Delhi High Court Judgment – RC.REV. 292/2017: Landlord’s Bona Fide Requirement and Eviction under DRC Act

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, upheld the eviction of the tenant (Sandeep Kumar) from shop bearing private no. 2A, municipal no. 682, Katra Hira Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, in favour of the landlord (Nihal Chand). The Court emphasized that bona fide requirement of a landlord is to be assessed from the landlord’s perspective, and possession of other “additional” premises does not constitute suitable “alternative accommodation.” The Court held that the tenant failed to raise any triable issue warranting leave to defend, and prior dismissal of eviction petitions or the landlord’s ownership of other properties does not bar fresh proceedings.

Background:

1. The respondent/landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act seeking possession of shop no. 2A from the petitioner/tenant. The landlord claimed that his existing business in pure cotton fabric and mink blankets was declining, and he intended to start a new business in sarees, lehengas, gowns, dress material, and allied products, requiring contiguous space including the subject premises.
2. The tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend under Sections 25B(4) and (5), arguing that the landlord had multiple commercial accommodations and thus no bona fide need for the subject premises.
3. The learned ARC dismissed the tenant’s application for leave to defend on 12.04.2017 and allowed the eviction petition, finding no triable issue. The present revision petition challenged the ARC’s order.

Court Opinion/Analyses:

1. The Court reiterated that bona fide requirement of a landlord must be assessed from the landlord’s perspective, and a tenant cannot dictate how the landlord utilizes the premises. The Court noted that the landlord had sufficiently established: (i) decline of existing business, (ii) intention to start a new venture, (iii) requirement of additional contiguous space, and (iv) insufficiency of alternative premises.
2. The tenant failed to produce credible evidence to rebut the presumption in favor of the landlord. Assertions regarding “additional accommodation” do not amount to “alternative accommodation” suitable for the landlord’s needs.
3. The Court held that prior eviction petitions or possession of other properties by the landlord are irrelevant; the bona fide requirement is assessed at the time of the suit and is a recurring cause that permits fresh proceedings.
4. The Court emphasized that leave to defend cannot be granted as a routine measure and depends on credible triable issues. Since the tenant did not discharge this onus, leave to defend was correctly denied by the ARC.
5. Reliance was placed on precedents including Ravi Datt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava, Mattulal v. Radhe Lal, Anil Bajaj & Anr. v. Vinod Ahuja, and Akhileshwar Kumar v. Mustaqim, confirming that landlords with bona fide need are entitled to summary eviction under Section 25B.

Legal Provision Concerned:

1. Sections 14(1)(e) & 25B, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Eviction of tenant on bona fide requirement of landlord and summary procedure.
2. Precedents: Ravi Datt Sharma v. Ratan Lal Bhargava (1984) 2 SCC 75; Mattulal v. Radhe Lal (1974) 2 SCC 365; Anil Bajaj & Anr. v. Vinod Ahuja (2014) 15 SCC 610; Akhileshwar Kumar v. Mustaqim (2003) 1 SCC 462.

Case No.: RC.REV. 292/2017 & CM APPL. 45944/2019

Court: High Court of Delhi

Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Petitioner: Sandeep Kumar

Respondent: Nihal Chand

Date of Judgment: 10.10.2025

Key Issues:

1. Bona fide requirement of landlord for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act.
2. Distinction between “additional accommodation” and “alternative accommodation” for landlord’s need.
3. Summary procedure under Section 25B and the threshold for leave to defend by tenant.
4. Relevance of prior eviction petitions or landlord’s other properties.

Reliefs Granted:

1. Revision petition dismissed; impugned order of ARC dated 12.04.2017 upheld.
2. Stay vacated; tenant directed to forthwith vacate shop no. 2A and hand over possession to landlord.
3. Tenant directed to pay arrears of user and occupation charges as fixed earlier.