Section 25-B(8) revision permits interference only for jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity, or manifest illegality.

Respondent No. 1 sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), claiming that the tenanted premises were required for his son’s wholesale grains-and-pulses business and its expansion.

The Additional Rent Controller rejected the tenants’ application for leave to defend and ordered eviction.

The tenants challenged that decision, alleging a bar under Section 14(6), absence of bona fide requirement, availability of alternative accommodation, and discrepancies in the premises’ area and site plan

1. Whether the eviction petition was barred by the five-year restriction in Section 14(6) of the DRC Act, given the dates on which the co-owners acquired their interests

2. Whether the landlord’s pleaded requirement for his son’s business was bona fide, notwithstanding the son’s existing business activities

3. Whether the tenants raised a triable issue by alleging that suitable alternative accommodation was available to the landlord

4. Whether the alleged discrepancy between the title documents and the site plan concerning the area and identification of the premises raised a triable issue

5. Whether the Controller’s decision disclosed an error warranting interference under the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act

Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act permits eviction where the landlord establishes a bona fide requirement and the absence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation; the landlord need not prove absolute title, but must show an interest superior to that of the tenant

Section 14(6) bars an eviction application under Section 14(1)(e) within five years of the landlord’s acquisition of the premises; the relevant date here was the landlord’s own acquisition of an undivided share, not the later acquisitions by other co-owners

A co-owner may institute eviction proceedings unless it is shown that the other co-owners oppose them

Under Section 25-B(8), the High Court exercises limited supervisory and revisional jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction, and may interfere for jurisdictional error, material irregularity, perversity, manifest illegality, or an error apparent on the record—not merely because another view is possible

The Court relied on *Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua*, *Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh*, and *Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.* on the limited scope of review and bona fide requirement; it also applied the principles in *Ranjit Singh Sethi v. Gurmeet Singh Chawla* that an existing business does not itself negate a need for expansion, and *Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta* concerning suitability of alternative accommodation

The landlord’s registered 1998 sale deed showed that he had acquired an undivided share in the premises well before the eviction petition was filed in 2024; the later transfers to other co-owners did not trigger Section 14(6) against him

The tenants’ evidence of the son’s existing business did not, by itself, disprove the pleaded need for additional space for wholesale trading, samples, office and staff; the Controller had considered the social-media material, and the revisional court found no perversity in its assessment

The alternative-accommodation objection did not identify premises shown to be both available to the landlord and reasonably suitable for the asserted business need

Nor did the measurement discrepancy establish uncertainty as to the identity of the tenanted premises or material prejudice to the tenants

As the Controller had addressed the material objections, the tenants’ request for a fresh appraisal of the evidence fell outside the limited revisional jurisdiction

The revision petition was dismissed, and the pending applications were disposed of accordingly