Court reiterates limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8), upholding landlord's right to evict tenant for genuine need despite tenant's claims of alternate accommodation and non-attornment
In a significant judgment delivered on September 8, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, dismissed a revision petition filed by tenant Naresh Kumar challenging an eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) of Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts. The eviction order, dated April 7, 2026, related to tenancy premises required by the landlords Sunny Kashyap and another for running their law office.
The tenant contended that there was no valid landlord-tenant relationship as he had never attorned to the respondents and challenged the bona fide nature of the landlords' requirement, alleging that the landlords had changed the purpose of requirement from a confectionery shop to a law office. Additionally, the tenant asserted that alternative accommodations were available to the landlords, negating the need for eviction.
The Court, however, after a detailed examination of the pleadings and material on record, upheld the eviction order, emphasizing the limited supervisory and revisional jurisdiction conferred on it by the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court reiterated the Supreme Court's binding precedent that the High Court's role under this provision is not appellate but supervisory, focusing on legality and propriety of the Rent Controller's decision-making process rather than re-appreciating evidence or substituting its own view.
The judgment underscored that the landlords had established a better title than the tenant, tracing ownership from their grandfather, and that the tenant's plea of non-attornment was insufficient to negate the landlord-tenant relationship. The Court also held that a change or refinement in the stated purpose for requiring the premises does not ipso facto render the requirement mala fide. The landlords' status as practicing advocates and their need for a law office was accepted as genuine and bona fide.
Addressing the tenant's claim of alternate accommodation, the Court found that the Rent Controller had appropriately examined each property alleged as an alternative. The lawyers' chamber cited was insufficient in size and not owned outright by the landlords, the residential property was unsuitable due to distance and lack of office use, and two shops were not under the landlords' control as per a family settlement. The Court stressed that landlords are the best judges of their requirements and the Court should not dictate how landlords use their properties.
The Court dismissed the tenant's plea to reassess these findings, holding that no jurisdictional error, perversity, or manifest illegality was demonstrated to justify interference. The judgment reinforces the principle that eviction on bona fide requirement grounds must be respected unless there is clear evidence of mala fide or legal infirmity.
This ruling provides clarity on the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act and affirms landlords' rights to recover premises for genuine needs, balancing tenant protections with property owners' autonomy.
Bottom Line:
The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is supervisory in nature and does not permit substituting the findings of the Rent Controller with that of the revisional court merely because another view is possible.
Statutory provision(s):
Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 Section 14(1)(e), Section 25-B(8)
Naresh Kumar v. Sunny Kashyap, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2977676
