Pagdi payment cannot defeat bona fide eviction, the Delhi High Court has held under the Delhi Rent Control Act. A shop tenant’s claim of a ₹65,000 pagdi paid when the tenancy began in February 1988 raised no triable issue: taken at its highest, it concerned the rate of rent and left untouched the admitted tenancy, the landlord’s need and suitable alternative accommodation. The Court did not decide whether any such payment was made.
New Delhi: A monthly rent of ₹400 instead of ₹1,141, the tenant said, was the result of a ₹65,000 pagdi he had paid at the start of the tenancy. The Delhi High Court has now held that this allegation gives no defence to an eviction order based on the landlord’s bona fide need [Md. Kamruddin v. Devi Dayal Saini].
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar dismissed the tenant’s revision petition in a judgment dated November 3, 2026, uploaded on November 6. The Court upheld the Rent Controller’s refusal of leave to defend and the resulting eviction order concerning a ground-floor shop in Masjid Moth.
The pagdi plea and why it fell short
In paragraphs 34 to 38, the High Court explained that the tenant had neither denied the landlord’s ownership nor disputed the tenancy. Even accepting the pagdi allegation at its highest, the plea concerned the amount of monthly rent. It did not undermine the admitted relationship or address the landlord’s need and the availability of suitable alternatives.
The Court also relied on Section 5(2)(a) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which prohibits claiming or receiving a premium or pagdi, in addition to rent, in consideration of the grant, renewal or continuance of a tenancy. An alleged payment of that kind could not confer a right to resist eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement.
What the judgment held, in other words, is narrower than a finding on the payment itself. It did not determine that the claimed payment had actually been made; it held that the allegation, even taken at its highest, did not supply a triable defence to this eviction claim.
A granddaughter’s office, and a disputed premium
The landlord had sought possession so that his granddaughter, a practising advocate, could open an independent office. The tenant disputed the need and argued that other portions of the building and other premises could serve that purpose.
On pagdi, the tenant said the ₹65,000 explained the low rent and complained that the Rent Controller had not addressed the payment. The landlord denied receiving pagdi and submitted that the rent agreement contained no reference to it.
The Rent Controller had found that the landlord-tenant relationship was admitted, that the requirement was bona fide and that no reasonably suitable alternative accommodation was available. It accordingly refused leave to defend on May 16, 2025.
Other space was not necessarily suitable space
The High Court rejected the argument that the Rent Controller had overlooked alternative accommodation. The rear portion and upper floors suggested by the tenant had been considered and found unsuitable compared with the front-facing ground-floor shop, which had access from the main road.
It also upheld the conclusion that a tenant ordinarily cannot require the landlord to evict occupants of other shops instead, provided the pleaded need is bona fide and the premises chosen are reasonably suited to it.
The tenant also feared that the shop would be re-let at a higher rent. The Court pointed to the statutory safeguards under Section 19 and said that this apprehension alone did not discredit the need established in the proceedings.
Changing counsel did not reopen the merits
An earlier order had confined notice to the time that could be allowed for vacating the shop. The tenant’s new counsel sought to argue the merits afresh on the ground that he had not appeared at the earlier hearing.
The Court disapproved of that approach, holding that a change of lawyer does not erase a completed hearing or revive an entitlement to argue issues already considered. It nevertheless examined the merits to avoid a grievance that the tenant had not been heard, expressly stating that this indulgence should not be treated as a precedent.
Applying the limited revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8), the Court found no apparent error, perversity or jurisdictional infirmity in the eviction order. It dismissed the petition and pending applications.
Case: Md. Kamruddin v. Devi Dayal Saini
Case number: RC.REV. 334/2025
Court: Delhi High Court
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Judgment date: November 3, 2026; uploaded November 6, 2026
Outcome: Tenant’s revision petition dismissed; refusal of leave to defend and eviction order upheld.