Delhi HC Upholds Eviction Of Tenants, Rejects Claim That Retired Landlord Could Not Seek Premises For Home And Business Needs

The petitioners-tenants filed a revision under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, challenging the Rent Controller’s eviction order dated 26 November 2024.

They contended that the rent for the ground and first floors collectively exceeded ₹3,500 per month; that the landlord’s combined residential and commercial requirements were not bona fide; and that he had suitable alternative accommodation in Janakpuri.

The landlord opposed the revision, submitting that the jurisdiction and alternative-accommodation objections had not been raised in the leave-to-defend application or supporting affidavit.

The High Court recorded that the parties confined their arguments to these grounds.

1. Whether the tenants could raise, in revision, the objection that the combined rent exceeded the statutory limit when it had not been pleaded before the Rent Controller or in the revision petition?

2. Whether the Rent Controller’s finding of bona fide requirement was liable to be disturbed because the landlord asserted both residential and commercial needs?

3. Whether the alleged Janakpuri property constituted suitable alternative accommodation warranting interference in revision?

Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act confers supervisory and revisional, not appellate, jurisdiction: the High Court examines the legality and propriety of the decision-making process and does not substitute its view merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted for such defects as jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or failure to consider a material plea.

In Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, the Supreme Court described this jurisdiction as limited superintendence over the Rent Controller’s decision-making process; the High Court should not conduct a roving inquiry or convert revision into a first appeal.

The Court also referred to Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover as supporting the restricted scope of review.

Under Section 25B(4), a tenant seeking to contest an eviction petition must disclose the grounds in an application for leave to defend supported by an affidavit.

The bona fide requirement in an eviction petition is not rendered untenable merely because the landlord states more than one purpose for requiring the premises.

The alleged rent discrepancy and the alternative-accommodation objection had not been raised in the leave-to-defend application or supporting affidavit; the rent objection was also absent from the revision petition. Their consideration would require examination of factual matters not placed before the Rent Controller, so the Court declined to entertain them for the first time through oral submissions.

On bona fide requirement, the Rent Controller had considered the landlord’s post-retirement residential need, the premises’ condition and his stated intention to start a building-materials business, and had found the requirement genuine.

The tenants showed no jurisdictional error, manifest illegality or perversity in that assessment; the High Court therefore would not reappraise the evidence or substitute its own view.

The Court similarly declined to examine the Janakpuri property’s availability and suitability because the issue had not been raised before the Rent Controller.

It dismissed the revision petition and all pending applications.