Delhi High Court Upholds Eviction Order under Delhi Rent Control Act: Bona Fide Requirement Established.

Headnote:

The Delhi High Court dismissed a tenant’s revision petition and upheld the eviction order passed under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”). The Court held that the landlords had successfully established their bona fide requirement for the tenanted premises to expand their business and that no triable issue existed regarding landlord-tenant relationship or availability of alternative accommodation. The tenant’s claims of false documents and alternative properties were found baseless and unsupported by evidence.

Background:

1. The respondents (landlords) filed an Eviction Petition (RC ARC 749/19) before the Rent Controller seeking eviction of the petitioner (tenant) from two ground-floor shops at Property No. 5689 (New) / 7586–7587 (Old), Gali Hanuman Mandir, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, Delhi.
2. They claimed bona fide need for expanding their bag manufacturing and retail business, stating that no alternative accommodation was available.
3. The tenant, Mohd. Arif, contested the petition, disputing the existence of the landlords’ business, alleging fabrication of GST and income tax documents, and asserting that other vacant properties were available to them.
4. The Rent Controller rejected the tenant’s leave to defend application and allowed the eviction petition on 3 August 2024, granting six months to vacate.

Court’s Observations:

1. Landlord–Tenant Relationship: The Court affirmed that the relationship was proven through rent receipts and sale deeds. The rent of ₹150 per month fell within the DRC Act’s jurisdiction.
2. Bona Fide Requirement:
3. The Court accepted GST and income tax certificates as credible proof of the landlords’ business (M/s. Mahadev Traders).
4. It reiterated that detailed scrutiny of such certificates was unnecessary in summary proceedings and that filing of registration certificates under the Shops & Establishment Act was not mandatory.
5. The Court agreed with the Rent Controller that still photographs alone could not disprove business activity.
6. Alternative Accommodation: The tenant’s claims of vacant alternative premises were held to be “bald assertions” without proof. The Court reiterated that not every available property amounts to suitable alternative accommodation and that landlords have the prerogative to choose which premises suit their needs.
7. Legal Notice and Non-Attornment: Arguments regarding rent amount and non-attornment were dismissed as irrelevant or belated, noting that the tenant had himself admitted a rent of ₹300 per month in prior correspondence.
8. Revisional Jurisdiction: Referring to Sarla Ahuja v. UII Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119 and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022) 6 SCC 30, the Court held that interference under Section 25B(8) DRC Act is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, which were absent here.

Legal Provisions and Precedents Discussed

1. Sections 14(1)(e), 25B & 14(7), Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 – Bona fide requirement and summary procedure for eviction.
2. Section 25B(8), DRC Act – Limited revisional powers.
3. Cases Cited:
4. Shanti Sharma v. Ved Prabha (1987) 4 SCC 193
5. Precision Steel Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal AIR 1982 SC 1518
6. Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan (1996) 5 SCC 353
7. Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778
8. Akhileshwar Kumar v. Mustaqim (2003) 1 SCC 462
9. Sarla Ahuja v. UII Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119
10. Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022) 6 SCC 30

Conclusion:

The Court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the eviction order, directing the tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the two ground-floor shops to the landlords. The six-month statutory period under Section 14(7) DRC Act having expired, the landlords were permitted to proceed in accordance with law. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.

Citation: 2025:DEL:RCREV:270

Case: Mohd. Arif v. Amit Chaudhary & Anr.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee

Date of Decision: 3 November 2025

Reserved on: 10 October 2025

Revision Petition No.: RC.REV. 270/2024 & CM APPL. 58529/2024