Rent control protection is not equivalent to possession; revisional interference is justified when binding precedent is ignored.

A tenant protected by rent control law was held not to have an entitlement to possession for purposes of a landlord's eviction claim under the non-residential building provision. The statutory phrase was read in its positive sense, closer to an owner's right of possession, so mere immunity from eviction was insufficient. The revisional court's interference was also upheld because the appellate authority committed material irregularity by ignoring binding precedent on the same statutory issue. The result was that the landlord's right to seek eviction stood affirmed and the challenge to revisional interference failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a tenant protected by the rent control statute can be treated as a person entitled to possession for the purpose of the landlord's claim under the provision governing eviction of a non-residential building; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in revision with the order of the appellate authority for failing to follow binding precedent.

Issue (i): Whether a tenant protected by the rent control statute can be treated as a person entitled to possession for the purpose of the landlord's claim under the provision governing eviction of a non-residential building.

Analysis: The statutory scheme distinguished between an absolute right to possession and a restricted right to remain in occupation subject to eviction only on fulfilment of the statutory grounds. The expression "entitled to possession" was read in its positive sense and, in context, as closer to the right of possession enjoyed by an owner occupying his own building. A mere statutory immunity from eviction was held insufficient to amount to entitlement to possession within the meaning of the provision.

Conclusion: The tenant was not entitled to treat statutory protection against eviction as equivalent to possession, and the landlord's requirement satisfied the statutory condition.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in interfering in revision with the order of the appellate authority for failing to follow binding precedent.

Analysis: The revisional court's interference was upheld because the appellate authority had acted with material irregularity in ignoring an existing decision governing the same statutory issue. The limited nature of revisional power did not prevent correction of such an error where the subordinate authority failed to follow applicable precedent.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in setting aside the appellate order in revision.

Final Conclusion: The landlord's right to seek eviction was upheld, and the tenant's challenge to the revisional interference failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the rent control scheme, a tenant's statutory protection against eviction is not the same as an entitlement to possession, and a revisional court may interfere where the subordinate authority commits material irregularity by disregarding binding precedent.

---