The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, has held that the revisional jurisdiction vested in the High Court under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, is supervisory in character and cannot be utilized to re-appreciate evidence or substitute the findings of the Rent Controller like a regular first appeal. Dismissing a revision petition filed by a tenant, the High Court affirmed an eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) in favor of a senior citizen landlord seeking recovery of commercial premises for his bona fide business requirement.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, tenant Subhash Chand, filed a revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act), challenging the order dated January 28, 2026, passed by the learned Administrative Civil Judge-cum-Civil Judge-cum-Additional Rent Controller, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in case RC-ARC 155/2018 titled Sh. Gian Chand Jain v. Subhash Chand & Anr. The ARC had granted an eviction order directing the tenant to vacate the suit shop situated at Shakarpur Extension, Delhi.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the High Court, counsel for the tenant reiterated several objections previously raised before the Rent Controller. The tenant argued that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the parties, alleging that Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jain (brother of Respondent No. 1) was the actual landlord, thereby rendering the eviction petition non-maintainable at the instance of Respondent No. 1.
The tenant further asserted that the landlord possessed suitable alternate accommodations in properties bearing Nos. WB-33 and WB-17 at Shakarpur Extension, Delhi. Challenging the genuineness of the landlord’s bona fide requirement, the tenant pointed out that while the eviction petition stated the landlord had no work, a General Power of Attorney described him as “an extremely busy person.” The tenant also claimed that the landlord was an elderly person suffering from various ailments and was financially secure, alleging that the stated need to start a sanitary equipment business was a sham.
The Court’s Analysis
Examining the parameters of revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act, the High Court stressed that its power is confined to inspecting the decision-making process for jurisdictional errors, manifest illegality, or procedural non-compliance. Referring to the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, as well as rulings of coordinate benches in Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover, the court emphasized that the legislative omission of an appellate remedy under Section 25-B is deliberate.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, the High Court quoted:
“The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance. Thus, the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted. The scope of interference by the High Court is very restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which would only mean that in the absence of any adjudication per se, the High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision. There is no need for holding a roving inquiry in such matters which would otherwise amount to converting the power of superintendence into that of a regular first appeal, an act, totally forbidden by the legislature.”
On the issue of ownership and the landlord-tenant relationship, the High Court noted that the Rent Controller had properly evaluated the relinquishment deeds executed by the legal heirs of the original owner, Smt. Shanti Devi. The ARC had correctly applied the legal principles established in Ramesh Chand vs. Uganti Devi, which noted:
“In order to consider the concept of ownership under Delhi Rent Control Act, the Court has to see the title and right of the landlord qua the tenant. The only thing to be seen by the Court is that the landlord had been receiving rent for his own benefit and not for and on behalf of someone else. If the landlord was receiving rent for himself and not on behalf of someone else, he is to be considered as the owner, howsoever imperfect his title over the premises may be. The imperfectness of the title of the premises cannot stand in the way of an eviction petition under Section 14 (1) (e) of the D.R.C. Act, neither the tenant can be allowed to raise the plea of imperfect title or title not vesting in the landlord and that too when the tenant has been paying rent to the landlord.”
Addressing the availability of alternate accommodation, the court agreed with the ARC’s factual finding that the alleged vacant premises in properties WB-33 and WB-17 were neither exclusively owned by the landlord nor suitable for business expediency compared to the L-shaped corner suit shop.
Regarding the landlord’s bona fide requirement, the court observed that the landlord had over 40 years of experience in the sanitary trade and wished to productively utilize his time post-retirement. The court affirmed the ARC’s observation:
“If the petitioner has the desire to start his own business, the wings of his ambition cannot be clipped merely because of his age.”
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the tenant’s petition was essentially an attempt to seek a fresh appraisal of facts and evidence already thoroughly evaluated by the ARC. Finding no jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, or perversity in the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition along with all pending applications.
Case Details:
Case Title: Subhash Chand v. Gian Chand Jain & Anr.
Case No.: RC.REV. 240/2026
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date: 23.07.2026
