Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 325
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J.
Neelam Jain - Petitioner
Versus
Vandana Sachdeva And Anr - Respondents
RC.Rev. 245 of 2022
Decided on : 04-09-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Shohit Chaudhry and Mr. Gaurav Sindhwani, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai with Mr. Sukhdeep Kaur Rai, Advocates
A landlord must prove that the premises are required bona fide and that no suitable alternate accommodation is available for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 25-B(8) - Revision petition against dismissal of eviction petition by learned Rent Controller - Eviction sought for bona-fide requirement of premises for petitioner's son - Court held that the need was genuine but the petitioner failed to prove the non-availability of suitable alternate accommodation - Court pointed out the non-disclosure of the Giroria Market shop by the petitioner, which was crucial to the claim of bona-fide need. (Paras 9, 11, 26.1, 31)
(B) Relevant evidence - Requirement of proving alternate accommodation to substantiate bona-fide need - Objection by respondents on petitioner's disclosure deemed misconceived as the Giroria Market shop could not be claimed as an alternate accommodation of the petitioner. (Paras 28, 30)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner-landlady sought eviction from a tenanted commercial premises for her son to start a business. The Rent Controller dismissed the petition citing availability of alternate accommodation, despite the petitioner's claims of bona-fide need.
Findings of Court:
The need for eviction was genuine as substantiated by petitioner, but the existence of a shop at Giroria Market raised issues of alternate accommodation not disclosed appropriately.
Issues: Key considerations included the genuine need for the premises vs alternate accommodation availability and evidentiary shortcomings in the petitioner's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the learned Rent Controller erred in his assessment, holding that the petitioner demonstrated genuine need, and that the alternate accommodation defense by the respondent was unfounded and misconceived.
Result: Revision petition allowed; eviction ordered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction petition details and procedural background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments supporting petitioner's bona-fide need for eviction. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. discussion on alternate accommodation and non-disclosure. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. contestation of the existence of suitable alternate accommodation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. discussion regarding the site-plan and evidentiary issues. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 6. court's analysis of the rent controller's findings. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 7. final decision to allow eviction and implications. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35) |
JUDGMENT :
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.
By way of present revision petition filed under section 25-B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 ("DRC Act‟), the petitioner impugns judgment dated 10.06.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in RC ARC No.521/2016, whereby the petitioner-landlady's eviction petition has been dismissed.
2. The subject matter of the eviction petition was Shop No. B-2, Main Market, Vivek Vihar, Delhi.
3. Notice on this petition was issued on 17.10.2022.
4. Written synopses have been filed by the contesting parties i.e., the petitioner and respondent No.1.
5. As recorded in order dated 08.07.2025, respondent No.2 has chosen not to contest the case on account of a settlement reached with the petitioner. Order dated 05.09.2023 made by the Predecessor Bench of this court records, that respondent No.2 does not wish to contest the matter, having settled it with the petitioner; and that a statement to this effect made on behalf of respondent No. 2 was recorded by the learned Rent Controller on 24.01.2019, which is appended as Annexure P-21 to the present petition.
6. The petitioner-landlady is stated to have passed-away during the pendency of the present revision petition; and her legal representative was accordingly substituted in her place vidé order dated 05.09.2023 passed in the present proceedings.
7. The court has heard Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner on 03.04.2025 and 08.07.2025; and Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 on 08.07.2025, at length.
PETITIONER’S SUBMISSIONS
8. The essence of the arguments made by Mr. Sindhwani, learned senior counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, is that the eviction petition has been dismissed vidé judgment dated 10.06.2022, only for the reason that the learned Rent Controller has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has suitable alternate accommodation available with her to satisfy the bona-fidé need canvassed in the eviction proceedings.
9. To expand on his submissions, Mr Sindhwani points-out that a perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the learned Rent Controller agrees with the petitioner's contention that her need for the subject premises is genuine, which can be seen from what the learned Rent Controller has recorded in para 16 of the impugned judgment, which para reads as follows :
“16. In the present petition PW-1 has deposed that he is not having any regular source of income and he has a family which is comprised of himself, his wife, his mother, his father and his son to sustain and with this objective he wants to start a business in the tenanted premises. In his cross examination, PW-1 has described the nature of business by stating that he wants to do Kirana business. PW-1 in his cross examination has also stated that he has done kirana business with certain partners and thus he has experience in the field of kirana business. All these facts suggest that the rented premise is genuinely required by petitioner to settle her son PW-1.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. It is accordingly argued, that the learned Rent Controller has opined that the petitioner's need for the subject premises for purposes of settling her son is bona-fidé.
11. However, it is submitted that on the question of whether the petitioner has suit
