Revisional limits and bona fide requirement: High Court cannot reweigh evidence, and distant alternative accommodation may not defeat eviction.

Under revisional jurisdiction in rent-control matters, the High Court cannot reappraise evidence or substitute its own factual view for the Rent Controller's finding on bona fide requirement unless the finding is legally erroneous or patently unreasonable. The landlord's eviction claim under the Delhi Rent Control Act was not defeated merely because she owned residential accommodation in another city; the relevant test is whether there is any other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in the same city or within reasonable proximity. On the facts noted, the landlord's need remained bona fide and the eviction order was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court, while exercising power under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, could reappraise evidence and disturb the Rent Controller's finding of bona fide requirement; (ii) Whether the landlord was disentitled to eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground that she had residential accommodation in Calcutta.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, while exercising power under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, could reappraise evidence and disturb the Rent Controller's finding of bona fide requirement.

Analysis: The power under the proviso to Section 25B(8) is supervisory and limited to testing whether the order of the Rent Controller is according to law. It does not authorise the High Court to act as an appellate court or to substitute its own view on facts merely because a different conclusion is possible. Interference with factual findings is justified only where the finding is so unreasonable that no reasonable fact-finder could have reached it.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the permissible revisional limits and its interference with the Rent Controller's finding was unjustified.

Issue (ii): Whether the landlord was disentitled to eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on the ground that she had residential accommodation in Calcutta.

Analysis: The statutory requirement is that the premises must be bona fide required for occupation and that the landlord must have no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation. Alternative accommodation must be reasonably suitable in the same city or within reasonable proximity, and the mere existence of a house in another State does not defeat the claim. The Rent Controller's appreciation of the landlord's need, age, inconvenience of residence, and family circumstances was based on relevant considerations.

Conclusion: The landlord was not disentitled to eviction on account of the Calcutta accommodation, and her bona fide requirement stood established.

Final Conclusion: The eviction order made by the Rent Controller was restored, and the tenant was directed to vacate within the time granted.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional jurisdiction under a rent-control statute, the High Court may interfere with factual findings only for legal error or patent unreasonableness, and a landlord's claim of bona fide requirement cannot be rejected merely because she owns residential accommodation in a different city that is not reasonably suitable.

---