Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 25B(8) DRC Act Precludes Re-Appreciation of Evidence and Factual Findings

The petitioners (tenants) challenged a judgment dated 11.11.2025 passed by the learned ARC, which ordered their eviction from premises in Kotla, Mubarakpur

The respondent (landlord) sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for bona fide personal requirement

The tenants contested the eviction on grounds that the landlord failed to prove absolute ownership, the petition was improperly commingled with a claim for arrears of rent, and alternate suitable accommodation was available

1. Whether the respondent established sufficient ownership and a landlord-tenant relationship for the purposes of the DRC Act?

2. Whether a composite petition seeking both eviction and arrears of rent is maintainable under the summary procedure of Section 25B?

3. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, can re-appreciate evidence regarding bona fide requirement and alternate accommodation?

the court applied Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which grants the High Court limited revisional/supervisory power rather than full appellate jurisdiction

It relied on Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua to establish that the High Court cannot substitute its own view for that of the Rent Controller unless there is a jurisdictional error or patent illegality

Regarding ownership, it applied the principle from Smt. Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha and Sheela v. Firm Prahlad Rai Prem Prakash, holding that in rent matters, a landlord need only prove a "better title" than the tenant rather than absolute ownership

On ownership, the court noted that the respondent relied on a registered Will and that the petitioners had previously admitted the landlord’s father was the original owner in related proceedings

The court dismissed the "adverse possession" plea of the tenants as sham

Regarding maintainability, the court observed that the ARC correctly clarified it was only adjudicating the eviction and not the arrears of rent, thus preserving the summary nature of the proceedings

The court further held that the tenants failed to provide details of specific alternate accommodations to rebut the presumption of bona fide requirement

The court emphasized that under Section 25B(8), it lacks the mandate to conduct a "roving inquiry" or re-appraise facts already considered by the lower court

The court affirmed that the landlord had established a superior title and bona fide need. The Revision Petition and all pending applications were dismissed, and the eviction order was upheld