Revisional Power U/S 25B(8) Delhi Rent Control Act Is Supervisory In Nature, High Court Can’t Revisit Factual Findings: Delhi HC Dismisses Tenant Revision In Bona Fide Need Eviction
Deekshitha Sharmile
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani dismissed a tenant-petitioner’s revision against an eviction order passed in favour of the landlord-respondent over a tenanted shop, where eviction was sought on the ground of the landlord’s bona fide requirement to start a business. Holding that the court’s power under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is supervisory, the Bench said it cannot undertake a fresh appraisal of evidence or reopen factual findings of the Rent Controller unless they are legally unsustainable. With the revision dismissed, the landlord was held entitled to enforce the eviction order immediately, as the statutory waiting period had lapsed.
The matter concerned a commercial shop situated on the ground floor of a property in Adarsh Nagar, Delhi, which had been occupied by the tenant for over three decades. The landlord filed an eviction petition in 2016 under section 14(1)(e) read with section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, seeking possession of the premises on the ground of bona fide requirement to start his own business after discontinuing his earlier venture.
The tenant opposed the petition by filing an application for leave to defend, contending that the landlord’s requirement was not genuine and that the eviction was sought only to secure higher rental income. It was alleged that two other shops in the same building were available to the landlord, which undermined the claim of necessity. The tenant also disputed the landlord’s assertion of having closed his oxygen cylinder business, alleging that the business continued. Documentary and photographic evidence was placed on record to show that the other shops remained vacant.
The landlord maintained that he had transferred his earlier business and had no other suitable accommodation. He asserted that one shop was occupied by his wife for running a boutique and another was let out to a company. The Rent Controller dismissed the tenant’s application for leave to defend and allowed the eviction petition.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani recorded that “there was no dispute qua the landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and the petitioner.” The Court stated that “the bona-fide requirement of the respondent for using the subject premises for running a business was made-out, since at the time of filing the eviction petition the respondent had already sold his previous business of supplying oxygen cylinders.” It was further observed that “the respondent was able to establish that he did not have any other suitable, alternative accommodation for his bona-fidé need of running a business.”
On the tenant’s contention regarding continuation of the oxygen cylinder business, the Court noted that “the respondent had placed on record an undertaking dated 10.05.2016, which evidences that the said business had been transferred by the respondent to a third party; and two, even assuming that the respondent was continuing with his business of supplying oxygen cylinders, that would not, in and of itself, foreclose the respondent's right to start a new business from the subject premises.”
Regarding the availability of other shops, the Court recorded that “both the said shops are being used by the respondent's wife for running her boutique. The learned ARC has also observed that the petitioner cannot interfere with the discretion of the respondent's wife using a shop which fell vacant during the pendency of the eviction petition in relation to Shop No. 2 i.e., the subject premises.”
The Court referred to precedent Ragavendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery & Co. and stated that “the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter.”
On the scope of revisional jurisdiction, the Court cited Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltdand recorded that “The satisfaction of the High Court when perusing the records of the case must be confined to the limited sphere that the order of the Rent Controller is ‘according to the law’. In other words, the High Court shall scrutinize the records to ascertain whether any illegality has been committed by the Rent Controller in passing the order under Section 25-B. 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.”
The Court directed that “order dated 31.05.2024 issued by the ARC, which rejected the petitioner's leave-to-defend application and issued an eviction order, is lawful” and “no triable issues arise in the case, that would justify granting leave to defend.”
The Court clarified that “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.”
“The present petition is accordingly dismissed, observing that the respondent (landlord) is now free to enforce the eviction order immediately, since the 06-month period stipulated in section 14(7) of the DRC Act has expired, making the eviction order enforceable.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Dr. Amit George with Mr. Nitesh Mehra, Ms. Hitaakshi Mehra, Ms. Ibansara Syiemlieh and Ms. Pratishtha Verhwani, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Murari Tiwari, Mr. Tripurari Tiwari, Mr. Rahul Kumar, Ms. Payal Dhupar, Ms. Indira Murthy, Ms. Shadwali and Ms. Nimisha Gupta, Advocates.
Case Title: Satish Kumar Gupta vs. Sushil Kumar Loomba
Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:79
Case Number: RC.REV. 300/2024 ; CM APPL. 63036/2024, CM APPL. 14953/2025
Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
