This revision petition under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act) was filed by the petitioner-tenant to challenge an eviction order dated February 28, 2026, passed by the learned ARC, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. The petitioner argued that the trial court failed to consider a critical plea raised in the leave to defend application and rejoinder—specifically, that the landlord’s son (for whom the premises were claimed) was already independently operating a business from a timber shop in Kirti Nagar, Delhi. The Delhi High Court reiterated that while its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) is narrow and supervisory, the total absence of adjudication on a material plea affecting the root of a bona fide requirement constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Rent Controller for a fresh and comprehensive consideration of the leave to defend application.
- Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction:
- The Court reaffirmed that its jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act is supervisory and revisional, designed to oversee the decision-making process rather than act as a first appellate court.
- Citing settled precedents such as Sarla Ahuja, Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd., and Abid-Ul-Islam, the Court emphasized that interference is warranted in cases of jurisdictional errors, perversity, manifest illegality, or where a material plea has been entirely left unconsidered.
- Omission of Material Plea:
- The petitioner demonstrated that a specific and crucial defense—stating that the landlord’s son, Mr. Vidhur Bajaj, was already running an independent business from Kirti Nagar—had been raised in both the leave to defend application and the rejoinder.
- Upon review, the High Court observed that the learned ARC completely failed to advert to or evaluate this specific contention in the impugned order.
- Remand and Directions:
- Because the omitted plea went to the very root of the respondent’s assertion of a bona fide requirement, the decision-making process was legally flawed.
- The High Court set aside the eviction order without expressing any opinion on the merits, remanded the matter back to the learned ARC for a fresh adjudication of the leave to defend application, and directed the trial court to dispose of the matter within six months.
