A power-of-attorney holder’s testimony does not vitiate findings independently supported by documentary evidence.

The Respondent-landlord, Gunita Gulati, instituted Eviction Petition No. E.101/2017 before the Additional Rent Controller, South-East District, Saket Courts, Delhi, seeking eviction of P.D. Adlakha on the ground of bona fide requirement under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, asserting that the premises were required for her residence and medical treatment in Delhi.

The learned ARC, by judgment dated 09.11.2022, passed an eviction order against the Petitioner.

In revision under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, the Petitioner challenged the judgment solely on the ground that the Power of Attorney Holder who testified as PW-1 was incompetent to depose regarding the Respondent’s medical condition, which was allegedly within her exclusive personal knowledge.

The ARC had relied not only on the Power of Attorney Holder’s testimony and medical prescriptions, but also on an undisputed order dated 03.01.2018 in earlier proceedings recording the Respondent’s medical ailments and need for advanced medical supervision.

The Respondent’s objections that treatment could be obtained in Thailand, that the Delhi visits were merely routine check-ups, and that the medical requirement was a pretext for eviction were rejected by the ARC.

Whether the Power of Attorney Holder was competent to depose regarding the Respondent’s medical condition, and whether reliance on such testimony vitiated the finding of bona fide requirement.

Whether the ARC’s finding that the Respondent bona fide required the premises for medical treatment in New Delhi suffered from jurisdictional error, material irregularity, manifest illegality, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.

The Court applied the limited supervisory and revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Relying on Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30, it held that such jurisdiction is not appellate and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the ARC’s plausible view merely because another view is possible.

Interference is justified only for an error apparent on the face of the record, absence of adjudication, jurisdictional error, material irregularity, manifest illegality, perversity, or consideration of an erroneous legal premise.

The Court also applied the principle that the landlord is ordinarily the best judge of the manner and place of residence and that a tenant cannot dictate where the landlord should reside or obtain medical treatment, as recognised in Urmil Joshi v. Raj Batra and Sarla Ahuja.

It further relied on J.S. Sharma Sons v. Shiv Devi Meena for the proposition that voluminous medical records are not invariably required to establish medical illness.

The Court held that the ARC’s finding was not based solely on the Power of Attorney Holder’s testimony.

The ARC had considered the medical prescriptions, the prior High Court order dated 03.01.2018 recording the Respondent’s medical ailments and need for advanced supervision, and the fact that the contents of that order were undisputed and had even been relied upon by the Petitioner.

Even assuming that the Power of Attorney Holder could not testify to matters exclusively within the Respondent’s personal knowledge, the independent documentary and admitted material sufficiently supported the finding regarding the medical condition.

The ARC had also separately considered and rejected the Petitioner’s objections regarding the Respondent’s Thai citizenship, availability of treatment in Thailand, the alleged routine nature of her Delhi consultations, and the alleged pretext for eviction.

Since the ARC had considered the relevant evidence and rival submissions and had adopted a plausible view, the Petitioner’s challenge effectively sought reappreciation of evidence, which was impermissible in revision under Section 25B(8).

It held that the ARC’s finding of bona fide requirement was independently supported by documentary and other undisputed material, notwithstanding the objection to the Power of Attorney Holder’s testimony.

No jurisdictional error, material irregularity, manifest perversity, or error apparent on the face of the record was established.

Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed, the eviction judgment dated 09.11.2022 was left undisturbed, and the petition together with the pending applications was disposed of.