Disputed suitability of alternative accommodation raises a triable issue warranting leave to defend.

The Petitioner-landlord sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, asserting a bona fide need for the tenanted ground-floor premises to conduct and expand his family’s saree and lehenga business.

The tenant sought leave to defend, relying, among other matters, on the landlord’s family having let out a nearby, larger commercial property during the eviction proceedings for the same business, and on disputes concerning the extent of the landlord’s existing ground-floor accommodation.

The learned ARC granted leave to defend, finding triable issues concerning bona fide requirement and reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.

The landlord’s revision challenged that order; his challenge to earlier amendment orders was not pressed

1. Whether the learned ARC’s grant of leave to defend disclosed a jurisdictional error, perversity, manifest illegality, or material irregularity warranting interference under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act

2. Whether the tenant’s objections concerning the nearby property let during the proceedings and the disputed extent of the landlord’s existing accommodation raised triable issues regarding bona fide requirement or suitable alternative accommodation

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

Under Section 14(1)(e), the landlord’s bona fide requirement is presumed, but the tenant may obtain leave to defend by disclosing facts that raise a triable issue concerning the genuineness of the need or the availability and suitability of alternative accommodation; at that stage, disputed factual matters need not be finally proved or determined

The landlord’s judgment of his own needs is relevant, but does not make the suitability of alleged alternative accommodation an absolute or purely subjective question

The High Court found that the ARC had not rejected the landlord’s asserted need or substituted the tenant’s preferences for the landlord’s; it had identified factual matters requiring evidence.

These included the letting, during the proceedings, of a nearby, larger property for the same business, the parties’ competing site plans and the disputed extent of the landlord’s existing ground-floor accommodation

Whether those circumstances undermined the claimed need or established reasonably suitable alternative accommodation could not be conclusively decided at the leave-to-defend stage.

The landlord’s age and preference for the ground floor did not, by themselves, foreclose that inquiry

As the landlord’s challenge effectively sought reappreciation of the evidence, it fell outside the limited revisional jurisdiction

The revision petition was dismissed, and the pending application(s), if any, were disposed of