The Delhi High Court reaffirmed that a landlord is the best judge of his bona fide requirement and cannot be compelled to accept a tenant’s opinion on accommodation, while setting aside the Rent Controller’s order granting leave to defend.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling reinforcing the principles of summary eviction proceedings under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act), the Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Rent Controller that had granted leave to defend to certain occupants of a tenanted property.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over RC.REV. 39/2024, held that the occupants, who were unlawful sub-tenants, had failed to raise any triable issue. The Court observed that the original tenant did not contest the eviction petition and that the occupants’ defences were mutually conflicting, self-contradictory, and inherently destructive.
As a result, the High Court passed an eviction order in favour of the petitioners, Ms. Farheen Israil & Anr.
Background of the Case
The landlords, Ms. Farheen Israil and her relative, had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act before the ARC-01, Tis Hazari Courts, seeking recovery of possession of Property No. 745, Ground Floor, Phatak Dhobian, Farash Khana, Delhi.
They claimed ownership of the property through a registered Sale Deed dated 06.01.1947 and stated that the father of respondent no. 1, Ghulam Rasool Wani, was the original tenant. However, the tenant’s father allegedly handed over possession to one Syed Daud Meer, whose family members (respondent nos. 2 to 8) were now residing there without authorization.
The landlords sought eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement, stating that:
- The wife of petitioner no. 2 had undergone caesarean surgery and was advised to avoid stairs, making the ground floor necessary for her stay; and
- Their existing accommodation was dilapidated and uninhabitable, with no suitable alternative available.
While the original tenant (respondent no. 1) did not file any defence, respondent nos. 2 to 8 sought leave to defend, claiming:
- The landlords were not the actual owners, and the 1947 Sale Deed pertained to a different property (No. 746);
- The petitioners’ mother had executed a receipt dated 10.07.1997 for ₹50,000 as part payment for a sale to the husband of respondent no. 2;
- The eviction plea was mala fide as the landlords had other accommodation available.
The Rent Controller, by order dated 07.12.2023, allowed their application for leave to defend, holding that triable issues existed. The landlords then approached the High Court in revision.
ALSO READ: Aland Voter Fraud Probe: Karnataka SIT Seeks Technical Data from EC
Arguments Before the High Court
For the Petitioners:
Advocate Mr. Amit Dhalla contended that:
- The leave-to-defend application by respondents 2 to 8 was not maintainable as they were unauthorized occupants, and the original tenant had not contested the petition.
- The ARC erred in relying on the 1997 receipt, which was already the subject of a dismissed specific performance suit (Suit No. 347/1998). That decision was upheld by the High Court in RFA 394/2003.
- The bona fide need was genuine, and the respondents’ defences were frivolous and contradictory.
For the Respondents:
Advocate Md. Zaryab Jamal Rizvi argued that:
- The revision petition was not maintainable, as the proper remedy lay under Section 38 of the DRC Act.
- The respondents had raised substantial triable issues regarding ownership.
- The ARC’s order was reasoned and should not be disturbed in revision.
High Court’s Findings
1. Maintainability of the Revision Petition
Justice Banerjee rejected the respondents’ preliminary objection, holding that a revision under Section 25B(8) was perfectly maintainable. Relying on R.S. Bakshi v. H.K. Malhari, the Court reaffirmed that such petitions are valid where the Rent Controller’s order reflects manifest error or perversity.
2. Landlord–Tenant Relationship
The Court emphasized that the original tenant (respondent no. 1) was the sole recognized tenant and did not contest the eviction. Thus, respondents 2 to 8, being unauthorized sub-tenants, had no independent right to defend the petition.
“In view thereof, the landlord-tenant relationship stood established,” the Court held.
Allowing such occupants to defend would “defeat and frustrate the very purpose” of the summary eviction procedure under Section 25B.
3. Contradictory Stands of Respondents
The High Court found the respondents’ defences inherently inconsistent; they relied on the 1997 receipt (acknowledging ownership of the landlord’s mother) while simultaneously disputing the petitioners’ ownership under the 1947 sale deed.
“The same cannot go hand in hand,” Justice Banerjee observed. “The respondents cannot be allowed to take mutually conflicting, self-contradictory, and inherently destructive stands.”
4. The 1997 Receipt Already Adjudicated
The Court noted that the issue of the 1997 receipt had been finally decided in the earlier specific performance suit, which was dismissed on the merits. The High Court had also affirmed that dismissal in 2012. Hence, the issue was barred by res judicata.
“The respondents surely cannot be allowed to have a second bite at the same cherry,” the Court remarked.
5. Bona Fide Requirement and Alternative Accommodation
The Court held that the landlords had adequately proved:
- Their ownership through sale deed and municipal records; and
- Their bona fide requirement, supported by medical documents and photographs of the current dilapidated premises.
Reiterating settled law from Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja and Akhileshwar Kumar v. Mustaqim, Justice Banerjee noted:
“A landlord being the best judge of his needs cannot be thrusted with the opinion of the tenant or the Court.”
The plea of alternative accommodation, therefore, was untenable.
6. Revisional Jurisdiction
The Court reiterated that while it is not an appellate forum, it can intervene when the lower court’s order suffers from perversity, illegality, or arbitrariness, citing Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh.
The High Court held that the ARC’s order was manifestly erroneous and that respondents 2 to 8 had failed to raise any triable issue. Accordingly, it:
- Set aside the Rent Controller’s order dated 07.12.2023; and
- Granted eviction in favour of the landlords.
However, in line with Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, the execution of the eviction order was stayed for six months from the date of the judgment.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Amit Dhalla and Mr. Sohan Singh Rawat
Respondents (for R-2 to R-8): Advocates Zaryab Jamal Rizvi, Firdouse Qutb Wani and Subia Naaz and Dev Sharma
Case Title:
MS FARHEEN ISRAIL & ANR. Versus GHULAM RASOOL WANI & ORS.
RC.REV. 39/2024
READ JUDGMENT