Section 14(6) DRC Act | 5-Year Bar On Eviction Inapplicable When Co-Owners Acquire Premises Inter Se Family Through Gift Deed: Delhi High Court

 "The bar under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act comes into play only when a landlord has acquired any premises by transfer, and where... the landlords were not rank outsiders/ third parties, were, admittedly, owners of the subject premise before through lineage, and all subsequent documents were executed inter se members of the same family, it cannot be held that there was an acquisition by transfer as envisaged in Section 14(6) of the DRC Act."

The Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling pronounced on October 16, 2026, held that the statutory five-year moratorium on seeking eviction under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 does not apply to property transfers executed among family members who are already co-owners by lineage. A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee clarified that the statutory embargo is strictly intended to curb fraudulent transfers to third parties, reiterating that internal arrangements and gift deeds executed amongst blood relatives to ascertain their respective shares cannot be treated as an acquisition by transfer under rent control jurisprudence.

The respondents instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for bona fide commercial requirement against the tenant concerning a shop situated in Kamla Nagar, Delhi. The tenant resisted the proceedings asserting that the property devolved onto the landlords through a Gift Deed dated December 24, 2021 executed by their father, thereby triggering the five-year statutory bar under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act. After the Additional Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition and the High Court affirmed the eviction order on December 02, 2025, the tenant filed a review petition to re-agitate the applicability of Section 14(6) of the DRC Act.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a gift deed executed inter se family members and existing co-owners constitutes an "acquisition by transfer" under Section 14(6) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, thereby barring an eviction petition for five years. The Court was also called upon to decide whether the tenant could seek a rehearing of the revision petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC by invoking the definition of transfer under Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Statutory Bar Under Section 14(6) DRC Act Not Attracted To Family Transfers

Examining the core controversy, the High Court observed that the subject premises fell into the hands of the landlords after members of the same family initiated steps to arrange property rights inter se themselves. The Bench observed that the landlords had succeeded to co-ownership rights through lineage upon the death of their mother, and the subsequent relinquishment deeds and gift deed executed by their father were akin to a mutual family settlement.

The Court held that the embargo under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act, which debars a transferee-landlord from applying for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) within five years of acquisition, is designed specifically to restrict collusive or sham transfers to rank outsiders. Emphasizing this threshold, the Bench reiterated that transactions amongst existing co-owners do not bring into play the mischief sought to be prevented by the rent control statute.

"Where the landlords were not rank outsiders/ third parties, were, admittedly, owners of the subject premise before through lineage, and all subsequent documents were executed inter se members of the same family, it cannot be held that there was an acquisition by transfer as envisaged in Section 14(6) of the DRC Act."

General Definition Of Transfer In TP Act Cannot Override Special Rent Legislation

Addressing the tenant's reliance on Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and the decision in N.P. Saseendran v. N.P. Ponnamma, the Court rejected the mechanical importation of general property law into summary eviction proceedings. The Bench underscored that N.P. Saseendran pertained to a civil dispute concerning property title and did not consider the binding Five-Judge Bench precedent of the Supreme Court in V.N. Sarin v. Major Ajit Kumar Poplai.

Justice Banerjee observed that the Five-Judge Bench in V.N. Sarin authoritatively settled the intent behind Section 14(6) of the DRC Act, establishing that transactions inter se family members settling antecedent rights do not amount to an acquisition by transfer under the Act. Consequently, the Court ruled that neither Section 122 of the TP Act nor decisions arising outside the DRC Act can ipso facto qualify the statutory scheme under Section 14(1)(e) and Section 14(6) of the DRC Act.

"The law of the land in the aforesaid Five-Judge Bench decision in V.N. Sarin, which specifically dealt with the intent behind Section 14(6) DRC Act, was not considered... Section 122 TP Act or the findings in N.P. Saseendran cannot be ipso facto read into the DRC Act."

Review Jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC Is Not An Appeal In Disguise

Turning to the procedural maintainability of the review application under Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the High Court expounded upon the settled boundaries governing the exercise of review jurisdiction. The Bench cited the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1) to reiterate that a review petition cannot be used to avenge a forensic defeat or obtain a second look at conclusions already reached on the merits.

The Court recalled that under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, an error justifying review must be self-evident and apparent on the face of the record rather than one that requires a long-drawn process of reasoning where two opinions are conceivably possible. Noting that the tenant had simply reiterated the very submissions previously rejected on merits, the Bench held that an erroneous decision cannot be reheard and corrected under the garb of review proceedings.

"A plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result."

Execution Proceedings Cleared To Proceed As Interim Protection Vacated

Concluding the adjudication, the High Court noted that the tenant had entirely failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record and was merely attempting to re-argue the revisions. The Bench observed that since the tenant's senior counsel had not reverted with instructions regarding a feasible time period to vacate the premises, no ground survived to extend further indulgence.

The Court dismissed the review petition alongside the main civil revision petition and formally vacated the interim stay granted on December 20, 2025. With all legal hurdles raised by the tenant removed, the High Court directed that the learned Executing Court was at liberty to proceed forthwith with the execution petition filed by the landlords to recover possession in accordance with law.

Delhi High Court reaffirmed that familial property transfers amongst existing co-owners do not attract the five-year eviction moratorium under Section 14(6) of the DRC Act. The ruling serves as an authoritative precedent clarifying that statutory bars designed to prevent third-party property transfers cannot be weaponized by tenants against co-owners settling antecedent title within the family.

Date of Decision: October 16, 2026