The High Court's revisionary jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) is limited to reviewing jurisdictional errors and ensuring that the order is according to law.

Manmohan Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition is contested by the petitioner under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the impugned order dated 11th July, 2012 passed in eviction petition No.E-01/2012 by the Court of ARC, Rohini, Delhi.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/landlady filed an eviction petition against the petitioner/tenant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act on the ground of bonafide requirement of the property bearing No.B-3/264, Sector 6, Rohini, Delhi-110085 (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted premises”). It was stated in the eviction petition that the respondent is the owner of the tenanted premises which she purchased from its previous owner Devender Kaur vide registered sale deed and agreement to sell dated 14th December, 2005. It was stated that the respondent and her family has been residing in one room of property bearing No.LD-194, Pitampura, Delhi-110088 in which they have been living has caretaker/permissible user since 2003. However, the owner of the said premises where she resides wants her and family to leave that house and so the respondent is in an urgent need of her own house.

3. It was stated that the respondent had earlier filed a petition under Section 14(1)(a) of the Act which was rejected under Order 7 Rule 11, CPC and subsequently she again filed an eviction petition which is pending disposal. The respondent earlier also filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act which was dismissed as withdrawn

with a liberty to file a fresh one as per law. It was further stated that in a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Act for deposit of rent, the petitioner himself admitted the respondent as his landlady.

4. It was further stated that the respondent's family consists of 6 persons i.e. herself, her husband, son, daughter-in-law and two daughters aged 22 and 10 years. One room each is required by the son of the respondent alongwith his wife, the elder daughter and the younger daughter for studying. Since the respondent is residing in just one room alongwith her entire family and also that the owner thereof wants them to vacate the same, the respondent pleaded an urgent need of getting the tenated premises vacated.

5. The petitioner in his leave to defend application contested the ownership title and the need of the respondent and stated that the respondent is in the habit of filing false petitions one after other. It was stated that there is no new ground or change in the situation since earlier petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act which was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by the respondent as the leave to defend was granted to the petitioner. It was stated that in a notice issued by the respondent, there was a demand is to increase the rent from the petitioner w.e.f. February 2011 and that there was not even a whisper about the respondent's alleged need to get the premises vacated or her desire to shift to the tenanted premises. It was averred that there is no bonafide need of the respondent as she has sufficient accommodation and that the flat where she is residing is a four room MIG flat, whereof she herself is the owner.

6. It was averred by the petitioner that the respondent and her family are very rich and have number of properties in Pitam Pura. Her son is a property dealer and apart from the present residence, the respondent also has one house in Karol Bagh.

7. The learned ARC after hearing both parties and considering the pleadings and documents placed on record rejected the petitioner's application for leave to defend observing that the petitioner had failed to disclose as to which material particulars were not disclosed by the respondent or which rule is violated by the respondent in framing the eviction petition.

8. On the contention of the petitioner that the respondent had no right to file a fresh petition after withdrawal of the earlier