Delhi HC Upholds Tenant’s Leave To Fight Eviction Over Disputed Property Number And Gaps In Landlord’s Title Chain

The petitioner sought eviction of the respondent from a shop under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), alleging a bona fide requirement for his daughter-in-law’s proposed business.

The petitioner relied on a chain of transactions, including a sale deed that described the property as No. IX/1393 rather than IX/1392, and a later rectification deed.

The respondent disputed the landlord–tenant relationship and the petitioner’s entitlement, relying on inconsistencies in the title documents, the circumstances of the rectification, differing rent claims in earlier and current proceedings, and alleged non-disclosure of criminal proceedings.

The Additional Rent Controller found no prima facie issue concerning bona fide requirement or alternative accommodation, but granted leave to defend because the objections to the landlord–tenant relationship and the title documents raised triable issues.

The petitioner challenged that order in revision under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.

Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act requires a landlord to establish the landlord–tenant relationship, bona fide requirement, and absence of other reasonably suitable accommodation.

Under Section 25B, leave to defend is warranted where the tenant discloses a substantial triable issue; the tenant need not prove the defence conclusively, but a sham or illusory defence is insufficient; *Precision Steel & Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal*, (1982) 3 SCC 270; *Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua*, (2022) 6 SCC 30.

Under the proviso to Section 25B(8), the High Court exercises supervisory and revisional—not appellate—jurisdiction and should not substitute its view merely because another view is possible; interference is limited to defects such as jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or an error apparent on the record; *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*.

The Court held that the Controller had not finally adjudicated title or exceeded the summary procedure; it had considered whether the respondent’s specific objections to the petitioner’s own documents raised a triable issue concerning an essential ingredient of the eviction claim.

The prior transfer recital, the subsequent sale deed, the property-number and premises-description discrepancies, and the competing accounts of rent and earlier pleadings provided a basis for allowing the defence to be tested through evidence.

The alleged separate challenge to the rectification deed by another tenant did not, by itself, vitiate the order, and the criminal proceedings were not treated as proof that the petitioner’s claim was invalid.

Because the landlord–tenant relationship is a distinct, necessary ingredient, the Controller’s findings on bona fide requirement and alternative accommodation did not preclude leave to defend.

The Court found no revisional error warranting interference.

It clarified that its observations were limited to the revisional challenge and directed that the Additional Rent Controller decide the eviction petition uninfluenced by those observations; no order as to costs was made.