High Court Rejection of Tenant's Revision Petition Under Delhi Rent Control Act

The Respondents (landlords) filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958, against the late husband of the Petitioner (tenant) regarding premises in Chhota Bazar, Shahdara.

The landlords sought eviction for the bona fide requirement of expanding their dairy business and to meet the residential needs of a joint family of 21 members living in a 83 sq. yard space.

The tenant filed a Leave to Defend (LTD) Application, alleging the landlords concealed alternative suitable accommodations and claiming the requirement was not genuine.

The Trial Court (ARC) dismissed the LTD Application on 12.09.2025 and passed an eviction order.

The Petitioner challenged this via a Revision Petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.

1. Whether the findings of the learned ARC regarding bona fide requirement and lack of alternative accommodation suffer from patent illegality or perversity warranting interference under revisional jurisdiction.

2. Whether the subsequent events (employment of sons and sale of a property) raised triable issues that necessitated the grant of leave to defend.

Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which governs the summary procedure for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.

The Supreme Court precedents of Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which establish that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and restrictive, not appellate.

The principle from Jitender Kumar Jain v. M/s J K Horticulture that properties not under the legal control or ownership of the landlord cannot be considered "available" alternative accommodations.

The Court analyzed the ARC’s decision-making process rather than re-evaluating facts.

Regarding bona fide requirement, the Court noted the ARC correctly balanced the landlords' need for expansion with the undisputed fact of 21 family members residing in cramped quarters.

The Court found that the ARC had undertaken a property-by-property examination of the alleged alternative accommodations (e.g., Property No. 8/4, 252, etc.) and reasonably concluded they were either not owned by the landlords or were no longer available.

On subsequent events, the Court observed that the ARC properly addressed the employment of the landlords' sons, holding that a son seeking employment during a decade-long litigation does not negate the father's bona fide intent to settle him in business.

Since the ARC provided reasoned findings on every objection, the High Court held there was no jurisdictional error.

The Court dismissed the Revision Petition, affirming the Eviction Order.

The Petitioner failed to demonstrate any manifest illegality or perversity in the ARC’s order.

The interim stay, if any, stood vacated.