Delhi High Court: In a revision petition challenging the order dated 3-11-2017 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Additional Rent Controller (‘ARC’) had dismissed the eviction petition stating that the landlord had failed to disclose the exact nature of use of the premises, the Single Judge Bench, Saurabh Banerjee, J, held that as long as the landlord had a bona fide requirement of the premise, he was not required to disclose the exact nature of use of the premises in an eviction petition.
Background
The petitioner-landlord had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘the Act’) against the respondent-tenant seeking eviction as there was a bona fide requirement of his own for commencing business. The ARC vide the impugned order had rejected the eviction petition stating that since the landlord had not specified the exact nature and kind of business he intended to run, the tenant’s application for leave to defend was allowed.
The impugned judgement was challenged in the instant revision application.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that even through the ARC had dismissed the eviction petition of the landlord after a full-fledged trial, it had done so in a summarily manner and without considering the issue of bona fide requirement of the landlord. The ARC had relied on the vagueness regarding use of the property by the landlord to hold that the landlord had failed to objectively justify his need for the premises.
The Court further noted that the Act does not require the landlord to divulge anything regarding the new business he intends to set up in his own premises. The landlord is not required to prove the precise nature of the business he intends to commence from the shop in question. Hence, the Court opined that the sole basis of the ARC for dismissing the eviction petition was against the very tenets of the Act, was fundamentally wrong and had no foundation to stand on
The Court further opined that keeping in mind the fast-changing nature of the economy, the requirement of disclosure of new business may be fluid. The landlord is not required to spell out the exact nature or purpose of the said new business and be bound by it, taking the risk of inviting an application under Section 19 of the Act.
The Court therefore, held that since all the requisites for satisfaction by a landlord in an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act had been met, there was an error apparent on the face of record. The ARC had erred in following a procedure against the very tenets of the Act.
Accordingly, the Court considered it a fit case for interference by the Court under the revisionary jurisdiction and set aside the impugned judgment.
[H.S. Banka v. Mohan Lal, RC. Rev. No. 49 of 2018, decided on 8-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Ajaya Bhardwaj, Harshit Bhardwaj, Shubham, Advocates
For the Respondent: Gaurav Bhardwaj, Garima Bhardwaj, Advocates.
