Bare, unsupported assertions do not constitute triable issues warranting leave to defend.

The Respondent-landlord filed an eviction petition concerning Shop No. 5, Ground Floor, Property No. IX/1340, Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, claiming bona fide requirement of the premises for her son, Shri Love Pawar, to commence a readymade-garments business.

The Petitioner-tenant sought leave to defend, contending that the Respondent’s son was already engaged in installing cameras and internet connections and that the Respondent possessed reasonably suitable alternative accommodation, including other shops and godowns in the same property.

The learned Rent Controller rejected the application for leave to defend and passed an eviction order.

The tenant challenged that decision under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

Whether the tenant’s assertion that the Respondent’s son was already engaged in the business of camera and internet installation disclosed a triable issue warranting leave to defend, despite the absence of supporting particulars or documents?

Whether the other shops, godowns and portions of Property No. IX/1340 constituted reasonably suitable alternative accommodation available to the Respondent, thereby raising a triable issue?

Whether the findings of the Rent Controller suffered from jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity or manifest illegality warranting interference under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

The Court applied the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, under which the High Court exercises limited supervisory and revisional jurisdiction over the Rent Controller’s decision and does not function as an appellate court.

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, the Court held that interference is permissible only for an error apparent on the face of the record, jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity, manifest illegality, or an unconsidered material plea; the High Court cannot substitute its own view merely because another view is possible.

The Court further applied the principle that a mere unsupported assertion does not constitute a triable issue, and that alternative accommodation must be shown to be reasonably suitable for the landlord’s pleaded requirement.

It also relied on Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, and Viran Wali v. Kuldeep Rai Kochhar, 174 (2010) DLT 328, for the principles that the landlord is ordinarily the best judge of the premises required and that a tenant cannot dictate the manner in which the landlord should use the property.

The Court held that the tenant’s plea regarding the Respondent’s son’s alleged existing business was merely oral and lacked even basic particulars, such as the firm’s name, visiting cards, photographs, invoices, GST records or income-tax material.

Although the tenant was not required to conclusively prove the defence at the leave-to-defend stage, he was required to disclose facts and material capable of demonstrating a genuine triable issue; that threshold was not met.

On alternative accommodation, the Court accepted the Rent Controller’s finding that the subject premises was a ground-floor corner shop in the Gandhi Nagar readymade-garments market and was particularly suitable for the proposed business.

The other ground-floor shops were either sold or occupied by co-sharers; the first-floor godowns were stated to be under tenancy; the second floor was residential; and the tenant neither established vacancy nor exclusive availability of the other portions.

Since the Rent Controller had considered the material pleas and recorded cogent reasons, the tenant’s challenge effectively sought a reappreciation of evidence, which was impermissible in revision under Section 25-B(8).

It held that neither the alleged existing business of the Respondent’s son nor the asserted availability of alternative accommodation raised a triable issue.

The Rent Controller’s decision disclosed no jurisdictional error, perversity, material irregularity or manifest illegality warranting revisional interference.

Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed, the eviction order was left undisturbed, and the pending applications were disposed of.