In Brief
This appeal concerns the scope of the High Court's revisional power under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 in eviction proceedings. The appellant sought possession of tenanted shops based on bona fide personal requirement; the tenant contested, claiming the appellant had alternative accommodation and questioning his title. The Rent Controller dismissed the tenant's application to defend; the High Court allowed revision, treating it like an appeal. The Supreme Court held that the proviso to Section 25B(8) grants only limited supervisory jurisdiction—not appellate power—to ensure legality and procedural compliance. The High Court cannot reassess evidence afresh. Alternative accommodation in a distant state does not defeat a bona fide requirement claim under Section 14(1)(e). Vague assertions by the tenant are insufficient to raise triable issues. The Court restored the Rent Controller's order, allowing the appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.