Section 25B(8) revision does not permit reappraisal of reasoned findings on alternative accommodation.

The tenant challenged an order of the Rent Controller dismissing his application for leave to defend and directing eviction from premises at WZ-128A, Gali No. 28, Sant Garh, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.

The eviction petition was based on the landlord’s bona fide requirement for himself and his son.

The tenant argued that the landlord and son had since died, and that suitable alternative accommodation was available.

Counsel acknowledged that the son’s alleged death was unsupported by the record.

The Rent Controller had considered the identified alternative properties and found them unsuitable for the proposed business.

1. Whether the tenant established a basis to interfere with the eviction order by asserting that the landlord’s son, for whose benefit the bona fide requirement was pleaded, had died.

2. Whether the Rent Controller’s assessment of the landlord’s alternative accommodation disclosed an error warranting interference under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”).

The proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act confers supervisory and revisional, not appellate, jurisdiction on the High Court.

Under Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, the High Court examines the legality and propriety of the decision-making process and does not substitute its view merely because another view is possible; interference is limited to circumstances such as an error apparent on the face of the record, jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity or perversity.

The Court also relied on Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover in describing the restricted scope of revision.

The Court declined to rely on the assertion that the landlord’s son had died because no supporting material was on record.

On alternative accommodation, it found that the Rent Controller had considered the properties individually and given reasons for finding them unsuitable for the proposed business, including their occupation, residential character, location, access and lack of visibility.

As that issue had been addressed through a reasoned assessment, revisional review did not permit the High Court to reassess suitability simply because another view might be possible.

It dismissed the revision petition as without merit and disposed of the pending applications.