Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) Delhi Rent Control Act Is Supervisory In Nature, HC Can't Revisit Factual Findings: High Court

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is supervisory in nature and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or revisiting factual findings recorded by the Rent Controller.

Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani made the observation while dismissing a tenant's revision petition challenging eviction on the ground of landlord's bona fide requirement.

The bench observed, “while exercising its revisional jurisdiction under section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, this court must refrain from revisiting factual conclusions or replacing the Rent Controller's assessment with its own.”

Briefly put, the tenant had assailed the eviction order contending that the landlord had other alternative commercial premises available and that the eviction petition was motivated by a desire to re-let the premises at a higher rent.

It was further argued that the Rent Controller failed to properly appreciate the evidence led by the tenant while granting eviction under the summary procedure prescribed by Section 25B of the Act.

Rejecting these submissions, the High Court observed that the tenant was essentially seeking a re-evaluation of facts and evidence, which is beyond the scope of revisional jurisdiction.

“This court cannot turn the present revisional proceedings under section 25B(8) into appellate proceedings, since the text of section 25B(8) specifically bars any appeal or second appeal from a possession order made by the Rent Controller,” it said.

Reliance was placed on Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd (1998) where the Supreme Court held that power of the High Court is supervisory in nature and it is intended to ensure that the Rent Controller conforms to law when he passes the order.

“It is not permissible for the High Court in that exercise to come to a different fact finding unless the finding arrived at by the Rent Controller on the facts is so unreasonable that no Rent Controller should have reached such a finding on the materials available,” it was held.

The Court also reaffirmed the settled principle that the landlord is the best judge of his business requirements and that the tenant cannot dictate how or from which premises the landlord should carry on business.

As such, the Court dismissed the revision petition, adding that the landlord is now free to enforce the eviction order immediately.

Appearance: Dr. Amit George with Mr. Nitesh Mehra, Ms. Hitaakshi Mehra, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh and Ms. Pratishtha Verhwani, Advocates for Petitioner; Mr. Murari Tiwari, Mr. Tripurari Tiwari, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Payal Dhupar, Ms. Indira Murthy, Ms. Shadwali and Ms. Nimisha Gupta Advocates for Respondent

Case title: Satish Kumar Gupta v. Sushil Kumar Loomba

Case no.: RC.REV. 300/2024

Click here to read order