An alleged business at another premises raises no triable issue absent proof of the landlord’s entitlement to use it.

The respondent-landlord obtained an eviction order under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, concerning Shop No. 104, Gaffar Market, on the basis of a bona fide requirement for his son to start a mobile-accessories business.

The petitioners’ application for leave to defend was rejected by the Rent Controller.

In revision under Section 25-B(8), the petitioners argued that the son was already carrying on a business selling ladies’ purses from Shop No. 152 in the same market, making the pleaded requirement not bona fide; they contended that the Rent Controller had failed to properly consider that defence.

The High Court confined its review to that challenge.

Whether the Rent Controller’s treatment of the petitioners’ objection concerning the son’s alleged business at Shop No. 152 disclosed a material error warranting interference under Section 25-B(8).

Whether the allegation that the son was already conducting business from Shop No. 152 raised a triable issue concerning the bona fide requirement or the availability of suitable alternative accommodation.

Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act confers limited revisional—not appellate—jurisdiction: the High Court reviews the legality and propriety of the Rent Controller’s decision-making process and does not reappraise the evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.

Interference may be warranted for jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, an unreasonable conclusion, or failure to consider a material plea.

The Court relied 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, as well as Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors., 2024:DHC:9322, and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover, 2025:DHC:11285.

Under Section 14(1)(e), the relevant alternative-accommodation question is whether the landlord has reasonably suitable alternative accommodation; an unsupported allegation does not, by itself, establish a triable issue.

At the leave-to-defend stage, a tenant need not conclusively prove the defence, but the pleaded facts and supporting material must disclose a triable issue of substance.

The High Court considered the alleged business at Shop No. 152 together with the petitioners’ claim that the shop was suitable alternative accommodation.

It held that the petitioners had not substantiated the respondent’s ownership of, or entitlement to use, the shop, nor shown the nature and extent of the son’s alleged business or how the premises were available to meet the pleaded need.

Without that material, the alleged business activity did not establish that the requirement was fictitious or that suitable alternative accommodation was available.

The Rent Controller had addressed the objection, and the petitioners had not shown that material had been overlooked or that the decision rested on a legally untenable premise.

Their challenge therefore sought a fresh assessment of the assertions, which was outside the limited revisional scope.

It dismissed the revision petition and disposed of the pending applications; it also directed the Registry to release to the respondent, within four weeks, the amount deposited by the petitioners towards user and occupation charges, together with any accrued interest.