DRC Act | High Court’s Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Equated To Appellate Power To Substitute Findings: Delhi High Court

"Jurisdiction conferred upon the High Court is one of superintendence over the decision-making process, including the legality and propriety thereof, and does not permit the High Court to substitute its own view for that of the learned Rent Controller merely because another view on the material available on record may be possible." Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling, held that the scope of judicial review under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) is strictly limited to supervisory and revisional functions and does not extend to an appellate re-appreciation of evidence.

Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar observed that the High Court cannot interfere with the Rent Controller's findings unless they suffer from manifest illegality, perversity, or an error apparent on the face of the record.

The petitioner challenged an eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) which had dismissed his application for leave to defend. The petitioner argued that the landlord had concealed the existence of alternative commercial premises and that the bona fide requirement was not genuine. The ARC had rejected these contentions, ruling that the landlord had successfully established the need for the tenanted premises for his photography business.

The court was called upon to determine whether the ARC erred in its finding regarding the landlord’s bona fide requirement and whether the alleged concealment of alternative properties necessitated interference. The court also examined the limits of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act.

Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

The court emphasized that the legislative intent behind Section 25-B of the DRC Act—which omits an appellate remedy—is a conscious and deliberate choice to ensure summary disposal of eviction petitions. The High Court’s role is confined to satisfying itself that the Rent Controller followed the correct legal process and that the findings are not based on an erroneous premise.

Court Explains Prohibitions on Roving Inquiries

Relying on Supreme Court precedents such as Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the bench clarified that the court should not conduct a roving inquiry into the evidence. Converting the power of superintendence into a regular first appeal is explicitly forbidden by the legislature.

"The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is limited in scope and that this Court is not expected to substitute or supplant its view for that of the learned ARC."

No Concealment of Alternative Accommodation

Regarding the petitioner’s claim of concealment, the court noted that the ARC had already deliberated upon the existence of other properties and found them to be residential in nature or otherwise unsuitable for the landlord’s specific commercial photography requirements. The court held that the landlord is the best judge of his own requirements and the tenant cannot dictate which premises the landlord should use.

Landlord’s Prerogative in Business Needs

The court reiterated the settled principle that a landlord is the best judge of his business needs. The tenant cannot compel the landlord to operate from residential properties when the landlord seeks commercial space to expand operations such as washing and developing negatives and installing computer equipment.

"Landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purposes and he has got complete freedom in the matter."

Rejoinder Cannot Introduce New Facts

The court further held that a tenant cannot raise new grounds or introduce new documentation in a rejoinder to a leave to defend application. Following the decision in Prithipal Singh v. Satpal Singh, the court underscored that the 15-day statutory time period for filing leave to defend is inflexible, and all facts must be pleaded at the first instance to avoid delaying the eviction process.

Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the Rent Controller’s order, the High Court dismissed the petition. The court affirmed that as the landlord had sufficiently established his bona fide requirement and the petitioner failed to prove the availability of suitable alternative space, no case for revision was made out.

Date of Decision: 03 September 2026