Delhi HC Leaves Tenants’ Eviction Order Intact After They Raised Rent And Alternate-Home Objections Only In Oral Arguments

The petitioners-tenants filed a revision under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), challenging the Rent Controller’s eviction order dated 10 September 2024.

They argued that the rent for the ground and first floors, taken together, exceeded the statutory limit; that the landlord’s stated residential and commercial requirements could not be combined; and that the landlord had suitable alternative accommodation in Janakpuri.

The landlord responded that these objections had not been raised in the tenants’ application for leave to defend or in the revision petition.

The High Court confined its consideration to the grounds argued before it.

1. Whether the High Court could entertain objections concerning the aggregate rent of the two floors when they had not been raised before the Rent Controller or pleaded in the revision petition.

2. Whether the objection to the landlord’s combined residential and commercial requirement warranted revisional interference when it had not been raised before the Rent Controller or specifically pleaded in the revision petition.

3. Whether the alleged Janakpuri property established suitable alternative accommodation warranting revisional interference, despite the issue not having been raised before the Rent Controller.

4. Whether the petitioners’ additional contention concerning the withdrawal of an earlier consolidated eviction petition and institution of separate proceedings disclosed an error warranting revision.

Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act confers a limited supervisory and revisional jurisdiction; it does not permit the High Court to reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the Rent Controller as an appellate court.

Interference is warranted for matters such as jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, an unreasonable conclusion founded on an erroneous legal premise, or a material plea left unconsidered.

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, including the principle that revision under Section 25B(8) is not a regular first appeal.

Section 25B(4) requires a tenant seeking leave to defend to disclose, by application supported by affidavit, the facts on which the eviction claim is contested.

The Court found that the aggregate-rent objection, the challenge to the mixed residential and commercial requirement, and the alternative-accommodation objection had not been raised before the Rent Controller; the relevant objections were also not pleaded as grounds in the revision petition.

Considering them would require examination of factual matters not presented to the Rent Controller, which was outside the limited revisional function.

The Janakpuri property’s description as a four-storey building, without a properly raised challenge establishing its availability and suitability, did not justify such an inquiry.

The Court likewise declined to examine the circumstances surrounding the earlier petition’s withdrawal and subsequent proceedings because no relevant challenge or error in the decision-making process had been demonstrated.

It dismissed the revision petition and all pending applications.