Under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, revisional jurisdiction is supervisory only; High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless the Rent Controller's finding is perverse or unreasonable.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(e), 25B, 25B(4), 25B(5), 25B(8), 14(7) - Eviction on ground of bona fide requirement - Leave to defend - Landlord’s requirement for own business - Availability of alternative accommodation - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope of interference under section 25B(8) is supervisory; High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless finding is perverse or unreasonable (Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119, para 6) - Landlord is best judge of his requirement (Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co., (2000) 1 SCC 679, para 10).

(B) Rent Control - Leave to defend - Triable issues - No triable issue arises if tenant fails to raise substantial defence - Mere desire to evict not enough; need must be bona fide in praesenti - However, landlord's right to start new business not foreclosed even if continuing another business.

(C) Evidence - Age determination - Not applicable here - But general principle: documentary evidence like surrender deed without witnesses may raise suspicion; but court may accept explanation if plausible.

Facts of the case:
The landlord (respondent) filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the DRC Act seeking eviction of the tenant (petitioner) from Shop No. 2 on the ground of bona fide requirement to start his own business after selling his oxygen cylinder business. The tenant filed leave to defend application, which was dismissed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) vide order dated 31.05.2024. The tenant challenged this order by revision petition under section 25B(8). The tenant contended that the requirement was not bona fide as shops No. 1 and 3 in the same building were available and allegedly vacant, and that the landlord continued his old business. The landlord claimed shop No. 1 was used by his wife for a boutique and shop No. 3 was let out.

Issues: Whether the ARC correctly refused leave to defend; whether the tenant raised triable issues regarding availability of alternative accommodation and landlord's bona fide requirement; and whether the revisional court could interfere with the findings of fact.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the ARC's order was according to law because the landlord-tenant relationship was admitted, the landlord had transferred his earlier business and needed the premises for a new venture, and the explanation regarding shops No. 1 and 3 (used by wife and let out) was accepted. No triable issues were raised. The revisional power under section 25B(8) is limited to checking legality; it does not permit re-appreciation of evidence unless the finding is so unreasonable that no Rent Controller could have reached it. The petition was dismissed.

Result: Revision petition dismissed; eviction order enforceable as six-month period under section 14(7) had expired.

JUDGMENT

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.

By way of the present revision petition filed under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (‘DRC Act’), the petitioner challenges order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, North-District, Rohini Courts, New Delhi (‘ARC’) in Eviction Petition bearing RC ARC No. 384/2016.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the present petition relates to Shop No. 2 situate on the Ground Floor of property bearing No. C-32, Nehru Road, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi (‘subject premises’), which premises has been in the use and occupation of the petitioner for more than 30 years, with the last paid rent of Rs. 702/- per month.

3. On 14/15.10.2016 the respondent (landlord) filed an eviction petition under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the DRC Act seeking eviction of the petitioner (tenant) from the subject premises, on the ground that respondent bona-fidé requires the subject premises to start his own business since the respondent’s only source of income has been his rental income.

4. Pursuant thereto, on 16.11.2016, the petitioner filed his application seeking to leave to defend the eviction petition under section 25B(4) and (5) of the DRC Act, which application came to be dismissed; and resultantly, the eviction petition was allowed vidé impugned order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned ARC.

5. The court has heard Dr. Amit George, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; as well as Mr. Murari Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent at length.

PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS

6. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the present revision petition has been preferred against order dated 31.05.2024 passed by the learned ARC in the eviction petition, whereby the application seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioner in respect of the subject premises has been dismissed, thereby directing eviction of the petitioner from the subject premises without trial. It is contended that the impugned order is vitiated since it ignores material facts, documentary evidence and settled principles governing the grant of leave to defend under section 25B of the DRC Act.

7. It is urged that the eviction petition was filed under section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act in 2016 with the sole intent of securing higher rental income by evicting the petitioner, and not on account of any genuine or bona-fidé requirement. The respondent is alleged to have deliberately suppressed the availability of Shops Nos. 1 and 3 in the same building, which, it is contended, remained vacant during the pendency of the eviction proceedings, thereby creating a false appearance of scarcity to found a false claim of personal necessity. The petitioner emphasises that his tenancy in Shop No. 2 dates back to 1994 under a pagri arrangement, pursuant to which an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- was paid to the respondent’s father and rent of Rs. 360/- per month, then commensurate with the market rate, has been regularly tendered without default, though the respondent subsequently declined to accept rent with the oblique motive to re-let the premises for a higher consideration.

8. It is further submitted that the respondent’s alleged closure and sale of his industrial oxygen gas cylinder business under agreement dated 10.05.2016 for Rs. 1,00,000/- is denied by the petitioner, who asserts that the respondent continues to carry-on the said business and that the plea of closure of that business is a device to manufacture a false ground of ‘need’ which does not exist.

9. The cornerstone of the petitioner’s challenge is that the requirement pleaded by the respondent is not bona-fidé in view of the availability of suitable, alternate accommodation in the hands of the respondent, in the form of Shops Nos. 1 and 3 in the same building. As to Shop No. 1, it is contended that although the respondent initially claimed that the said shop was let-out to one Mr. Vinod Kumar, the petitioner had placed substantial documentary and photographic ma

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 44

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHISATISH KUMAR GUPTA – AppellantVersusSUSHIL KUMAR LOOMBA & ANR. – RespondentRC.REV.-300/2024

Under section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, revisional jurisdiction is supervisory only; High Court cannot re-appreciate facts unless the Rent Controller's finding is perverse or unreasonable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SATISH KUMAR GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
SUSHIL KUMAR LOOMBA & ANR. – Respondent
RC.REV.-300/2024