A landlord’s bona fide requirement for family needs is legitimate and not subject to a tenant’s choice of space. Revisional courts must intervene when a lower court's judgment is based on material irregularities or ignores the feasibility of premises for specified commercial and residential usage.

J U D G M E N T

1. The petitioner/ landlord¹Hereinafter referred to as “landlord” filed an Eviction Petition being RC/ ARC No.26126/ 2016 under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958²Hereinafter referred to as “DRC Act” against the respondent/ tenant³Hereinafter referred to as “tenant” before the learned SCJ cum RC, (West District) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi⁴Hereinafter referred to as “learned ARC”, seeking eviction from one shop at ground floor of property bearing no.17/ 41A, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110 018.⁵Hereinafter referred to as “subject premises”

2. Since the application seeking leave to defend of the tenant was allowed by the learned ARC vide order dated 19.12.2018, based on the evidence led by both the parties and the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for both the parties, the learned ARC has proceeded to pass a judgment dated 16.10.2019⁶Hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment” holding that there was no bona fide requirement for the subject premises by the landlord.

3. Hence, the present revision petition filed by the landlord seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment dated 16.10.2019 passed by the learned ARC.

4. Based on the factual position and the document(s) on record, since the landlord tenant relationship between the parties has been held to be duly admitted by the learned ARC, and it has also been held that the tenant has been unable to prove (non)availability of alternative accommodations, this Court need not dwell upon the same. As such, the only issue for consideration is regarding bona fide requirement by the landlord, which, as per the findings rendered by the learned ARC, was not there.

5. Regarding bona fide requirement by the landlord, it was the case of the landlord before the learned ARC that although his son Sh. Gautam Babbar was a graduate, he was dependent upon him for accommodation and livelihood and that the landlord wanted to financially secure his son for his commencing a business of selling dry fruits, for which the subject premises was the most suitable. As per the landlord, the property where the subject premises was situated, though consisted of two floors, however, since the entire property was in a dilapidated condition, it required extensive repairs and modifications. On the ground floor, one shop was lying vacant and could not be used without extensive repairs, however, the other shop in occupation of the tenant was not in a dilapidated condition.

6. The projected need of the landlord therein, upon vacation of the subject premises, was to use the entire ground floor for commercial purposes for running a business of his son and subsequent to marriage of his son, he and his wife would reside on the first floor of the aforesaid property and the landlord himself with his wife would reside on the second floor.

7. As per tenant, the son of the landlord was controlling the entire business of the landlord run by him at Khari Baoli, Delhi and that he was the owner of another shop in the said locality.

8. During the proceedings before this Court, the legal heirs of the tenant have been impleaded vide order dated 29.05.2023 on the tenant passing away. Thereafter, this Court while reserving order, vide order dated 02.12.2025, also closed the right of the tenant to file reply and proceeded him ex-parte as none was appearing for the ten