Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7689
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J
SH. MOHINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
SATISH CHANDER SIKKA – Respondent
RC.REV. 35/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Yash Kumar, Mr. Harsh Bansiwal, Mr. Rishabh Khari, Mr. Ribhu Priydarshee
For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. Atul Singh Rawat, Mr. Sancheet Sharma, Mr. Dikshant Kumar
A landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act does not necessitate proving extreme financial distress, and tenants cannot challenge a landlord's title once the tenant has acknowledged the relationship.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(e), 25B - Eviction petition filed for bona fide requirement of landlord's grandson to establish a business - Tenant’s application contested on grounds of non-maintainability and lack of bona fide requirement - Court affirms landlord’s claim stating that landlord need not prove extreme necessity for evicting a tenant - Rejection of tenant’s assertions due to lack of substantive evidence, establishing absence of triable issues. (Paras 5, 12, 19, 21)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 116 - Tenant cannot challenge landlord’s title after acknowledging relationship - Estoppel in questioning validity due to prior conduct. (Paras 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
The landlord filed for eviction citing the need for his grandson’s business, asserting a genuine requirement. The tenant disputed ownership and necessity, alleging availability of alternatives but produced no substantial evidence to support claims.
Findings of Court:
Court ruled that landlord’s claim for bona fide requirement was legitimate and dismissed tenant’s revision. The landlord was allowed to recover possession without necessity to substantiate extreme financial distress.
Issues: Evaluating the bona fide requirement of the landlord and the maintainability of the eviction petition under DRC Act principles.
Ratio Decidendi: The court holds that the requirement for eviction must be legitimate but does not necessitate proof of impoverishment by the landlord. A mere acknowledgment by the tenant of landlord-tenant relationship creates an estoppel against disputing title.
Result: Revision petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. landlord's need for the premises for genuine business purpose must be established. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. tenant's claims must be substantiated by evidence to contest eviction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court affirms that landlord's requirement does not necessitate financial hardship proof. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 , 19) |
| 4. revision on eviction ruling can only be done under exceptional circumstances. (Para 18 , 21 , 22) |
1. The respondent/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition under Section 14 (1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 2 before the learned SCJ-cum-RC, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi3 seeking eviction of the petitioner/ tenant4 from property i.e. Shop admeasuring 22’9” x 9’4 ½”, Ground Floor, 13/33, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi5 for the bona fide requirement of the premises to enable his grandson, Mr. Vaibhav Sikka to establish his independent business of food and beverages, as there was no other suitable alternate accommodation available.
2. In brief, as per landlord, he became the absolute owner of the complete property having the subject premises vide order dated 30.03.2007 passed by this Court in a Suit for Partition being CS(OS) no.2007/1999 entitled Suresh Chandra Sikka Vs. Salish Chandra Sikka. On the strength of a Rent Agreement dated 16.11.1983, whereby the subject premises was let out to M/s. Mohindra Electronics, sole proprietorship of the tenant herein, and then vide Rent Agreement dated 16.09.1985, it was transferred to the name of the tenant, there was a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. Moreover, there was a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord for his grandson to establish a new fast food/ dessert cafe restaurant business as, after completing his MBA, he had left his job. Considering the location of the subject premises as well as the purpose of the bona fide requirement for his grandson, there were no other suitable alternative accommodation with the landlord to cater to the aforesaid bona fide requirement for opening a fast food/ dessert cafe restaurant.
3. Upon service, the tenant filed an application for leave to defend under Section(s) 25(4) and (5) of the DRC Act. In a nutshell it was the case of the tenant that the eviction petition was not maintainable by the General Power of Attorney6 holder as the site plan had not been filed by the landlord and there was more than one owner of the subject premises. It was also their case that there was no bona fide requirement of subject premises for the grandson of landlord as he, in view of his ‘LinkedIn’ profile status, was working, thus, well settled and not financially dependent upon the landlord, and the landlord had alternative accommodation available with him, and he had sold and bought various properties recently as well.
4. In response thereto, as per landlord, though the tenant had admitted the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties, however, he had taken inconsistent pleas therein qua ownership of the landlord.
5. Finding that the tenant was unable to raise any triable issue qua any of the issues of there being no landlord tenant relationship between the parties, there being no bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord, and there being no available alternative accommodation for the landlord, the learned ARC vide order dated 24.09.20227 allowed the eviction petition of the landlord and directed eviction of the tenant from the subject premises, albeit, after the period of six months, in terms of Section 14 (7) of the DRC Act, are over.
6. Hence, the present revision petition by the tenant.
7. Mr. Rahul Sharma, learned counsel for the tenant, referring to Rahabhar Productions (P) Ltd. vs. Rajendra K. Tandon8, M.M. Quasim vs. Manohar Lal Sharma 9, Khem Chand & Ors. vs. Arjun Jain & Ors.10, Vishwanath vs. Gurmeet Singh & Anr.11, Inderjeet Kaur vs. Nirpal Singh 12, Charan Dass Duggal vs. Brahma Nand13 and Precision Steel & Engineering
