Delhi HC Sets Aside Eviction Order, Remands Case Over Rent Controller’s Failure To Properly Examine Disputed Tenancy

The Petitioner challenged the Rent Controller’s order dated 19 August 2020, which rejected his application for leave to defend and directed delivery of possession of the subject premises.

He disputed the existence of a landlord–tenant relationship, asserting that neither he nor his father had paid rent to the Respondent or the Respondent’s predecessor. The Rent Controller rejected the objection, relying on municipal house-tax records and authorities concerning a tenant’s inability to dispute a landlord’s title. In the revision, the Respondent also relied on an alleged MCD survey report, but no such report had been placed on record before the Rent Controller or the High Court.

Under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the High Court exercises supervisory and revisional—not appellate—jurisdiction. As explained in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, the Court ordinarily reviews the legality and propriety of the decision-making process and does not substitute its view merely because another conclusion is possible; interference may be justified where there is an error apparent, material illegality or irregularity, perversity, or failure to adjudicate a material plea.

The Rent Controller also referred to Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and authorities on tenant estoppel against denying a landlord’s title; however, the High Court distinguished that issue from whether the foundational landlord–tenant relationship had been established.

The Rent Controller noted the denial of the landlord–tenant relationship but principally relied on municipal house-tax records and the rule against a tenant disputing the landlord’s title. That did not resolve the distinct question raised by the Petitioner: whether a tenancy between the parties or their predecessors existed at all.

The alleged MCD survey report could not cure the omission because it was raised only in the reply to the revision and was not before the Rent Controller or the High Court. The failure to adjudicate this material plea was an error in the decision-making process, justifying revisional interference; the High Court therefore did not itself decide whether the relationship existed.

The Petitioner was left at liberty to seek recovery of user and occupation charges paid during the revision if successful before the Rent Controller. The petition and pending applications were disposed of, and the matter was listed before the learned ARC on 20 November 2026.