On 7 August 2026, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar of the High Court of Delhi dismissed a revision petition in Kusum Sharma v. Gurpreet Singh Sawhney, RC.Rev. 270/2026, filed against an eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The judgment is a clear restatement of a rule every landlord and tenant in Delhi should understand before approaching the High Court: the revision under the proviso to Section 25B(8) is supervisory, and it is not a second opportunity to argue the facts.
The dispute
The landlord sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 — the bona fide requirement ground — before the Additional Rent Controller. The tenants\' application for leave to defend was rejected after the Controller found on the record that summons had been duly served; the tenants\' case that they were out of town and that the process server\'s report was unreliable did not persuade the Controller. A review met the same fate in July 2026. The tenants then invoked the High Court\'s revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B(8).
The scheme in brief
What the High Court held
The Court dismissed the petition on the threshold question of scope. Its revisional power, it held, is supervisory: "the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial court." Interference is reserved for jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity or perversity — conclusions so unreasonable, or so founded on an erroneous premise, that no reasonable Controller could have reached them.
Measured against that standard, the petition failed. Every objection now pressed — the validity of service, the discrepancies alleged in the process server\'s report, the tenants\' absence from town — had been examined by the Controller, and examined again in review. The Court declined the invitation to re-weigh that material in terms that deserve quotation: "What is sought, in substance, is a re-appreciation of the factual material... Such an exercise would amount to this Court assuming appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible."
Why the distinction matters
| Appeal | Revision under S.25B(8) | |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Rehearing on facts and law | Supervisory check on legality |
| Evidence | Can be re-appreciated | Cannot be re-appreciated |
| Grounds | Any error of fact or law | Jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity |
| Outcome sought | Substituted decision | Correction of a decision no reasonable tribunal could reach |
The practical consequence is that the leave-to-defend stage before the Rent Controller is, for most tenants, the trial itself. The affidavit seeking leave must raise triable issues with precision and candour, because the High Court will not later reconstruct the factual case. Conversely, for landlords, a well-reasoned order of the Controller dealing with each objection is the best insulation an eviction order can have in revision.
Practice points
Treat the leave-to-defend affidavit as the centrepiece of the tenant\'s case, not a formality. Contest service before the Controller with evidence, not assertion — the process server\'s report carries weight until displaced. And before filing a revision, test each proposed ground against the fourfold standard the Court applied; a revision that merely re-argues the facts invites dismissal.
This article summarises a published judgment of the High Court of Delhi for general information. It is not legal advice, and the outcome of any matter depends on its own facts.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the summary procedure under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act?
Eviction petitions on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) follow a summary procedure. The tenant has no automatic right to contest: within the prescribed time the tenant must apply for leave to defend, disclosing facts that would disentitle the landlord from an eviction order. If leave is refused, the eviction order follows.
Can the High Court re-examine the facts in a rent control revision?
No. The Court held that its power under the proviso to Section 25B(8) is supervisory, and that it will not substitute its own view for that of the Rent Controller. Interference is confined to jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity or perversity — not a fresh appreciation of the factual material.
What happens if the tenant disputes service of the summons?
Objections to service are decided by the Rent Controller on the record, including the process server's report. In this case those objections had been considered and rejected both in the original proceedings and again in review, and the High Court found no perversity in those findings that would justify interference in revision.
Is a review available against an order refusing leave to defend?
A review lies only within the narrow limits of an error apparent on the face of the record; it is not a rehearing. In this case the tenants' review was dismissed because it repeated the same contentions already decided, and the High Court endorsed that approach.