Section 25-B(8) revision does not permit factual reappreciation absent manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity.

The petitioner-tenant challenged, under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), the eviction order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the learned ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, in RC-ARC/45/2018, Rajender v. Riyaz Ahmed @ Raju.

The eviction petition concerned one shop in property no. B-1/A, Main Road, Bhajan Pura, Delhi.

The petitioner’s application for leave to defend had been dismissed.

Before the High Court, the petitioner confined his challenge to: (i) the landlord’s bona fide requirement; and (ii) the existence of reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.

He contended that the landlord possessed several other premises and that the eviction claim was merely a sham.

The learned ARC had found that the shop was bona fide required to enable the landlord’s unemployed and dependent elder son to start a motor-parts business, and that no reasonably suitable alternate accommodation had been established.

1. Whether the learned ARC erred in holding that the landlord had a bona fide requirement for the tenanted shop to enable his dependent son to commence a motor-parts business.

2. Whether the learned ARC erred in finding that the landlord did not possess reasonably suitable alternate commercial accommodation.

3. Whether the impugned eviction order disclosed a jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.

The Court applied Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, under which eviction may be ordered where the landlord requires the premises bona fide for his own occupation or that of a dependent family member and has no reasonably suitable alternate accommodation.

Under Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119, once the landlord establishes a prima facie requirement, the requirement may be presumed bona fide, and the tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should adjust himself.

Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705, requires the need to be present, genuine, and not whimsical or fanciful.

The landlord is generally the best judge of the suitability of premises for residential or business purposes, as recognised in Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co., (2000) 1 SCC 679, Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, (1996) 5 SCC 353, and related authorities.

Mere existence of another property does not establish reasonably suitable alternate accommodation; suitability depends on factors including size, location, accessibility, intended use, viability, and safety, as recognised in Akhileshwar Kumar v. Mustaqim, (2003) 1 SCC 462, Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja, AIR 2014 SC 2294, and Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, (1999) 6 SCC 222.

The High Court’s jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) is supervisory and revisional, not appellate; under Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30, the Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the Rent Controller unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity, or failure of adjudication.

The High Court held that the learned ARC had considered the petitioner’s objections and provided cogent reasons for rejecting them.

The landlord’s assertion that the premises were required for his unemployed and dependent elder son’s proposed motor-parts business was not shown to be fanciful, particularly as the petitioner produced no cogent material demonstrating that the son was employed or financially independent.

As to alternate accommodation, the photographs and other materials relied upon by the petitioner did not establish ownership, possession, vacancy, or suitability of the alleged properties; properties belonging to the landlord’s brothers or relatives could not be treated as accommodation available to him.

The allegations concerning properties in Dadri, Uttar Pradesh, were also vague and irrelevant to the Delhi proceedings.

Since the petitioner’s challenge essentially sought a fresh appreciation of the factual record, and the ARC’s findings were neither arbitrary nor unsupported by the evidence, the restrictive revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) was not attracted.

It upheld the findings that the landlord’s requirement was bona fide and that no reasonably suitable alternate accommodation had been proved.

The eviction order dated 23.01.2026 disclosed no manifest illegality, jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity, or error apparent on the face of the record warranting revisional interference.

Accordingly, RC.REV. 244/2026 and all pending applications, including the application seeking an ex parte interim stay of execution, were dismissed.