Delhi High Court: Eviction Order Passed in Favour of Landlord; Bona Fide Requirement for Son Upheld.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court set aside the Rent Controller’s order granting leave to defend to the tenant and upheld the landlord’s bona fide requirement for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court held that the landlord’s need to reclaim the shop for his unemployed married son to start an independent business was genuine, and the tenant failed to raise any substantial triable issue. It further ruled that the property, situated in Babarpur (Village Maujpur), fell within an urbanized area, making the Delhi Rent Control Act applicable.

Background:

• The petitioner, Hemant Gupta (landlord), filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act for Shop No. 2, Ground Floor, Property No. 20-E/1, Babarpur Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi, claiming bona fide need for his unemployed married son, Yashasvi, to start a general store.

• The premises were originally let out in 1984 by the previous owner, and the petitioner became the owner via a registered sale deed dated 26 September 2006.

• The tenant, Ishwar Chand, filed an application for leave to defend, contending that:

1. The DRC Act was inapplicable to the area.
2. The landlord’s son was already employed, running a business under the name M/s Akansha Generators.
3. The landlord possessed sufficient alternative accommodations.
4. • The Rent Controller (ARC) allowed the tenant’s leave to defend on 24 May 2024, holding that the landlord failed to establish bona fide need and that applicability of the DRC Act was uncertain.
5. • Aggrieved, the landlord filed the present revision petition before the High Court.

Court’s Observations:

• Maintainability: The Court rejected the tenant’s objection on maintainability, citing precedents (R.S. Bakshi v. H.K. Malhari; Prem Lata v. Pawan Kumar Khurana).

• Bona Fide Requirement:

1. The landlord’s claim that his married son required the shop for starting an independent business was credible and genuine.
2. Photographs and claims that the son was “already employed” at M/s Akansha Generators were insufficient to rebut the presumption of bona fide need.
3. The GST registration certificate produced by the landlord established that he himself, not his son, was the proprietor of M/s Akansha Generators.
4. The Court reiterated that under Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. and Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini, a landlord’s assertion of genuine requirement is presumed true, subject to strong rebuttal by the tenant.
5. • Alternative Accommodation:
6. The tenant failed to produce any material proving existence of other suitable premises.
7. Absence of specific pleading regarding other accommodations did not invalidate the landlord’s case.
8. • Applicability of DRC Act:
9. The Sale Deed and PIO reply from SDM Shahdara (2018) confirmed that Village Maujpur (Babarpur) is listed among urbanized villages under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, making the DRC Act applicable.
10. • Revisional Jurisdiction:
11. Referring to Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78, the Court held that it could interfere with the ARC’s order when it suffers from perversity, illegality, or arbitrariness.

Decision:

• The High Court found the ARC’s order erroneous, as the tenant failed to raise any triable issue warranting leave to defend.

• The impugned order dated 24 May 2024 was set aside.

• An eviction order was passed in favour of the landlord in respect of the subject premises.

• Execution of the eviction order was stayed for six months under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act to allow the tenant time to vacate.

Legal Provisions Discussed:

• Section 14(1)(e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Bona fide requirement for occupation by landlord or dependent.

• Section 25B, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Special procedure for disposal of eviction applications.

• Section 507, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Urbanization of rural areas.

• Section 14(7), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Stay on eviction for six months post order.

• Section 25B(8), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Revisional jurisdiction of High Court.

Citation: 2025:DHC:72765

Case: Hemant Gupta v. Ishwar Chand

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Date of Decision: 11 November 2025

Case No.: RC.REV. 215/2024 & CM APPL. 45617/2024