Dismissal of a Suit Alleging Higher Rent Does Not Overrule a Tenant's Admission of a Lower Rent Amount.

The Petitioner (tenant) challenged the Impugned Order dated 28.04.2026 passed by the learned ARC in RC ARC No. 88/2024, which dismissed her leave to defend application and passed an eviction order in favor of the Respondent (landlord) under the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act).

The Petitioner contended that the ARC lacked jurisdiction because the Respondent’s son had pleaded in a separate civil suit against the Petitioner’s husband that the rent was ₹14,800 per month.

The Petitioner argued this admission placed the premises outside the ₹3,500 threshold of the DRC Act.

1. Whether the High Court, under its revisional jurisdiction, can re-appreciate evidence to overturn the Rent Controller’s finding on the rate of rent.

2. Whether the statement made by a third party (the Respondent's son) in a separate, dismissed suit constitutes a binding admission that ousts the jurisdiction of the DRC Act.

Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which governs revisional jurisdiction.

Supreme Court precedents of Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, which establish that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in character, restrictive in scope, and not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction.

revisional power is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or jurisdictional illegalities, forbidding a "roving inquiry" or the substitution of the ARC’s views with the High Court’s own.

The Court analyzed the scope of Section 25B(8) and determined that it cannot undertake a fresh appreciation of material to reach an independent conclusion on merits.

The Court noted that the ARC had specifically addressed the Petitioner's plea regarding the ₹14,800 rent claim in Paragraph 19 of the Impugned Order.

The ARC found that the Petitioner herself had admitted in her own suit that the monthly rent was ₹2,000, and that the Respondent’s son's claim in a separate, dismissed suit did not override the Petitioner's own admission.

The High Court reasoned that since the ARC had consciously evaluated the evidence and returned a finding, there was no jurisdictional error or perversity that warranted interference under its limited supervisory role.

The High Court held that it would not substitute the ARC’s conclusion with another possible view. Consequently, the Revision Petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was upheld.