-
by sayum
04 July 2026 2:40 PM
“Review Is Not an Appeal in Disguise”, In a decisive ruling reaffirming the limited scope of review jurisdiction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Delhi High Court set aside review orders passed by the Rent Controller that had granted leave to defend in eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee restored the original eviction orders dated 26.02.2019, holding that the Rent Controller had “traversed beyond the realm of review and acted as an appellate Court.” The Court made it clear that powers under Section 25B(9) are “narrow and circumspect” and cannot be used to reappreciate the same material or substitute one possible view with another.
The ruling serves as a strong reminder that review is meant to correct patent errors, not to reopen concluded adjudications.
Eviction on Bona Fide Requirement and Dispute Over Title
The landlords, members of the same family, sought eviction of the tenant from the first and second floors of property bearing No. 1763-1764, Hauz Sui Walan, Chandni Mahal, Delhi, citing acute shortage of residential accommodation. One landlord was residing with six family members in a tin-shed at his mother’s house, while another was living with four family members in a rented single room. They asserted that no alternative accommodation was available.
The tenant resisted the eviction petitions by disputing the landlords’ title. He relied upon an unregistered General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Will dated 03.07.1996, claiming that the property had been purchased by his predecessor. He also denied payment of rent.
By orders dated 26.02.2019, the Rent Controller rejected the tenant’s application for leave to defend and allowed eviction. It was held that the landlords were only required to establish a “better title” than the tenant, not absolute ownership. The tenant’s admission of induction as tenant in 1987 and the landlords’ documentary evidence were found sufficient.
Review Petitions Allowed Without New Material
The tenant then invoked Section 25B(9) of the Act seeking review of the eviction orders. Crucially, no new documents or evidence were produced. The same Agreement to Sell dated 03.07.1996 was re-agitated.
However, by orders dated 20.09.2022, the Rent Controller set aside the eviction orders and granted leave to defend, holding that triable issues existed regarding landlord-tenant relationship.
This prompted the landlords to approach the High Court in revision.
“The Powers of Review Are Narrow and Circumspect”
Justice Saurabh Banerjee began by reiterating the settled law governing review jurisdiction, referring extensively to Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Yashwant Sinha v. CBI. The Court quoted the Supreme Court’s clear pronouncement:
“Review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.”
The Court emphasized that review is maintainable only upon discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of record, or any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. A mere possibility of another view cannot justify review.
In the present case, the High Court found that no new material had been discovered, and no patent error had been demonstrated. The Rent Controller had merely reappreciated the same Agreement to Sell and reached a different conclusion.
“There was no occasion for the learned RC to have ventured into considering the very same Agreement to Sell dated 03.07.1996 and arrive at a fresh conclusion.”
“Landlord Need Only Show Better Title, Not Absolute Ownership”
The Court also addressed the tenant’s attempt to reopen the issue of title. Referring to Smt. Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha, the High Court reiterated that a landlord seeking eviction under Section 14(1)(e) is not required to prove absolute ownership, but only a better title than the tenant.
The tenant had admitted induction as tenant in 1987. Invoking Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court held that once tenancy is admitted, the tenant is estopped from challenging the landlord’s title during the subsistence of tenancy.
The High Court observed that the Rent Controller erred in reopening this settled principle in review proceedings.
Rent Jurisdiction Is Not Civil Title Adjudication
A crucial observation of the Court was the distinction between rent jurisdiction and civil jurisdiction. The High Court held that summary proceedings under Chapter III-A of the DRC Act cannot be converted into a civil trial for determining absolute ownership, especially on the basis of unregistered agreements.
The Rent Controller’s observation that the tenant could take steps to register the property and thereby alter the relationship was held to be beyond the scope of review.
The Court firmly concluded that the Rent Controller had exercised appellate powers under the guise of review.
Revisional Power Exercised to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice
Although revisional jurisdiction is limited, the High Court relied on Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh to hold that interference is warranted where the order is contrary to law and results in miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the impugned review orders dated 20.09.2022 were set aside, and the original eviction orders dated 26.02.2019 were restored.
Six Months’ Protection Under Section 14(7)
In terms of Section 14(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court granted the tenant six months’ time to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises.
The Delhi High Court’s judgment is a powerful reaffirmation that review jurisdiction under Section 25B(9) of the Delhi Rent Control Act is not an avenue for rehearing the case. It cannot be used to reappreciate evidence, substitute views, or revisit findings merely because another interpretation is possible.
By restoring the eviction order and correcting the overreach in review, the Court has reinforced procedural discipline in rent control litigation and drawn a clear boundary between review and appeal.
Date of Decision: 18 February 2026
