Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Saurabh Banerjee, J
H S BANKA – Appellant
Versus
MOHAN LAL – Respondent
RC.REV. 49/2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ajaya Bhardwaj, Mr. Harshit Bhardwaj, Mr. Shubham
For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Ms. Garima Bhardwaj
A landlord's bona fide requirement for eviction under the DRC Act does not necessitate disclosing specific business details, as the genuine need must be prioritized.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e) - Eviction petition - The landlord sought eviction of a shop claiming bona fide requirement for business, which was dismissed by the ARC due to vagueness in nature of business proposed. However, the High Court found no legal requirement for specificity in business disclosure by the landlord. The primary question is whether the requirement is bona fide. (Paras 1, 10, 24, 26)
(B) Eviction Criteria - Standards for assessing bona fide need of a landlord for occupation must honor the tenant's legal protections without rendering them illusory. Deciding bona fide requirement should involve various relevant factors without undue burden on the landlord. (Paras 17, 21)
Facts of the case:
The landlord claimed a bona fide need to run a business in a shop previously tenanted by the respondent. The learned ARC dismissed the eviction petition citing lack of clarity on the business nature proposed by the landlord.
Findings of Court:
The High Court ruled that the eviction petition's dismissal was founded on an error of law regarding the necessity of disclosing specific business intentions. The landlord's bona fide need is upheld under relevant statutes.
Issues: The key issue was whether the landlord's failure to define the intended business negated his bona fide need for the shop.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the landlord's bona fide requirement must be established genuinely without disclosing exact business plans, addressing improper dismissal based on non-compliance with DRC Act standards.
Result: Revision petition allowed; landlord permitted eviction.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. eviction petition filed due to bona fide requirement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. tenant's defense against bona fide claim. (Para 3 , 7) |
| 3. landlord's need for business is sufficient for eviction. (Para 10 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. eviction criteria established under drc act. (Para 21 , 24) |
| 5. final revision petition decision granted in favor of landlord. (Para 26) |
1. The petitioner/ landlord1 filed an eviction petition on dated 26.09.2011 being eviction petition no. E-25/2011 (RC/ ARC no. 206/2016) under Section 14 (1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 2, 1958 against the respondent/ tenant3 seeking eviction of Shop No. 2 property No. F-171/4, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi4 as per the Site Plan, before the learned Additional Rent Controller, Karkardooma Court, Delhi5, as there was a bona fide requirement for his own commencing business.
2. It was his case in the amended eviction petition that being a senior citizen with no other source of income, he required the subject shop for doing business so that he may get sufficient income. As per the landlord, the tenant was originally inducted by Smt. Shakuntala Devi6, by way of an oral agreement from whom the landlord herein purchased the property wherein the subject shop is situated.
3. In the application for leave to defend, the tenant claimed that the landlord had no bona-fide requirement for the subject shop and that the petition was per se not maintainable as the landlord was only an attorney of the erstwhile owner Smt. Shakuntala Devi.
4. Even though the learned ARC in the order dated 11.04.2012 observed that since the tenant had not disputed the existence of landlord tenant relationship, he was therefore estopped under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from challenging the title of his own landlord, however, since the tenant was able to raise triable issues regarding the landlord not disclosing the precise nature of his alleged bona fide requirement, and though the landlord had pleaded an intention to run a business, the landlord not specifying the kind of business he wanted to run, the said application for leave to defend of the tenant was allowed by the learned ARC vide the same order on 11.04.2012.
5. The said order was challenged by the landlord before this Court, only to be withdrawn later.
6. In his amended written statement also, the tenant did not dispute the landlord tenant relationship regarding the subject shop and submitted that he had been duly paying the rent to the landlord regularly but since 15.03.2007, it was not being accepted by the landlord. It was also his case therein that the landlord had suppressed material facts about ownership of several properties in the vicinity, including House/ Shop No. 172-A, Laxmi Nagar, and one shop and the first floor in the suit premises itself.
7. Thereafter, both parties had led their respective evidences and the learned ARC passed judgment dated 03.11.20177 whereby the eviction petition of the landlord was dismissed.
8. Resultantly, the landlord seeks setting aside of the impugned judgment vide the present revision petition.
9. Mr. Ajaya Bhardwaj, learned counsel for landlord commenced his submissions relying upon the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by this Court in RC.REV. 43/2018 entitled H.S. Banka vs. Hari Krishna Sharma wherein under very similar circumstances the order allowing an application for leave to defend of another tenant of the landlord qua the very adjacent shop to the subject shop was set aside.
10. Mr. Ajaya Bhardwaj further submitted that the learned ARC has erred in arriving at a contrary finding as it is not necessary for the landlord to aver and/ or disclose the exact nature of business he intends to commence, and the landlord only has to establish a genuine, honest and concerning bona fide requirement as also that the subject shop is the suitable space for that purpose. For this, it is not relevant is the landlord has any other alternative accommodation available with him. In any event, the tenant has no
