Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J
Devender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Babita Jain – Respondent
RC.REV. 192/2023 | CM APPL. 36212/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Manish Vashisht, P.K. Rawal, Tarun Agarwal, Rishabh Sharma, S. Singhal, Akhil Singh
For the Respondents: Arun Birbal

In rent control proceedings, leave to defend is granted only when a tenant raises substantive triable issues. The scope of revision is restricted to supervisory review; the court shall not interfere unless the findings are perverse or the process suffers from a patent legal error.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e) and 25-B - Eviction petition - Bonafide requirement - Leave to defend - Requirement for leave to defend is not satisfied by mere assertion; it requires the tenant to raise material triable issues demonstrating that the claim of bonafide requirement is essentially a sham - Initial burden of showing bonafide requirement lies on the landlord, after which the onus shifts to the tenant to provide material evidence challenging the credibility of such requirement. (Paras 18, 24)

(B) Rent Control Laws - Revisional jurisdiction - Scope of review under Section 25-B(8) of the Act is narrow and supervisory in nature - Court is not to act as an appellate authority to substitute its own views or re-appreciate evidence unless the lower court order is found to be based on perverse findings, patent illegality, or lacks jurisdictional compliance - Existence of alternative accommodation asserted by a tenant requires substantive proof rather than mere conjecture. (Paras 25, 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a tenant, filed for a revision against an order denying leave to defend in an eviction petition initiated by a landlord. The landlord sought eviction asserting a bonafide requirement for commercial space for her husband and son. The tenant contended that the landlord had vacant portions in the property to accommodate the family members and that the son was independently employed, thus challenging the necessity and legitimacy of the eviction demand.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the tenant failed to provide cogent material or documentary proof to substantiate the claims regarding the availability of alternative suitable accommodation or the financial independence of the landlord's family members. The court reiterated that the landlord is the best judge of their own needs and cannot be dictated by the tenant regarding how to utilize their property.

Issues: The main issues were whether the tenant had succeeded in raising triable issues warranting the grant of leave to defend and whether the findings of the lower court regarding the landlord's bonafide requirement and the lack of alternative accommodation were legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that when a tenant seeks leave to defend, the threshold of proof requires demonstrating a material, triable issue rather than providing bald assertions. The decision-making process of the lower court, grounded on the premise that the landlord’s needs were genuine and the alternative spaces suggested were not available or suitable, was upheld as per the standard of judicial review for revisional courts.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of property ownership and landlord's stated bonafide requirement. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. tenant's arguments for leave to defend based on alleged concealments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
3. respondent's refutation of arguments and claims of alternative accommodation availability. (Para 12 , 13)
4. analysis of triable issues regarding alternative accommodation and bonafide need. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
5. scope of revisional jurisdiction under the delhi rent control act. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. final order dismissing the revision petition. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present rent revision (civil) petition has been filed seeking the following prayers: -

“In view of above, it is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-

a) accept the present revision petition,

b) summon the record of the Ld. Trial Court in the case titled as Smt. Babita Jain Versus Shri Devender Kumar vide Eviction Petition vide CIS No.223/2019 CNR No.DLCT03-002256-2019 titled as “Smt. Babita Jain Versus Shri Devender Kumar,

c) peruse the same and be further pleased to SET-ASIDE/ QUASH the impugned order dated 05.01.2023 passed in the case titled as Smt. Babita Jain Versus Shri Devender Kumar vide Eviction Petition vide CIS No.223/2019 CNR No.DLCT03-002256-2019, thereby allowing the leave to defend application filed by the petitioner herein, in the interest of justice.

d) Pass any such other or further order and/or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner-tenant seeking to set aside impugned order dated 05.01.2023 passed by learned CCJ-cum-ARC (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, in CIS No.223/19 qua the premises at Shop No.4, Ground Floor of Property bearing No.43, Gandhi Gali, Fatehpuri, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter referred to as “demised premises”).

3. By way of the impugned order, the learned ARC had dismissed the application seeking leave to defend filed by the petitioner/tenant in the eviction petition filed on behalf of the respondent.

4. In the eviction petition filed on behalf of the respondent, it was stated that, she is the owner/Landlord of the demised premises which was purchased by her vide duly registered sale deed in the Office of Sub Registrar, Delhi, on 09.05.1989, and the petitioner is her tenant and there is relationship of landlord – tenant between the parties. The petitioner was inducted as a tenant in the demised premises about 25 years ago on a monthly rent of ₹600/- excluding other charges. The petitioner paid rent till 31.12.2014, and thereafter, he stopped paying rent to the respondent for his ulterior motives and was in huge arrears of rent since January 2015. It is further stated that respondent is a homemaker, and her family comprises of her husband, Dinesh Kumar Jain, and two sons, namely, Siddharth Jain and Arihant Jain, and herself. The elder son, Siddharth Jain, is married and residing separately in a rented accommodation due to temperamental differences between his wife and other family members, including the respondent. The respondent has been residing along with her husband and younger son-Arihant Jain, in property, RU-89, First Floor, Near Power House, Pitampura, Delhi – 110088. It is further stated that the husband of the respondent and elder son are jobless and without any business/work. The younger son has been running his business of dry fruits in a small shop, Shop No.1 in the same property under the name and style of M/s Guru Adi Nath Trading Co., as a proprietor. However, due to acrimony between the other family members and wife of elder son, her husband and elder son-Siddharth could not join the aforesaid dry fruits business of younger son-Arihant Jain. It is further stated that even otherwise, husband and elder son of the respondent want to start their se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIAmit Sharma, JDevender Kumar – AppellantVersusBabita Jain – RespondentRC.REV. 192/2023 | CM APPL. 36212/2023

In rent control proceedings, leave to defend is granted only when a tenant raises substantive triable issues. The scope of revision is restricted to supervisory review; the court shall not interfere unless the findings are perverse or the process suffers from a patent legal error.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J
Devender Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Babita Jain – Respondent
RC.REV. 192/2023 | CM APPL. 36212/2023