Supreme Court Restores Order of Rent Controller: High Court has Gone Beyond Scope of Revision under Delhi Rent Control Act

Supreme Court Restores Order of Rent Controller: High Court has Gone Beyond Scope of Revision under Delhi Rent Control Act

The Supreme Court by its coram comprising of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Sanjay Kumar while restoring the order passed by the Rent Controller said that the High Court had gone far beyond the limited scope of revision in terms of Section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.

In the present case, batch of appeals were directed against the Delhi High Court which allowed the revision petitions filed by the respective tenants and reversed the orders by the Court of ACJ-cum-CCJ-cum-ARC. The Rent Controller had accepted the petitions for eviction filed by the appellant against the respective tenants, on the ground of her bona fide requirement.

The brief background of the case is that the appellant sought eviction of the respondent-tenant with the averments that the respondent was inducted as tenant by her predecessor in the year 1995 at the rent of Rs. 1200/- per month. The appellant also stated that the current monthly rent of the suit premises was Rs. 2100/- but the tenant had not paid the rent since 1 June, 2010. The appellant took several other averments on her requirement, including the lack of accommodation for herself as also for the wife and children of her brother-in-law.

In the order dated 21 November, 2014, after thoroughly examining the material on record, the learned Rent Controller had observed that the appellant was residing in a joint family consisting of her brother-in-law and the wife, two unmarried daughters and son of her brother-in-law and proceeded to hold that the assertions about bona fide requirement of the appellant were duly established.

The Rent Controller accepted the petition and ordered eviction of the tenant from the premises in question, being one room in the rear portion of the first floor of the building in question while granting him six months’ time to vacate.

However, the High Court reversed the decision of the Rent Controller, essentially on the ground that the appellant i.e., the landlord had not been forthright in the description of the property in question and had taken the pleadings in a misleading manner about the facts concerning right, title and interest of the wife of his brother-in-law in the property in question and about the fact that the building was constructed on two adjoining plots as a common superstructure.

The Apex Court noted that the High Court dealt with the said revision petitions in terms of Section 25-B (8) of the Act of 1958. The said Section 25-B provides special procedure for disposal of the applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and the revision petition in such matters is governed by Sub-section (8) thereof.

To determine the contours of the limited jurisdiction under the said Section 25-B (8) the Apex Court placed reliance in the case of Abid-ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022), wherein it was held that the High Court could not have reversed the findings of the fact recorded by the Rent Controller as regards the bona fide requirement on the ground of the so-called misdescription of the property and without considering the clarification before the Rent Controller and then the findings of the Rent Controller.

The Apex Court held, “having examined the present matters in totality, we are constrained to observe that the High Court has gone far beyond the limited scope of revision in terms of Section 25-B(8) of the Act of 1958. A bare look at the consideration of the High Court in the orders impugned makes it clear that the so-called want of clear description of the suit premises as also the identification and extent of the property available with the family has formed the principal consideration of the High Court.”

The Apex Court noted that the appellant had made her position clear in her cross-examination that the building in question was constructed on plots jointly and she and her sister-in-law were residing in the same building as one family.

The Court reckoned that, “it is clear that there had not been any such misdescription of the property which would amount to a material flaw in the case of the appellant or which could have caused prejudice to the respondents-tenants. … we need not elaborate on the other aspects as to whether the members of the family of the brother-in-law of the appellant could be taken as her dependents for the purpose of the eviction in terms of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act of 1958.”

The Court also observed that the prayer for eviction was accepted by the Rent Controller on valid grounds and with cogent reasons and that the findings on a bona fide requirement of the appellant in relation to both cases could not have been disturbed by the High Court on a rather nebulous and vague ground of want of clarity about the identification of the property in question.

Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the High Court and restored the orders of the Rent Controller, while grant time to the respondents to vacate the suit premises by 31 December, 2023.

Advocate Sagar Saxena appeared on behalf of the appellant while Advocate Sibo Sankar Mishra appeared on behalf of the respondent.