{"id":253798,"date":"2021-09-07T15:00:10","date_gmt":"2021-09-07T09:30:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=253798"},"modified":"2021-09-17T12:14:05","modified_gmt":"2021-09-17T06:44:05","slug":"landlord","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/07\/landlord\/","title":{"rendered":"What are the essential ingredients that a landlord is required to show for purpose of getting an eviction order for bonafide needs? Del HC elaborates"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>Jayant Nath, J., while addressing a matter noted the essential ingredients that a landlord is required to show for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bonafide needs.<\/p>\n

Respondents counsel in the present application vehemently relied upon various orders passed by this Court to hold that once possession was regained by the respondent\/landlord the revision petition was rendered infructuous.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the Petitioner\/Tenant did not deny that in the Execution Proceedings the respondent\/landlord had received physical possession of the property. He denied that the instant petition was infructuous.<\/p>\n

Referring to the decisions of this Court, Court stated that \u201cit is manifest that present petition is infructuous\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>Background<\/span><\/h3>\n

In the interest of justice, High Court considered the impugned order on merits. Further, dealing with the submissions of the petitioner whereby it had been strongly urged that the impugned order passed by the ARC was liable to be set aside by this court and possession restored.<\/p>\n

Present petition was filed under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 seeking to impugn the eviction order pertaining to the property.<\/p>\n

Respondent\/Landlord had filed a petition for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 on ground of bona fide requirements.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the five shops have been mentioned in the application for leave to defend which are available to the respondent\/landlord. He has also further stated that he has denied the need for additional accommodation in his application for leave to defend. Hence, it is pleaded that this denial itself would be a ground for grant of leave to defend as it raises a triable issue.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/span><\/h3>\n

Looking at the aspect with regard to the scope of present petition, Bench referred to the Supreme Court decision in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr Mahesh Chand Gupta, <\/em>(1999) 6 SCC 222<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Bench tested the order of the ARC to see whether it is according to law, and whether the conclusions are not wholly unreasonable.<\/p>\n

Court noted that the essential ingredients which a landlord is required to show for the purpose of getting an eviction order for bona fide needs are:<\/p>\n