Rent Controller's Review Order Set Aside; Original Eviction Order Restored, Tenant Given Six Months to Vacate

A bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee heard revision petitions challenging orders of the Rent Controller, Tis Hazari Courts, which had set aside earlier eviction orders and granted the tenant leave to defend. The petitions, filed by family members who sought eviction of the first and second floors of premises at Hauz Sui Walan under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, raised the limited question whether the Rent Controller exceeded the narrow scope of review under Section 25B(9) of the Act and Order XLVII CPC by reappreciating evidence and entertaining fresh adjudication.

The High Court allowed the landlords' petitions, set aside the Rent Controller's impugned orders dated 20.09.2022 and restored the earlier eviction orders dated 26.02.2019. The Court held that review jurisdiction was "narrow and circumspect" and impermissible to reappraise evidence or take a different view simply because it was possible. The Court noted that the Rent Controller had acted as an appellate court by revisiting title and estoppel issues, and that such reappreciation was beyond the scope of review. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason." The judgment further recorded that "the same are narrow and circumspect in nature, exercised only when glaring omissions/errors have crept into an order, which may/will result in a grave miscarriage of justice."

Background

The dispute arose when landlords — members of the same family — filed two eviction petitions (E. Nos. 288/2013 and 289/2013) under Section 14(1)(e) seeking possession on account of paucity of residential accommodation. The tenant contended that late Mr. Inam-Ul-Haq had purchased the premises from Mr. Abdul Rasheed by means of a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell and Will dated 03.07.1996, and that possession and municipal payments thereafter evidenced ownership; upon his death, Mr. Aziz-Ur-Rehman claimed succession. Landlords relied on an earlier Sale Deed dated 24.10.1958, a Partition Deed dated 01.04.1999, rent receipts and a later rent agreement to show a better title.

The Rent Controller initially allowed eviction in February 2019, finding that landlords only needed to show a better title than the tenant and that no triable issue was raised. The tenant filed review petitions under Section 25B(9), asserting that the 1996 documents altered the relationship to vendor-vendee and raised triable issues; the Rent Controller then set aside the earlier orders in September 2022 and granted leave to defend. The landlords moved in revision before the High Court.

Applying settled principles from Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and subsequent authorities, the High Court emphasized that review was not an opportunity to reargue or reappreciate evidence and that the Rent Controller had impermissibly adopted appellate reasoning — including reassessing estoppel, surrender of tenancy and title — without any discovery of new evidence or patent error on the face of the record. The Court observed that established precedents, including Smt. Shanti Sharma v. Smt. Ved Prabha, required only a better title by the landlord where induction as a tenant was admitted, and that the Rent Controller had failed to give reasons for rejecting earlier reliance on binding authorities. Consequently, the Court restored the eviction orders and directed that, in view of Section 14(7) of the Act, the tenant vacate and hand over peaceful physical possession within six months from the date of the judgment. The petitions and pending application were disposed of accordingly.

Case No.: RC. REV. 219/2023 & RC. REV. 220/2023 Case Title: AMIR KHAN & ORS. v. AZIZ UR REHMAN; SAJID KHAN & ORS. v. INAM-UL-HAQ (DECEASED) THR LRS Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ameit Andlay, Mr. Arun K. Sharma, Mohd. Anis Ul Rehman and Ms. Jhuma Bose, Advocates For the Respondent(s): RC. REV.219/2023 – None; RC. REV.220/2023 – Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate