Delhi High Court Judgment on Bona Fide Requirement and Revisional Jurisdiction.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, set aside the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized that the bona fide requirement of a landlord must be proven as genuine, honest, and devoid of deceit at the time of filing the eviction petition. It held that the ARC erred in presuming bona fide requirement without proper appreciation of the tenant’s evidence demonstrating mala fide conduct by the landlady in concealing the prior letting of adjacent premises.

Background:

1. The landlady, Meenakshi Gupta, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeking possession of the ground floor of property no. 2902, Kinari Bazar, Delhi, citing requirement to open her own boutique.
2. In the petition, the landlady disclosed that adjacent premises (no. 2903) was demolished to accommodate her son’s business. The tenant, Sh Tek Chand (Deceased) through LRs, challenged this, alleging the landlady had previously let out the adjacent premises to a third party (Sh. Vijay Kumar) at higher rent, alleging mala fide intent.
3. The tenant was granted leave to defend under Section 25B of the Act by the ARC on 21.01.2020. Both parties filed written statements and evidence, examined themselves, and cross-examined witnesses.
4. Despite the tenant’s evidence highlighting prior letting, inconsistencies, and contradictions by the landlady, the ARC ruled in favor of the landlady and ordered eviction on 07.05.2024.

Court Opinion/Analyses:

1. The Court held that the ARC erred in presuming bona fide requirement without evaluating the tenant’s evidence and ignoring contradictions in the landlady’s pleadings and cross-examination.
2. The Court emphasized that bona fide requirement must be proven as real, genuine, and sincere, and the onus is on the landlord to remove any doubt regarding its authenticity.
3. Observations by the ARC that prior letting was a “single instance” or that subsequent requirements justified eviction were held to be arbitrary and unsustainable.
4. The Court highlighted the tenant’s submissions demonstrating mala fide conduct, including concealment and contradictory statements regarding prior letting of the adjacent premises.
5. The Court invoked supervisory jurisdiction to correct manifest errors of law, perversity, and non-appreciation of material evidence by the ARC.

Legal Provision Concerned:

1. Section 14(1)(e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Landlord’s bona fide requirement for eviction of premises.
2. Section 25B(8), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Revisional jurisdiction to correct errors in eviction orders.
3. Sarvate T.B. v. Nemichand (1966 MP LJ 26), Mattulal v. Radhe Lal (1974 2 SCC 365), Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999 6 SCC 222), Dattatraya Laxman Kamble v. Abdul Rasul Moulali Kotkunde (1999 4 SCC 1) – Principles on bona fide requirement and landlord’s burden.

Case No.: RC.REV. 242/2024 & CM APPL. 72926/2024-Stay

Court: High Court of Delhi

Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Petitioner: Sh Tek Chand (Deceased) through LRs

Respondent: Smt Meenakshi Gupta & Anr.

Date of Judgment: 10.10.2025

Key Issues:

1. Bona fide requirement of landlord for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act.
2. Alleged mala fide conduct by landlady in eviction petition and concealment of prior letting of adjacent premises.
3. Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Act.
4. Misapplication of law and failure to appreciate tenant’s evidence by ARC.

Reliefs Granted:

1. Impugned eviction order of 07.05.2024 set aside.
2. Matter remanded to ARC for fresh consideration on bona fide requirement based on available material.
3. Directions for expeditious disposal within six months.