Delhi HC Upholds Tenants’ Eviction, Says They Failed to Show Landlord Had Suitable Alternative Accommodation in Dariba Kalan

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Rent Controller’s finding that the landlord had no available and reasonably suitable alternative accommodation disclosed a ground for interference under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.

The court held

The Court held that the tenants had not established a revisional ground to disturb the eviction order.

It also directed

The revision petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of; the next hearing date was cancelled.

01Facts

The Additional Rent Controller allowed the respondent-landlord’s eviction petition concerning four rooms, a kitchen, bath, store and two WCs on the first floor of property No. 4593-A, Darya Ganj, Delhi.

p. 1

The tenants challenged that order under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, contending that the landlord had suitable alternative accommodation at property No. 1588, Dariba Kalan, including residential accommodation on the first floor.

pp. 1–2

The Rent Controller had considered this objection and recorded that the evidence showed the ground-floor shop was owned by another person and occupied by a tenant, while the tenants had not substantiated their assertions about alternative accommodation.

pp. 5–8

In revision, the tenants challenged the eviction order only on the ground of alternative accommodation.

p. 2

The separate application for early hearing was allowed, and the matter was taken up on the date of decision.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Rent Controller’s finding that the landlord had no available and reasonably suitable alternative accommodation disclosed a ground for interference under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.

pp. 2, 8–10

ii.2. Whether the High Court, in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8), could reappraise the evidence and substitute its view for that of the Rent Controller.

pp. 2–5

03Law Applied

Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act confers supervisory and revisional—not appellate—jurisdiction; the High Court examines the legality and propriety of the decision-making process and may interfere for jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or an error apparent on the record, but cannot substitute its view merely because another view is possible [*Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.*, (1998) 8 SCC 119; *Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh*, (2014) 9 SCC 78; *Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua*, (2022) 6 SCC 30].

pp. 2–5

Alternative accommodation defeats a bona fide requirement only if it is actually available and reasonably suitable; the tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should use property, and the landlord’s choice is relevant unless it is whimsical or manifestly unreasonable [*Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta*, (1999) 6 SCC 222; *Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja*, (2014) 15 SCC 610].

pp. 6–10

A bald, unsupported assertion of alternative accommodation is insufficient to displace the landlord’s claim [*Charanjeet Singh v. Vivek Jain*, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 613].

p. 10

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

delhi rent control act, 1958 Section 14

04Reasoning

The High Court found that the Rent Controller had considered the objection concerning property No. 1588, Dariba Kalan, and relied on documentary evidence supporting the explanation that the ground-floor shop was owned by another person and occupied by a tenant.

pp. 5–8

The tenants had not produced evidence establishing that the accommodation they relied upon was available to the landlord for immediate use and reasonably suitable for his requirement.

p. 8

Given the limited scope of revision, the Court would not undertake a fresh appraisal of the evidence; it found no perversity, ignored material evidence, or error apparent warranting interference.

pp. 4–5, 10