High Court exercises restrictive revisional jurisdiction over Rent Controller’s findings on bona fide requirement and alternative accommodation.

The Petitioner (tenant) challenged the common order dated 25.02.2025 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi

The Respondent (landlord) had filed six distinct eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958, seeking possession of Shop No. 4, IX/6379, Netaji Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi, to establish a wholesale cloth showroom for his son, Aman Jain

The Petitioner sought leave to defend, alleging that the son was already gainfully employed as a director in three companies and owned business interests in Gujarat, and that the shop's dimensions were insufficient for a showroom

The ARC dismissed the Applications for leave to defend and passed eviction orders. The Petitioner moved the High Court in revision, alleging concealment of material facts.

1. Whether the Respondent established a bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises and if the alleged concealment of the son's business interests warranted a trial.

2. Whether the tenanted premises were unsuitable for the projected requirement due to their small dimensions.

3. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can re-appreciate evidence to substitute the findings of the Rent Controller.

The court primarily applied Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which restricts the High Court’s jurisdiction to "supervisory and revisional" scrutiny rather than an appellate review

Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022) 6 SCC 30, which held that the High Court cannot substitute its views for the trial court's unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record

Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119, establishing that a landlord’s requirement is presumed bona fide and the tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should utilize their property

Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co. (2000) 1 SCC 679, affirming the landlord as the best judge of their own residential or business requirements

The Court observed that the ARC had meticulously examined the evidence regarding Aman Jain’s employment. The ARC found that two of the companies where the son was a director were "struck off" and the third was a loss-making entity

Regarding the business in Gujarat (Ashu Hosiery), the ARC correctly noted that a business in a different state does not satisfy the need for a business in Delhi

On the issue of space, the Court upheld the ARC's reasoning that since six adjoining shops were being sought for eviction simultaneously, the combined space would be sufficient for a showroom

The Court found no "jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, or perversity" in the ARC's decision-making process

It emphasized that revisional jurisdiction does not permit a "roving inquiry" or fresh appreciation of material to arrive at an independent conclusion if the ARC's view is reasonable

The Court held that the revisional jurisdiction under the DRC Act is limited to ensuring the legality and propriety of the decision-making process

Consequently, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition (RC.REV. 263/2025) and applied the same reasoning mutatis mutandis to the five connected petitions. The Eviction Order passed by the ARC was upheld, and no costs were awarded