Citation: M/s P.L. Bhasin and Company v. Roopam Sharma, RC.REV. 386/2026, Delhi High Court (Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar), decided on 05.10.2026 | 2026:DHC:8758
In a revision under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, the High Court does not reappreciate evidence, but it can interfere where the Rent Controller overlooked a material plea or proceeded on a finding that is contrary to the record. A tenant who identifies specific properties with details of their location, extent and availability has raised more than a bald averment, and the Rent Controller must examine whether this raises a triable issue before refusing leave to defend. General principles, such as the landlord being the best judge of her need, do not remove this duty.
The Delhi High Court has sent back an eviction case to the Rent Controller, holding that the Controller wrongly said the tenant had given “no particulars” of alternate accommodation when his affidavit had named specific properties of the landlady.
The landlady, Roopam Sharma, sought to evict the tenant, M/s P.L. Bhasin and Company, from Shops No. 1 and 2 in a Karol Bagh property under the bona fide need ground in Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, saying that she needed the space for her daughter’s office. The tenant applied for leave to defend, and his affidavit named specific properties, such as vacant space on the third and fourth floors of 846 and 846A Joshi Road, the vacant first floor of about 500 sq. yards in D-65, Defence Colony, and two shops recently sold to Narang Medicals. On 6 May 2026 the Additional Rent Controller refused leave to defend and ordered eviction, stating that no particulars of alternate accommodation were pleaded, and relied on general rules that the landlord is the best judge of her need and that ground-floor shops are better than upper-floor ones. The tenant challenged this in revision under Section 25B(8). Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar first reminded that the High Court’s revisional power is limited and is not an appeal, and that it cannot substitute its own view. But he held that this case fell in the narrow exception, since the finding was “demonstrably at variance with the record” and a material plea had been left unconsidered. He said that those general principles are correct, but do not remove the duty to examine a specific plea about specific properties, and that the suitability of an alternate accommodation depends on the facts. He did not himself decide whether the properties are suitable, because that would turn the revision into an appeal. The court set aside the eviction order and sent the matter back to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration on the existing pleadings, listing it on 17 October 2026.