The court affirmed the bona fide requirement of a landlord for personal residence, placing the onus on the tenant to establish any alternative accommodation's suitability, which was not proven.

JUDGMENT :

SAURABH BANERJEE, J.

1. The respondent/ landlord, [hereinafter referred to as “landlord”] filed an Eviction Petition under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958,[hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act”]before the learned Additional Rent Controller-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “ARC”], seeking eviction of the petitioners/ tenant, [hereinafter referred to as “tenant”] from the first and second floor of the property bearing nos.2376 to 2382, situated in Municipal Ward No.VI, Ballimaran, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”], on the ground of her bona fide requirement of the subject premises for her own residence.

2. Essentially, it was the case of the landlord that she is a single lady aged about 69 years, who is suffering from various age related diseases/ ailments and has no one to look after her at her present address at Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Additionally, as per landlord since she was born, educated and had spent substantial part of her life in Delhi, as also since all her near and close relatives reside there, she intends to return and reside in Delhi. Also, in the eviction petition, the landlord gave the details of other properties owned by her in the same premises, however, since they were all in the occupation of other tenants, it was her case that she had no other reasonably suitable portion thereof for the aforesaid purpose.

3. The petitioner no.1, after service of summons as per Third Schedule of the DRC Act, filed an application for leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) and (5) of the DRC Act wherein it primarily contended that there was a school being run from the subject premises for the marginalized female student (specially minority communities), as also that being owner of other properties the landlord had no bona fide requirement, moreover, since she had not filed any such eviction petition qua those properties and finally that she is simply interested in letting out the subject premises at a higher rent.

4. Be that as it may, in the same leave to defend application, the tenant has fairly admitted that it was regularly paying the rent to the landlord as also that it was willing/ continue to pay the enhanced/ increased rent along with arrears, subject to approval of the Competent Authority.

5. After hearing both parties, the learned ARC, by virtue of the impugned order dated 08.04.2025, held that there, admittedly, existed a landlord-tenant relationship between the respondent and the petitioners, as also that the tenant had failed to raise any triable issue either on the aspect of bona fide requirement or on the aspect of alternative accommodation. Based thereon, the leave to defend application of the tenant was dismissed and consequently an eviction order under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25B of the DRC Act was passed in the favour of the landlord.

6. Aggrieved thereby, the tenant has preferred the present revision petition under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act assailing the order dated 08.04.2025 passed by the learned ARC in RC ARC No. 340/2024 titled Ms. Asiya Jamil v. Education Department, GNCTD & Anr., hereinafter referred to as “impugned order.

7. When the present petition was listed on 18.08.2025 for the first time, this Court after hearing Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant, passed the following order:-

“After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly seeks, and is granted, a period of two days for seeking appropriate instructions qua the feasible time period within which the petitioners would be able to vacate the subject property and terms of payment (rent) it is willing to pay to the respondent for the extended period.”

8. In response thereto, today Mr. Abhinav Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant submits that he has no instructions qua the same and therefore is going to proceed with his arguments.

9. As such, this Court has taken up the present petition for