The Delhi High Court has ruled that a Rent Controller cannot exercise review jurisdiction to re-hear a case or re-appreciate evidence as if sitting in appeal. Justice Saurabh Banerjee set aside a review order that had vacated an eviction decree, emphasizing that review powers under the Delhi Rent Control Act are “narrow and circumspect” and cannot be used to correct a decision simply because a different view is possible.
The High Court restored the eviction orders passed in 2019, directing the tenants to vacate the premises within six months, holding that the successor Rent Controller had exceeded their jurisdiction by treating the review petition as an “appeal in disguise.”
Background of the Case
The petitioners (landlords) had filed two eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking the vacation of the First and Second Floors of property No. 1763-1764, Hauz Sui Walan, Chandni Mahal, Delhi. The landlords pleaded a bona fide requirement due to a paucity of residential accommodation for their growing families, stating they were residing in insufficient spaces (a tin-shed and a rented single room).
The respondents (tenants) filed applications for leave to defend under Section 25B of the Act, disputing the landlords’ title. They claimed that they had purchased the subject premises from Mr. Abdul Rasheed (the grandfather of the landlords) vide a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, and Will, all dated July 3, 1996, for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The tenants asserted that their status had changed from tenants to owners.
On February 26, 2019, the predecessor Rent Controller allowed the eviction petitions. The predecessor held that the unregistered documents produced by the tenants did not create any title in immovable property. It was ruled that the landlords had established a “better title” based on a registered Sale Deed (1958) and a Partition Deed (1999).
However, the tenants filed review petitions against this order. On September 20, 2022, the successor Rent Controller allowed the review, setting aside the earlier eviction orders. The successor RC held that the tenants had raised triable issues regarding the relationship between the parties. Aggrieved by this, the landlords approached the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The landlords argued that the impugned order dated September 20, 2022, was contrary to Section 25B(9) of the Act and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). They contended that the tenants had merely re-agitated the same pleas regarding the unregistered documents which had already been rejected. They submitted that the successor Rent Controller erred by acting as an appellate court to re-appreciate the same material.
Per contra, the tenants argued that since they were inducted by the grandfather and subsequently executed the Agreement to Sell in 1996, the landlord-tenant relationship had ceased. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in R. Kanthimathi & Ors. vs. Mrs. Beatrice Xavier (2000), they contended that they were entitled to leave to defend to prove their title.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that the powers of review are limited and are not intended for a fresh adjudication of the same pleas.
On the Scope of Review Jurisdiction: The Court heavily criticized the successor Rent Controller for acting as an appellate court. Relying on Supreme Court judgments in Yashwant Sinha & Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020) and Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati (2013), the Court held that a review cannot be an “appeal in disguise.”
The Court observed:
“It is, thus, impermissible for anyone like the tenant(s) to, under the garb of review, either seek a fresh adjudication of the same pleas that have already been dealt with or raise new/ fresh pleas not existing before… Re-appreciation of the material on record is beyond the purview of review.”
The Court further noted:
“It is, thus, apparent that the learned RC has traversed beyond the realm of review and acted as an appellate Court.”
On Unregistered Documents and Title: The Court noted that the predecessor Rent Controller had already applied his mind to the Agreement to Sell dated July 3, 1996, and correctly held that it did not convey rights in the immovable property as it was unregistered. The High Court stated there was no occasion for the successor RC to venture into considering the very same document again to hold that it raised triable issues.
On Estoppel: The Court reiterated the principle of estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the tenants admitted to being inducted into the premises in 1987, they were estopped from challenging the landlords’ title. Citing Smt. Shanti Sharma vs. Smt. Ved Prabha (1987), the Court held that a landlord in an eviction suit need not prove absolute title, but only a title better than that of the tenant.
Decision
The High Court allowed the petitions filed by the landlords and set aside the review orders dated September 20, 2022.
Consequently, the earlier eviction orders dated February 26, 2019, were sustained. The Court held that in view of Section 14(7) of the Act, the tenants are liable to vacate the subject premises and hand over peaceful and physical possession to the landlords within a period of six months.
- Case Title: Amir Khan & Ors. vs. Aziz Ur Rehman AND Sajid Khan & Ors. vs. Inam-Ul-Haq (Deceased) Thr LRs
- Case Number: RC. REV. 219/2023 & RC. REV. 220/2023
