Delhi HC Upholds Tenant’s Chance To Fight Eviction Over Allegedly Unused Shop And Landlord’s Daughter-In-Law’s Husband’s Income

The Petitioner challenged an order of the Additional Rent Controller granting the Respondents leave to defend her eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The Controller found triable issues concerning alternative accommodation, including shop No. 2201 in the subject premises, and the bona fide requirement projected for the Petitioner’s daughter-in-law.

The Petitioner sought revision under the proviso to Section 25B(8), contending that no triable issue arose

Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act confers supervisory and revisional, not appellate, jurisdiction; the High Court may not reappreciate the evidence or substitute its view for that of the Rent Controller, and interference is warranted for matters such as jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or an error apparent on the record (Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua; Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh)

At the leave-to-defend stage under Sections 14(1)(e) and 25B, leave should be granted where the tenant’s affidavit discloses facts which, if proved, could disentitle the landlord to eviction; disputed facts are not to be finally decided on competing affidavits (Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh; Precision & Engineering Works v. Prema Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal)

The Controller considered the properties identified by the Respondents and explained why their availability or suitability required examination.

As to shop No. 2201, the electricity bills reflected only 11 units of consumption over roughly 18 months; the Respondents also relied on photographs, while the Petitioner relied on the family business’s GST registration.

The Controller further considered that the GST certificate identified another premises as the principal place of business and addressed the daughter-in-law’s financial dependency.

The High Court held that these matters involved disputed factual questions appropriate for trial, and that the Petitioner’s arguments invited impermissible reappraisal rather than demonstrating a revisional error

It dismissed the revision petition, leaving the Controller’s order granting leave to defend undisturbed; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of