Cases Reported in HCC | Can owning other flats stop you from evicting a tenant? 6 recent High Court Cases on rent control and eviction

Rent Control and Eviction — Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) — S. 14(1)(e) and S. 25-B(8) — Bona fide requirement of landlord — Eviction proceedings on the basis of — Landlord seeking eviction of tenant from subject premises — Landlord also owner-landlord of various other premises in same vicinity wherein subject premises is situated — Denial of evicting tenant from subject premises for which landlord professes bona fide requirement — Tenability of — Held, owning/existence/selling/buying/purchasing/renting/leasing/sub-leasing/re-letting/licensing/vacancy/or like are factors which cannot debar any landlord from initiating eviction proceedings with respect to premises against tenant if such landlord is able to show his need is without any malice and/or mala fide intent — Any alternative accommodation(s) lying vacant in itself is also not reason for barring landlord to initiate eviction proceedings for vacation of tenant from premises — Imperative for tenant to show similarity/likeness/connection inter se them to bring out that need for same professed by landlord is sham — When landlord is seeking subject premises for commercial purpose, external factors such as location, floor, contours, locality, position, viability, purpose, size, dimension, permissions, footfall, visibility, access, safety concerns, etc. coupled with other internal factors in the form of practicality, sustainability, possibility, capability, finances, etc. be taken into account — Landlord has only to project his bona fide requirement for subject premises — Mere availability of alternative accommodations with landlord in same vicinity not sufficient for denying eviction of tenant from subject premises — Petition allowed [Anil Kumar Jain v. Subhash Chand Chawla, (2026) 1 HCC (Del) 189]

Rent Control and Eviction — Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (57 of 1947) — Ss. 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b) — “When landlord may recover possession” — Eviction — Damage and permanent structure — Scope of tenant’s alterations — Trial court ordered respondent/tenant to hand over possession of suit premises — Appeal filed by tenant allowed — Civil Revision application filed against respondent/tenant — Held, alteration without permission of Municipal Corporation or landlord amounts to material alteration constitutes “damage” and “permanent structure” as per Ss. 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(b), and also contrary to S. 108(o) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882— Further held, Lease clause permitting some changes cannot mean blanket permission to carry out permanent structural alterations — Mere issuance of municipal notice not decisive, tenant’s admission of such structural changes and absence of professional sanction are material — Findings of appellate court on damage and permanent structure held, unsustainable and perverse — Appellate court erred in equating minor protective work with structural demolition and in diluting statutory ground of permanent structure — Therefore, eviction decree restored — Direction issued — Tenant to hand over vacant possession to landlord — Civil revision application allowed [Suman Ramesh Samant v. Arun R. Patil, (2026) 1 HCC (Bom) 50]

Rent Control and Eviction — Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (59 of 1958) — Ss. 14(1)(e), 22 and 2(e) — Eviction of tenant — Applicability of S. 22 to non-natural persons whether excludes such persons from S. 14(1)(e) — General remedy for eviction of tenant under S. 14 — Availability of, to landlord who is Company/body corporate/local authority/public institution — Determination of — Held, S. 22 of the DRC Act, 1958 applies to limited category of persons and not to all persons who are non-natural persons — S. 22 applies to : (a) private limited companies, (b) body corporates such as registered partnership firms, registered societies, registered LLP and not to any other unregistered bodies who are non-natural persons, (c) local authorities, (d) public institutions which are not set up by private trusts — There is whole gamut of non-natural persons who are excluded from ambit of S. 22 DRC Act, 1958 — Such persons cannot be left remediless under any statute — S. 14(1)(e) DRC Act, 1958 uses the word “person” in case of those landlords on whose behalf an eviction petition can be filed — Use of word “landlord” and/or “person” is clear that it applies to non-natural persons — Therefore, S. 14 DRC Act, 1958 in general would apply to all such landlords including landlords who come within ambit of S. 22, DRC Act, 1958 — Where two remedies are available, one of them should not be taken as operating in derogation of the other — Remedy provided under S. 22, DRC Act, 1958 is additional remedy, in addition to the remedies provided under S. 14 — S. 22 does not deprive corporate and public institution landlords form benefit of S. 14 [K.S. Bhandari v. International Security Printers (P) Ltd., (2025) 3 HCC (Del) 303]

Rent Control and Eviction — Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (57 of 1947) — Ss. 5(4-A) and 15-A — Status of deemed tenant — Protection under S. 15-A — Subsistence of licence — Held, to avail protection under S. 15-A, occupant must establish that he was in occupation of premises as a licensee under a subsisting licence agreement on 1-2-1973 — Mere occupation after termination or revocation of licence does not entitle occupant to protection under S. 15-A — However, subsistence of licence may be inferred from attendant circumstances and conduct of parties indicating continuation of jural relationship — Held on facts, evidence established that defendant had accepted royalty from plaintiff till 1975 and had not taken any steps to terminate the jural relationship till the year 1977 — Acceptance of royalty for over three years after expiry of the contractual term, coupled with prior evidence regarding nature of relationship between parties, justified inference that licence continued to subsist on 1-2-1973 — Consequently, plaintiff, being in occupation of the premises as a licensee under subsisting licence, acquired status and protection of a deemed tenant under S. 15-A — Petition dismissed [Venkatesh Krishna Bhandarkar v. Henry D’Souza, (2025) 3 HCC (Bom) 74]

Rent Control and Eviction — Eviction — Bona fide requirement of landlord — Non-availability of reasonable suitable alternative accommodation — Need as set out in eviction petition for business for the children of landlord — Genuineness of — Held, need cannot be said to be fanciful or not genuine — Landlords in eviction petition disclosed alternate accommodations, each of which trial court found either not available or sold or tenanted — Trial court had itself recorded, based on leave to defend application that shops were tenanted — Once tenants admitted that shops were tenanted, no question of these shops being available — Therefore, landlords satisfied all three ingredients to prove eviction of tenant — Eviction petition allowed [Raj Kumari Bansal v. Gurcharan Singh, (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 346]

Rent Control and Eviction — Recovery of Possession by Landlord — Unauthorized Occupant — Lease and possession — Suit property given on rent to defendants — Expiry of lease followed by continued unauthorized occupation and default in rent payment — Non-filing of written statement despite court directions — Ejection of tenant from suit property — Tenability of — Held, where lease period expired and tenancy continued only by sufferance, defendant’s possession became unauthorized — Consistent non-payment of rent and breach of court undertakings establish mala fide conduct — Court’s discretion under Or. 8 R. 10 CPC to pronounce judgment against defendant on admitted facts — Defendant liable to be ejected from suit property [Rani Kapoor v. Computer Systems & Management Construction (P) Ltd., (2025) 2 HCC (Del) 629]