The present revision petitions were filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) to challenge two separate orders dated 20.07.2024 passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Saket Courts, New Delhi, which allowed the applications for leave to defend filed by the tenants in eviction proceedings. The Petitioners (landlords and senior citizens) sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for residential reconstruction. The Delhi High Court evaluated the narrow scope of its supervisory and revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act—which forbids converting revisions into regular appeals or conducting roving inquiries—and held that the Rent Controller had rightly identified triable issues concerning the availability of alternative accommodations and the actual scope of the required construction. Ruling that the age and inconvenience of the landlords cannot bypass statutory requirements where genuine factual controversies exist, the High Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the grant of leave to defend.
- Revisional Jurisdiction Parameters: The High Court reiterated that its power under Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is strictly supervisory and revisional, limited to examining the decision-making process for jurisdictional errors, perversity, or material irregularities, and does not permit re-appreciating evidence like a first appeal.
- No Mini-Trial at Leave Stage: The Court emphasized that at the stage of leave to defend, courts are not to conduct mini-trials; leave must be granted if the tenant’s disclosures raise triable issues that, if proven, would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an eviction order.
- Substantial Triable Issues Identified: The ARC correctly noted that the Petitioners themselves admitted to owning other properties and raised factual questions regarding the precise measurement, extent of land available for construction, and whether alternative accommodations were reasonably suitable.
- Vague Scope of Bona Fide Requirement: The Rent Controller observed that the Petitioners failed to specify which portions of the premises were required for which specific family members or how the proposed reconstruction layout would function, generating legitimate grounds for a trial.
- Inconvenience of Landlords Not a Ground to Deny Trial: The Court held that the advanced age of the landlords and their apprehension of the rigours of a trial cannot dispense with the statutory requirement of examining whether a genuine triable issue is present.
- Selective Relief by ARC: The High Court noted that the ARC exercised due diligence by not granting leave on every raised ground, specifically restricting it to the availability of alternative accommodation and bona fide requirement while rejecting it regarding the uncontested landlord-tenant relationship.
- Final Outcome: Finding no illegality, perversity, or error apparent on the face of the record, the petitions were dismissed, with a clarification that the observations shall not prejudice the final merits during the trial.
