.2021 executed by their father, Shri Rattan Lal, in favour of the three sons (the petitioners). The tenant argued that this amounted to a 'transfer' under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, thereby attracting the bar of Section 14(6) DRC Act, which prohibits eviction if the landlord has acquired the premises by transfer and less than five years have elapsed.
Key Facts
- The suit premises bearing No. E-22, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 were originally let out by the parents of the petitioners to Shri Jai Narain Gupta (father of the respondents) since about 1954.
- Shri Jai Narain Gupta died on 31.01.1992; thereafter the respondent occupied the premises on a monthly rent of Rs.15.
- The other legal heirs of Shri Jai Narain Gupta surrendered their tenancy rights in favour of the respondent vide a Surrender Deed dated 01.05.2010.
- Smt. Vidyawati (mother of the petitioners) died on 04.03.2020, leaving behind her husband Shri Rattan Lal and seven children, including the petitioners.
- The children of Smt. Vidyawati relinquished their rights in the property in favour of Shri Rattan Lal through two relinquishment deeds dated 19.01.2021 and 24.03.2021.
- Shri Rattan Lal, father of the petitioners, executed a Gift Deed dated 24.12.2021 in favour of his three sons (the petitioners), bearing registration No. 12612 in Book No.1, volume No. 8850, pages 91-100.
- The tenant contended that this gift deed constituted a 'transfer' under Section 122 TP Act, making the landlords’ acquisition recent and thus barring eviction under Section 14(6) DRC Act.
- The ARC, however, held that the transaction was a family settlement, not a transfer, as the landlords were already co-owners of the premises by lineage, and consequently allowed the eviction petition on merits.
Procedural History
- 09.08.2024: ARC passed the impugned order allowing the eviction petition (ARC No.170/2022).
- RC.REV. 397/2024: Tenant filed a revision petition before the High Court challenging the ARC order.
- 02.12.2025: Single Judge of the High Court passed the order under review, dismissing the revision petition and upholding the ARC’s findings.
- 20.12.2025: Interim order granting interim relief to the tenant (stay of execution).
- REVIEW PET. 640/2025: Tenant filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 02.12.2025.
- 09.10.2026: Judgment reserved.
- 16.10.2026: Judgment pronounced.
Relief Sought
The tenant sought review and reversal of the order dated 02.12.2025, arguing that the gift deed was a 'transfer' triggering Section 14(6) DRC Act, and prayed for the eviction petition to be declared non-maintainable, with consequential relief including vacation of any interim order and permission to retain possession.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the Gift Deed dated 24.12.2021 executed by Shri Rattan Lal in favour of his sons constitutes a 'transfer' under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 such that the landlords’ acquisition falls within the ambit of Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958; and (2) Whether a review petition is maintainable when no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is shown, particularly where the petition seeks to re-argue issues already decided.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner/Tenant
The tenant’s senior counsel contended that the gift deed was a outright transfer of ownership under Section 122 TP Act, citing N.P. Saseendran vs. N.P. Ponnamma & Others (2025) 7 SCC 502 to assert that any inter-se family transfer triggers Section 14(6) DRC Act. It was argued that the landlords had not owned the premises prior to the gift deed, as the tenants had become co-owners only after the mother’s death on 04.03.2020, and thus the acquisition was recent and barred eviction. The tenant further urged that the Court’s earlier order (02.12.2025) had erred in treating the deed as a family settlement without applying the statutory bar.
For the Respondent/Landlords
The landlords’ counsel maintained that the gift deed was a bona fide family settlement intended to avoid future disputes among legal heirs, not a transfer for consideration. Reliance was placed on V.N. Sarin vs. Major Ajit Kumar Poplai (1966) SCR (1) 349 to show that Section 14(6) DRC Act targets acquisitions by rank outsiders or third parties, not inter-se family transactions where the parties were already co-owners by lineage. It was emphasized that the landlords had been co-owners since the surrender deed of 01.05.2010 and the relinquishment deeds of 2021, thus no fresh acquisition occurred. Additionally, counsel argued that the review petition was not maintainable as no error apparent on the face of the record existed, citing Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (2023) SCC OnLine SC 140 and the principle that a review cannot be an appeal in disguise.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by delineating the narrow scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, drawing from Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi and Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam State Electricity Board, which held that a review petition cannot be used to re-argue matters already decided. It quoted Sanjay Kumar Agarwal to underscore that a review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is akin to asking for the Moon. The Court then examined the alleged error: the contention that the gift deed constituted a 'transfer'. It noted that the ARC had found, and the Court had affirmed in the order under review, that the landlords were not rank outsiders but were already co-owners of the premises through lineage, surrender, and relinquishment deeds. The Court relied on the dicta of the Five-Judge Bench in V.N. Sarin vs. Major Ajit Kumar Poplai (1965) SCC Online SC 301, which elucidated that Section 14(6) DRC Act aims to prevent fraudulent transfers to strangers, not intra-family settlements. The Court observed that the tenant failed to demonstrate how the gift deed fell within the mischief sought to be remedied by Section 14(6) DRC Act, especially since the landlords’ title predated the deed. Consequently, no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record was established, and the review petition was dismissed.
The Verdict
The review petition was dismissed. The interim order dated 20.12.2025 granting interim relief to the tenant was vacated, leaving the executing court free to proceed with the execution petition filed by the landlords in accordance with law. No costs or compensation were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Scope of Review Is Stringently Limited
Practitioners must note that a review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is not an appellate remedy; it lies only where a mistake or error is apparent on the face of the record, without requiring any reasoning or re-evaluation of evidence. Attempts to re-argue settled issues will be rejected.
Family Settlements Do Not Trigger Section 14(6) DRC Act
Where parties are already co-owners of premises by lineage, surrender, or relinquishment, a subsequent gift deed among family members does not constitute a 'transfer' attracting the bar of Section 14(6) DRC Act. The provision targets acquisitions by rank outsiders or third parties, not intra-family arrangements aimed at settling existing title.
Burden to Show Error Apparent on Face of Record
The party seeking review bears the burden to point to a specific mistake visible on the record itself - such as a clerical error, incorrect statutory citation, or contradictory finding - that strikes immediately upon perusal. Mere dissatisfaction with the court’s reasoning or reliance on alternative precedents is insufficient.
