Summary
A landlord challenged the High Court’s grant of leave to defend after the Rent Controller had rejected the tenant’s objections to title, bona fide need and alternative accommodation. The Court held that revision under Section 25B(8) was supervisory and could not become an appellate rehearing. Vague allegations about other properties, without material showing reasonably suitable accommodation, raised no triable issue here. The Controller’s order was restored; separate enemy-property proceedings were not adjudicated.
Issues
- What limits govern High Court revision under the proviso to Section 25B(8).
- What material is needed to raise a triable issue concerning bona fide requirement and suitable alternative accommodation.
Provisions considered
- Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B(5), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958The landlord’s prima facie case could be contested through substantive material raising a triable issue, rather than bare allegations about other properties. (¶¶ 12-18, 22-27)
- Section 25B(8) and its proviso, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958Revision ensured legality and did not permit substitution of ordinary appellate fact-finding. (¶¶ 19-21, 24-27)
Held
- Leave to defend is neither automatic nor dependent on conclusively proving the defence at that stage. The landlord must first support bona fide need by adequate averments and prima facie material; the tenant must then disclose a reasonable factual basis raising a triable issue that could defeat eviction. (¶ 12-18)
- Suitability of alternative accommodation is assessed from the landlord’s perspective. Mere assertion of other properties did not suffice here without pleadings and supporting material showing reasonably suitable accommodation; the landlord had denied the alleged alternatives. (¶¶ 12, 14, 24-27)
- The High Court’s revisional role was to ensure the Controller’s order conformed to law. It could examine facts for legal error or a wholly unreasonable conclusion, but could not conduct a roving appellate reconsideration merely to substitute a different view. (¶ 19-21)
- The Controller gave a reasoned decision rejecting the defence as insubstantial. The High Court did not displace those findings but instead treated the landlord’s denials as vague. Its intervention exceeded the proper revisional bounds. (¶ 22-27)
- The Court declined to decide the validity or effect of the separate later enemy-property action and communications, the authority not being before it. Those matters did not alter its disposition of the rent appeal. (¶ 29)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs; the High Court’s order was set aside and the Rent Controller’s order restored. No opinion was expressed on the separate later enemy-property proceedings.