VED PRAKASH vs M/S GAY DRY CLEANERS & ANR. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6052

Headnote:(A) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(e) and 25B(8) - Eviction petition on ground of bona fide requirement - Landlord sought eviction of tenant from tenanted premises for his son's business - Landlord had multiple commercial properties in the same market - Learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed eviction petition - High Court in revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) upheld dismissal - Scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining whether impugned order suffers from error apparent on face of record - Revisional Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view unless order is arbitrary, perverse or vitiated by material impropriety (Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119; Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30). (Para 45)

(B) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e) - Bona fide requirement - Burden of proof on landlord to show genuine, honest and conceived in good faith need - Landlord must disclose all material facts regarding alternative accommodations - Concealment of vital facts is anathema to bona fide - Landlord gave evasive answers in cross-examination regarding income of his son and details of other properties - Landlord let out another commercial property only four months before filing eviction petition - No satisfactory explanation for not utilizing other properties that fell vacant shortly before or during pendency of petition - Such conduct casts serious doubt on genuineness of need (Rahabhar Productions (P) Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon, (1998) 4 SCC 49; Kanta Gupta v. Goverdhan Dass Daga, 2024:DHC:1122). (Paras 32, 39-44)

(C) Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e) - Alternative suitable accommodation - Landlord's right to choose his premises cannot be interfered with as long as decision is reasoned - However, when landlord has multiple properties and fails to explain why a particular vacated or let-out property was not used for the claimed need, the bona fides become doubtful - In this case, landlord sold a property three years before petition for alleged need of funds for construction but led no evidence of such construction - Landlord also claimed tenancy with his son but no documentary proof and admitted non-payment of rent - These facts cumulatively undermined the plea of bona fide requirement. (Paras 34, 40-43)

Facts of the case:
The landlord filed an eviction petition seeking eviction of the tenant from a shop (ground floor) for the bona fide requirement of his son, who was running a real estate business from the first floor of another property owned by the landlord. The landlord alleged that the son was not generating good income due to the first-floor location. The landlord owned several other commercial properties in the same market. The learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, holding that the landlord failed to prove the second and third ingredients of Section 14(1)(e) (bona fide need and no suitable alternative accommodation). The landlord filed a revision under Section 25B(8) of the Act.

Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the learned ARC's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were not perverse. The landlord had given evasive answers regarding his son's income and had let out another property just four months before filing the eviction petition. He failed to explain why other properties that fell vacant were not used for the son's business. The landlord's claim of tenancy with his son for one property was unsupported by documents and contradicted by his admission that no rent was paid. The sale of another property was not satisfactorily explained. The Court held that the landlord failed to discharge the burden of proving bona fide requirement and that the revisional power under Section 25B(8) does not permit reappreciation of evidence. The impugned order did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record.

Issues: (1) Whether the landlord's requirement for the tenanted premises was bona fide? (2) Whether the landlord had any other suitable alternative accommodation available? (3) Whether the revisional court could interfere with the findings of the learned ARC?

Ratio Decidendi: The landlord must prove his need is genuine, honest, and not a mere desire. When a landlord has multiple properties and fails to give satisfactory explanation for not occupying other premises that fell vacant shortly before or during the eviction proceedings, the bona fides of the need become doubtful. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and does not permit substitution of views or reappreciation of evidence unless the order is perverse or arbitrary.

Result: Petition dismissed. Impugned judgment dated 31.10.2019 upheld.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Landlord sought eviction for son's business; eviction petition dismissed; revision upheld dismissal. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Petitioner argued bona fide need established; Respondents argued need doubtful due to other available properties. (Para 5 , 19 )

3. Revision petition dismissed; impugned order of Additional Rent Controller upheld. (Para 46 , 47 )

4. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

The revisional court can interfere only if the impugned order is perverse, arbitrary, or suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot reappreciate evidence. (Para 45 )

5. What constitutes bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

The need must be genuine, honest, and conceived in good faith; it must have an objective element of need beyond subjective desire. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 )

6. How does a landlord's failure to disclose alternative accommodation affect a claim of bona fide requirement?

Concealment of available alternative premises or letting them out shortly before filing creates serious doubt on the genuineness of the claimed requirement. (Para 34 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 )

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 19^th January, 2026 Pronounced on: 8^th April, 2026 + RC.REV.248/2020 & CM APPL. 30325/2020 VED PRAKASH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rajat Aneja, Mr. Saubhagya C.

and Mr. Rishabh Mishra, Advocates.

versus M/S GAY DRY CLEANERS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amit D. and Mr. Sohan Singh Rawat, Advocates.

Mr. Ashutosh and Mr. Hema Singh, Advocates for R-2(iii).

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA

JUDGMENT

AMIT SHARMA, J.

1. The present petition under Section 25B (8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, seeks the following prayers: -

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned Judgment dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Court of Shri Sachin Sangwan, Additional Rent Controller (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi in the Eviction Petition bearing RC/ARC No. 6399/16 filed by the Petitioner/Landlord, titled “Ved Prakash Vs M/s Gay Dry Cleaners and Another”, in respect of the Shop bearing No. 438 comprising of the Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor, Leela Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi – 110049; and to allow the Eviction Petition of the Petitioner by passing an Eviction order against the Respondents in terms of the Prayer made in the Eviction Petition, in the light of the facts and grounds explained hereinabove.

Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be also passed in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents.”

2. The present petition assails the impugned judgment dated 31.10.2019, passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller, South District, Saket Courts (hereinafter referred to as the “learned ARC”) in RC ARC No. 6399/2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “eviction proceeding/eviction petition”) whereby the eviction petition filed by Sh. Ved Prakash (hereinafter referred to as the “Petitioner”) against M/s Gay Dry Cleaners and its managing partner, i.e., Ms. Aruna Malhotra (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Respondents”) was dismissed.

3. At the very outset, it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the present petition, Respondent No. 2, i.e., Ms. Aruna Malhotra, had passed away on 01.04.2022 and was survived by three legal heirs (LRs). On an application, CM No.20934/2022, filed on behalf of the Petitioner, seeking impleadment of her legal representatives, the said LRs of Respondent No. 2 were impleaded in the present petition vide order dated 13.03.2023 passed by learned Joint Registrar (Judicial), only for the purposes of representing the deceased Respondent No. 2 in the present proceedings, and the amended memo of parties was taken on record.

4. Relevant facts, as stated by the Petitioner, necessary for adjudication of the present petition are as under: -

i. The Petitioner had preferred the eviction petition before the learned ARC, seeking eviction of the Respondents from Shop No. 438, Ground Floor, Leela Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, 110049, (hereinafter referred to as the “tenanted premises”). The tenanted premises forms part of Shop No. 438, Leela Ram Market, Masjid Moth, New Delhi, 110049, comprising of ground floor, first floor and second floor (hereinafter referred to as the “subject premises”)

ii. The Petitioner is the owner of the subject premises and he had let out the ground floor of the subject premises, i.e., the tenanted premises, to the Respondents vide rent agreement dated 30.01.1987 at a monthly rent of INR 500/-, excluding water and electricity charges, and a lease deed dated 18.07.1987 was also executed for a period of 5 years and on mutual consent of the parties INR 700/- rent was decided excluding water and electricity charges. It was further agreed that the rent of the tenanted premises will be increased by 10% and after every 5 years, a fresh lease deed will be made, but the Respondents had never executed the same even after the expiry of the said lease deed;

iii.On 01.06.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6052

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J
VED PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
M/S GAY DRY CLEANERS & ANR. – Respondent
RC.REV.-248/2020

Landlord's failure to satisfactorily explain non-utilization of other commercial properties that fell vacant shortly before filing eviction petition casts serious doubt on bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

5. What constitutes bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

6. How does a landlord's failure to disclose alternative accommodation affect a claim of bona fide requirement?

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6052

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIAmit Sharma, JVED PRAKASH – AppellantVersusM/S GAY DRY CLEANERS & ANR. – RespondentRC.REV.-248/2020

Landlord's failure to satisfactorily explain non-utilization of other commercial properties that fell vacant shortly before filing eviction petition casts serious doubt on bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) Delhi Rent Control Act.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

5. What constitutes bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act?

6. How does a landlord's failure to disclose alternative accommodation affect a claim of bona fide requirement?

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Sharma, J
VED PRAKASH – Appellant
Versus
M/S GAY DRY CLEANERS & ANR. – Respondent
RC.REV.-248/2020