REVISIONAL COURT CANNOT RE-APPRECIATE EVIDENCE OR SUBSTITUTE VIEWS UNLESS DECISION-MAKING PROCESS SUFFERS FROM MATERIAL IRREGULARITY

The Petitioner (tenant) challenged an eviction order dated 23.12.2025 passed by the learned SCJ-cum-RC (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi

The Respondent (landlord) sought eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act for the bona fide requirement of the subject premises—a shop in Karol Bagh—to accommodate his wife's business

The Petitioner filed a leave to defend application, contending that the Respondent possessed alternative suitable accommodations, specifically various properties in Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate and a warehouse used by Amazon

The Rent Controller dismissed the leave to defend, concluding no triable issues were raised, and passed an eviction order

1. Whether the Petitioner raised a triable issue regarding the availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation with the Respondent

2. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can interfere with the Rent Controller’s findings of fact regarding bona fide necessity

Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which governs the High Court's revisional powers in eviction matters

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 and restrictive, not appellate, and does not permit a "roving inquiry" or the substitution of the trial court’s view with that of the High Court

The Court observed that the Rent Controller had extensively evaluated every property alleged by the Petitioner to be an alternative accommodation. The learned ARC found that the properties at Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate were either licensed to Amazon or owned by third parties (e.g., Jagan Jyoti Product Pvt. Ltd.), and that the Respondent’s wife was paying charges for storage therein

The Court determined that the Petitioner failed to counter these facts with a Rejoinder at the trial stage

Applying the Abid-Ul-Islam standard, the Court reasoned that its role is confined to examining the decision-making process for errors apparent on the face of the record. Since the Rent Controller assigned cogent reasons and the Petitioner was merely seeking a re-appreciation of evidence, the Court found no perversity or material irregularity

The Court held that the Petitioner failed to establish any triable issue or error in the Rent Controller's adjudication. The Revision Petition and all pending applications were dismissed