Failure to adjudicate a specific forgery plea warrants remand under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.

The petitioner-tenant challenged the order dated 27 April 2024 of the learned SCJ-cum-Rent Controller, Saket Courts, Delhi, in RC ARC 29/2022, whereby his application seeking leave to defend an eviction petition was dismissed.

The tenant alleged that the eviction petition and supporting affidavit had not been signed by the landlady, who was allegedly bedridden and not of sound mental capacity, and that the signatures were forged and fabricated.

He relied on alleged differences between signatures appearing on rent receipts and the landlady’s Will, and those appearing on the eviction petition and affidavit.

He further contended that the bona fide requirement was for back-office operations of a boutique, whereas the Rent Controller had treated the requirement as being for a boutique itself, and had not properly considered the alleged alternate accommodation.

The respondent maintained that the variation in signatures could be attributable to the landlady’s old age and that the alleged alternate accommodation was residential, situated at the rear of the premises, and unsuitable for commercial use.

Whether the Rent Controller properly considered the tenant’s specific plea that the signatures on the eviction petition and supporting affidavit were forged or materially different from the signatures on the rent receipts and Will.

Whether the distinction between premises required for a boutique’s back-office operations and premises required for the boutique itself affected the assessment of bona fide requirement and the suitability of the alleged alternate accommodation.

Whether the impugned order disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record or an absence of adjudication warranting interference under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

The Court applied the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, under which the High Court exercises limited supervisory and revisional jurisdiction over the Rent Controller’s decision-making process, rather than appellate jurisdiction.

Relying on Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78, and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30, the Court held that interference is justified where there is a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record, including failure to adjudicate a material plea; the High Court cannot merely substitute its own view for that of the Rent Controller.

The Court also relied on Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover for the limited scope of revisional scrutiny.

The Court found that although the tenant had specifically raised the signature-forgery objection and relied on comparative documentary material, the Rent Controller dismissed the objection only by stating that it was “without any basis and ground,” without examining the signatures on the rent receipts, Will, eviction petition, and affidavit.

This amounted to non-consideration of a material defence concerning the very institution of the eviction proceedings.

The respondent’s explanation that the variation might have resulted from old age also required assessment against the record, which had not occurred.

The Court further held that the nature of the landlord’s pleaded requirement was relevant to determining whether the alleged alternate accommodation was suitable; however, it declined to undertake a fresh merits-based assessment in revision.

Since the signature issue required reconsideration, the connected questions concerning bona fide requirement and alternate accommodation also had to be reconsidered in their proper factual context.

The order dated 27 April 2024 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration de novo, on the basis of the material already on record and in accordance with law.

The Court expressly left open the genuineness of the signatures, the bona fide nature of the requirement, and the suitability of the alleged alternate accommodation.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of, with the matter directed to be re-notified before the Rent Controller on 9 October 2026.