The Delhi High Court set aside a Rent Controller’s order granting a tenant leave to defend, ruling in favor of the landlord’s bona fide requirement and passing an eviction order under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling, the Delhi High Court has set aside an order of the Rent Controller that had granted a tenant “leave to defend” in an eviction proceeding. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, while allowing the landlord’s revision petition, held that the tenant failed to raise any triable issue to dispute the landlord’s claim of bona fide requirement under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). Consequently, the Court passed an eviction order in favor of the landlord.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mr. Hemant Gupta (landlord), filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act, seeking possession of Shop No. 2, Ground Floor, Property No. 20-E/1, Babarpur Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi.
Mr. Gupta claimed that his unemployed married son, Yashasvi, required the shop to start a general store and earn his livelihood.
The tenant, Mr. Ishwar Chand, contested the eviction, filing a leave to defend application under Section 25B(4) and (5). He raised three objections:
- The Delhi Rent Control Act did not apply to the Babarpur area;
- The landlord’s son was already employed;
- The landlord had other commercial accommodations.
On May 24, 2024, the Rent Controller (ARC), Shahdara, allowed the tenant’s application, holding that the landlord had not established a prima facie case of bona fide requirement and that the applicability of the DRC Act to Babarpur was a triable issue.
Aggrieved, the landlord approached the High Court in revision.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Tenant Can Never Become Owner of Rented Property
Arguments Before the High Court
For the Landlord
Counsel Mr. V.K. Sharma argued that the landlord’s son genuinely needed the premises and that it was the only suitable commercial property available. He also clarified that Babarpur falls within the revenue estate of Maujpur, which has been urbanized under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, making the DRC Act applicable.
For the Tenant
Counsel Mr. Ashok Kumar Arya raised a preliminary objection on maintainability, arguing that no revision lies against an order granting leave to defend. On merits, he contended that the landlord’s son was already gainfully employed, running a shop named M/s. Akansha Generators, and therefore, the claim of bona fide need was false.
High Court’s Findings
1. Maintainability of Revision Petition
Rejecting the tenant’s objection, the Court held that the revision was maintainable, citing precedents such as R.S. Bakshi vs. H.K. Malhari and Sanjay Mehra vs. Sunil Malhotra.
2. Bona Fide Requirement
The Court noted that the landlord-tenant relationship was undisputed. The tenant’s allegation that the landlord’s son was already employed was unsupported by credible documentary evidence.
Justice Banerjee observed:
“Even if assumed correct, the photographs only show that the landlord’s son assists his father. This cannot be a ground to deny eviction based on bona fide requirement.”
The Court emphasized that a GST registration certificate filed by the landlord proved that he, and not his son, was the proprietor of M/s. Akansha Generators.
Citing Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini (2005) and Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua (2022), the Court reiterated that a heavy burden lies on the tenant to prove lack of genuineness in the landlord’s requirement—mere assertions are insufficient.
ALSO READ: ‘Agreement to Sell’ Doesn’t Give Property Ownership Rights: Himachal Pradesh High Court
3. Applicability of the DRC Act
The Court held that Babarpur indeed falls within the urbanized village of Maujpur, as confirmed by the SDM, Shahdara. Hence, the DRC Act applies to the area. The Court noted that the tenant never disputed this list.
4. Alternative Accommodation
The tenant failed to produce any evidence showing that the landlord owned other suitable commercial spaces. Therefore, no triable issue arose on this ground.
5. Revisional Jurisdiction
Referring to Hindustan Petroleum Corp. Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014), the Court held that while revisional power is limited, it can be exercised when the Rent Controller’s order suffers from “manifest errors of law, perversity, or arbitrariness.”
The Delhi High Court concluded that the Rent Controller’s order was perverse and unsustainable in law. Accordingly, it:
- Set aside the ARC’s order dated May 24, 2024;
- Granted eviction in favor of the landlord; and
- Directed that the order for possession shall not be executed for six months, in line with Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.
Justice Banerjee stated:
“The respondent was unable to raise any triable issue warranting grant of leave to defend. The impugned order suffers from manifest error and is liable to be set aside.”
Case Title:
HEMANT GUPTA Versus ISHWAR CHAND
RC.REV. 215/2024, CM APPL. 45617/2024
READ JUDGMENT
Click Here to Read More Reports on Rented Property