Section 25B(8) revision cannot reappreciate evidence absent jurisdictional error, perversity, or manifest illegality.

The petitioner-tenant challenged, under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), the order dated 28 February 2026 of the Additional Rent Controller, Central District, Delhi, dismissing his application for leave to defend and directing eviction from the premises described as Private Shop No. 5 on the ground floor of Property No. 6603, Block No. 9, Street No. 3, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

The petitioner contended that he occupied Shop No. 7 rather than Shop No. 5, and that the respondent-landlord lacked a bona fide requirement because he owned other properties.

The petitioner also sought to place on record a subsequent Sale Deed, arguing that the sale of another portion of the property undermined the pleaded requirement.

The learned ARC held that the petitioner had neither specifically disputed the landlord’s site plan nor filed a counter-site plan, and therefore accepted the landlord’s description of the premises.

The ARC further found that ownership had devolved upon the respondent through his mother’s registered Will and that no formal attornment was necessary.

It also held that the petitioner had failed to raise any specific challenge to the landlord’s bona fide requirement or identify suitable alternative accommodation.

1. Whether the petitioner raised a triable issue by contending that the tenanted premises were Shop No. 7 and not Shop No. 5, in the absence of a counter-site plan or supporting material.

2. Whether the petitioner raised a triable issue by alleging that the respondent possessed other properties and therefore lacked a bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises.

3. Whether the subsequent Sale Deed relating to the top portion of Shop No. 5 justified interference with the eviction order or demonstrated the availability of suitable alternative accommodation.

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

The Court held that the High Court’s jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is supervisory and revisional, not appellate; it may examine the legality and propriety of the decision-making process but cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view merely because another view is possible, as explained in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78; Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30; Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati, 2024:DHC:9322; and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover, 2025:DHC:11285.

A landlord’s site plan may be accepted where the tenant does not file a counter-site plan or otherwise substantiate its alleged incorrectness.

Upon transfer or devolution of title, the transferee becomes the landlord by operation of law and formal attornment is unnecessary, under J.C. Mehra v. Smt. Kusum Gupta, 2006 (1) RCR (Civil) 31, and Nalakath Sainuddin v. Koorikadan Sulaiman, (2002) 6 SCC 1, among other authorities.

The landlord is generally the best judge of the suitability of premises for his requirement, and a tenant must disclose specific facts showing that an alternative property is available and reasonably suitable; a mere assertion that the landlord owns other properties does not raise a triable issue.

Section 19 of the DRC Act provides a statutory remedy where premises recovered on the ground of bona fide requirement are not occupied or are subsequently re-let contrary to law.

Applying the limited revisional standard, the Court found no defect in the ARC’s decision-making process.

The petitioner’s challenge to the identity of the premises was unsupported: he had not disputed the landlord’s site plan in a specific manner, filed a counter-site plan, or produced contemporaneous material establishing that he occupied Shop No. 7; service of summons at the address described in the petition further weakened the objection.

The allegation concerning other properties was also vague because the petitioner did not show that any such property was vacant, available to the respondent, or reasonably suitable for the pleaded requirement.

The subsequent Sale Deed concerned only the top portion of Shop No. 5 and did not establish that it was suitable alternative accommodation for the requirement relating to the ground-floor premises.

Consequently, the petitioner’s arguments invited a fresh factual reappraisal, which was impermissible in revision under Section 25-B(8).

The ARC had lawfully accepted the landlord’s site plan, found the landlord-tenant relationship and ownership sufficiently established, and concluded that the petitioner had failed to rebut the respondent’s bona fide requirement.

The Court found no jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, perversity, material irregularity, or error apparent on the face of the record.

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