Delhi High Court: In a revision petition filed by the petitioner-tenant challenging the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (‘ARC’) allowing the eviction petition of the respondent-landlord, a Single Judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee, J., held that sale, purchase or lease of other properties by the landlord were not an impediment for him to file eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (‘DRC Act’).
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition and directed the tenant to handover vacant possession of the subject premise immediately.
Background
In the present case, an eviction petition was filed by the landlord under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act before the ARC seeking eviction of tenant’s shop for the bona fide requirement of the premises to enable his grandson to establish his independent business of food and beverages, as there was no other suitable alternate accommodation available.
The tenant maintained that the said eviction petition was not maintainable as the landlord had no bona fide requirement of the subject premises and he had sold and bought various properties recently. However, since the tenant was unable to substantiate the availability of alternative accommodation for the landlord, the ARC allowed the said eviction petition and directed eviction of the tenant from the subject premises.
Aggrieved by the same, the tenant approached theCourt.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that as far as the bona fide requirement of the landlord was concerned, he was only to make out a legitimate case setting out the plausible reasons which were not fanciful and unreasonable to establish a bona fide requirement of the subject premises which he was able to establish the same as it was always the case of the landlord that the subject premises was being required for his dependent family member. The Court specified that it was genuine on part of landlord because he was more than 80 years old and wanted to establish his grandson who had no expertise in the food industry business and it did not preclude him from seeking vacation of the said premises for commencing ‘a new restaurant business’.
The Court emphasized that it was the discretion of an individual to start a new venture and experience was immaterial for it which was the case with landlord in the present case. Further, the Court stated that the tenant was unable to establish if the grandson of the landlord was employed, as all that was filed by the tenant was his ‘LinkedIn’ profile, which to the contrary merely depicted that he was working as an ‘Intern’.
The Court further stated that for any landlord to file an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, and particularly, to establish a bona fide requirement of the subject premises, it was irrelevant if the landlord and/or his family members were employed at the time of filing the same. Considering tenant’s contention regarding sale of property by landlord, the Court stated that the sale of certain premises by the landlord before filing of the eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act were irrelevant and immaterial as they could not be determining factors for his need of the subject premises at present. The Court emphasized that sale, purchase or lease of other properties by the landlord were not an impediment for him to file eviction proceedings under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act and opined that the tenant had merely made bald and vague assertions with no substantiation which were not sufficient to satisfy the judicial conscience.
Further, the Court highlighted that it was a settled proposition of law that in a revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, the challenge by the tenant for setting aside the impugned judgment was only possible under exceptional circumstances like there was an error apparent on the face of the record, or there was something glaringly amiss, or there was anything contrary to the position of law. However, no infirmity, illegality, or irregularity was found in the order passed by the ARC; thus, the Court stated that no interference was warranted.
The Court dismissed the petition and directed the tenant to handover peacefully and vacant possession of the subject premise immediately because the benefit of six-months period as per Section 14(7) of the DRC Act had already lapsed. Further, the Court stated that the tenant would pay the user and occupation charges for the period beyond that, till vacation of the subject premises.
[Mohinder Singh v. Satish Chander Sikka, RC. REV. 35 of 2023, decided on 8-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Rahul Sharma, Yash Kumar, Harsh Bansiwal, Rishabh Khari and Ribhu Priydarshee, Advocates
For the Respondent: Raj Kumar, Atul Singh Rawat, Sancheet Sharma and Dikshant Kumar, Advocates
