Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Delhi High Court on Bona Fide Requirement under Rent Control Act: Eviction Ordered in Favour of Landlord.

Update / Judgement Date

10 Nov 2025

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

4 min read

Civil LawOther Legal Matters
Delhi High Court on Bona Fide Requirement under Rent Control Act: Eviction Ordered in Favour of Landlord.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Delhi High Court set aside the Rent Controller’s order that had granted leave to defend to the tenant and directed eviction of the tenant from the shop premises. The Court held that the landlord’s bona fide requirement for his unemployed married son to start an independent business was genuine and uncontroverted. The tenant’s defense based merely on photographs suggesting employment of the landlord’s son lacked evidentiary value. The Court further ruled that Babarpur (Maujpur) is an urbanized area where the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 applies, and that no triable issue was raised warranting leave to defend.


Background:
  1. The landlord, Hemant Gupta, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act), seeking possession of Shop No. 2, Ground Floor, Property No. 20-E/1, Babarpur Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi.
  2. The premises were originally rented in 1984 and came under the landlord’s ownership in 2006 through a registered sale deed.
  3. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement for his unemployed married son, Yashasvi, who wished to start a general store.
  4. The tenant filed an application for leave to defend, claiming that:
  5. The DRC Act did not apply to Babarpur.
  6. The landlord’s son was already running a business (M/s Akansha Generators).
  7. The landlord possessed alternative accommodations.
  8. The Rent Controller allowed the tenant’s application for leave to defend, holding that the landlord had failed to establish a prima facie bona fide requirement and that the applicability of the DRC Act was uncertain.


Court’s Observations:
  1. The High Court rejected the tenant’s objection regarding the maintainability of the revision petition.
  2. The relationship of landlord and tenant was undisputed.
  3. The Court held that photographs and process server’s reports showing the son’s presence at M/s Akansha Generators were insufficient to rebut the landlord’s claim, especially since the GST registration certificate showed the landlord—not his son—as proprietor of the business.
  4. It ruled that the tenant failed to present substantive documentary proof or raise a genuine triable issue regarding the son’s employment.
  5. On the issue of alternative accommodation, the tenant could not prove that the landlord possessed any other suitable property.
  6. Regarding applicability of the DRC Act, the Court relied on the official list of urbanized villages under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which included Village Maujpur (Babarpur area), confirming applicability of the Act.
  7. Citing precedents such as Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. (AIR 1999 SC 100), Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778, and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022) 6 SCC 30, the Court reiterated that a landlord’s assertion of bona fide need carries a presumption of truth, rebuttable only with strong and cogent evidence. Mere assertions by a tenant cannot suffice.
  8. The Court found manifest error in the Rent Controller’s order for granting leave to defend, terming it arbitrary and contrary to settled law.


Decision:
  1. Impugned Order (dated 24.05.2024): Set aside.
  2. Eviction Order: Granted in favour of the landlord with respect to Shop No. 2, Ground Floor, Property No. 20-E/1, Babarpur Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi–110032.
  3. Execution: Deferred for six months in accordance with Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.
  4. Petition and all pending applications: Disposed of; parties to bear their own costs.


Legal Provisions Discussed:
  1. Section 14(1)(e), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Eviction on ground of bona fide requirement.
  2. Section 25B, Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Special procedure for disposal of eviction cases.
  3. Section 14(7), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Delay in execution of eviction order by six months.
  4. Section 507, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 – Urbanization of rural areas.


Citation: RC.REV. 215/2024 | CM APPL. 45617/2024

Case: Hemant Gupta v. Ishwar Chand

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Reserved On: 10 October 2025

Pronounced On: 11 November 2025