A Rent Controller must assess specific alternative-accommodation pleas before rejecting leave to defend.

The tenant challenged the Rent Controller’s dismissal of its application for leave to defend and the resulting eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

In seeking leave, the tenant identified several properties allegedly available to the landlord, including properties at Joshi Road and Defence Colony, and asserted that portions were vacant or could be used for the landlord’s daughter’s proposed office.

The Rent Controller rejected the alternate-accommodation plea, finding that the tenant had provided no particulars.

In revision, the tenant argued that the identified properties had not been considered.

1. Whether the Rent Controller’s failure to examine the specific properties pleaded as alternate accommodation, while finding that no particulars had been provided, amounted to a material error warranting revision under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.

2. Whether the High Court could itself determine the availability and suitability of those properties in revision, or whether the matter should be remanded for the Rent Controller’s consideration.

Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act confers supervisory and revisional, not appellate, jurisdiction: the High Court ordinarily cannot reappreciate the evidence or substitute its view for that of the Rent Controller, but may intervene where the decision-making process contains a material omission, an error apparent on the record, or another recognised infirmity.

Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh support this restrictive approach.

For a claim under Section 14(1)(e), an alternate property must be reasonably suitable for the pleaded requirement; the tenant must provide particulars sufficient to raise a triable issue, rather than rely on a bare assertion.

The landlord’s status as the best judge of their requirements does not dispense with consideration of a specific, material plea of alternate accommodation.

The tenant had identified particular properties and made specific assertions about their location, extent, alleged vacancy and potential use.

The Rent Controller nevertheless proceeded on the contrary factual premise that no particulars had been pleaded and did not assess whether the identified properties, if available and the assertions substantiated, could be reasonably suitable for the landlord’s stated requirement.

Although the High Court could not decide suitability for the first time without converting revision into an appeal, the failure to address this material plea—and the finding contradicted by the record—vitiated the decision-making process and warranted revisional intervention.

It remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration on the existing pleadings, clarifying that it had expressed no opinion on whether the properties constituted reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.

The matter was directed to be listed before the Rent Controller on 17 October 2026.