RC.REV./348/2025 of KESHAV KUMAR Vs IRSAD & ORS.
$~7 (14.04.2026)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RC.REV. 348/2025 & CM APPL. 70187/2025
KESHAV KUMAR .....Petitioner
Through: None.
versus
IRSAD & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Yogesh Swaroop, Mr. Kapil
Kishor Kaushik, Ms. Shivangi and Mr.
Mohd Asif, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA
O R D E R
% 15.04.2026
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. Since 14.04.2026 was declared a holiday on account of ‘Birthday of Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar’, the present matter is being taken up for hearing today.
3. The present petition under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control
Act, 1958 seeks the following prayers:
“A. It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble High Court may for the
purpose of satisfying itself that the order dated 5/8/2025 titled as
Jameela Vs Keshav Kumar RC ARC no 200 / 2022 Central is
according to law or not and pass such orders in respect thereto as it
thinks fit.
B. The petition be accepted. The order dated 5/8/2025 passed by
the trial judge Central District Tis Hazari courts, Delhi titled as
Jameela Vs Keshav Kumar may kindly be set aside and the eviction
petition be dismissed with cost.
C. Such other or further directions or orders as are appropriate in
the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed.”
4. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
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 20/04/2026 at 11:53:42
5. On 11.11.2025, the learned Predecessor Bench of this Court passed the
following order:
“3. Prima facie, this Court is not convinced with the submissions
of the petitioner qua the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner against the erstwhile counsel of the petitioner, mainly
since the passing of various subsequent orders from time to time in
presence of the erstwhile counsel of the petitioner, and since no
steps were taken to allege anything against the erstwhile counsel at
any point of time. It is also not denied that the petitioner was
unaware of the proceedings pending before the learned ARC. In
any event, the petitioner was not diligent in following up with the
said pending proceedings before the learned ARC.
4. Be that as it may, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and is
granted a period of six weeks for seeking instructions, without
prejudice to the rights and contentions of the tenant and as a matter
of abundant caution, 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 aforesaid period.
5. Upon the petitioner taking requisite steps within a period of one
week, issue notice for the aforesaid purpose to all the respondents
by all permissible modes, returnable on 08.01.2026.”
6. No process fee was filed.
7. There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner on the last date of
hearing, i.e., 13.09.2026, as well.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed in default for
non-prosecution and disposed of accordingly.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
10. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.
AMIT SHARMA, J
APRIL 15, 2026/bsr/ah
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 20/04/2026 at 11:53:42