Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a tenant’s revision petition challenging the eviction order passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. Justice Saurabh Banerjee held that the landlords had successfully established ownership, existence of landlord-tenant relationship, their bona fide requirement, and lack of alternative accommodation. The Court emphasized that a tenant cannot seek to re-argue contentions already negated by the Rent Controller, nor can he demand detailed proof of the landlord’s needs. The petition was dismissed, and the tenant was directed to vacate the one-room premises on or before 21 September 2025.
Facts
The landlords filed an eviction petition before the Additional Rent Controller seeking possession of one room on the ground floor of a property in Mukim Pura, Sabzi Mandi, Delhi. Their claim was based on a registered Will dated 1949 and a rent agreement of 1963 executed between their father and the tenant’s father. Rent receipts were also produced. They contended that after their father’s death, they became owners and that the tenant continued as a statutory tenant.
The landlords stated that they resided in rental accommodations with their families and had no other suitable residential property. They required the premises bona fide for their residence.
The tenant sought leave to defend under Section 25B, asserting ownership by inheritance. He claimed the premises was joint ancestral property, relying on a 1958 MCD notice issued in his father’s name, postal receipts, and identity documents. He also alleged the rent agreement and receipts were fabricated, the Will did not prove ownership, and the landlords had alternative flats.
The ARC, however, dismissed the leave to defend application on 19 March 2025, holding that the tenant failed to raise triable issues. Eviction was ordered with six months’ time to vacate. The tenant then approached the High Court in revision.
Issues
- Whether the tenant could deny the existence of landlord-tenant relationship despite registered documents and past rent receipts.
- Whether the landlords had established bona fide requirement of the premises for residential use.
- Whether alleged availability of alternative accommodation created a triable issue.
- Whether the High Court could reappreciate facts while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The tenant argued that the eviction petition was based on forged and fabricated documents, including the rent agreement and receipts. He claimed ownership by inheritance, relying on the 1958 MCD notice issued in his father’s name. He also contended that the Will cited by the landlords did not specifically record ownership of the property.
The tenant further argued that the landlords already possessed other flats and could not claim bona fide need for a single room. He asserted that the ARC had ignored these aspects and wrongly dismissed his leave to defend application.
Respondent’s Arguments
The landlords argued that ownership had already been settled by a 2023 partition decree in their favour. They emphasized that the rent agreement and receipts established the tenancy of the tenant’s father. After his death, the tenant continued as a statutory tenant.
They contended that they were living in rented flats and genuinely required the subject premises for their families. They denied having any alternative accommodation. It was submitted that the ARC had correctly dismissed the leave to defend application, and the tenant’s revision was only an attempt to reargue issues already decided.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the settled law that in eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, landlords only need to show a better title than the tenant, not absolute ownership. Once the Will, rent agreement, rent receipts, and partition decree were produced, ownership was sufficiently established.
On bona fide requirement, the Court held that landlords are the best judges of their needs. They need not furnish measurements or detailed justifications, as long as the requirement is genuine and not whimsical. The Court noted that the tenant’s objection that “one room cannot suffice” was immaterial.
Regarding alternative accommodation, the Court observed that bald and unsubstantiated assertions by the tenant carried no weight. Since the landlords had consistently shown they lived in rented flats, the burden shifted to the tenant to prove otherwise, which he failed to do.
Precedent Analysis
- Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022) 6 SCC 30: Held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act is narrow; reappreciation of evidence is not permitted.
- Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) 8 SCC 119: Established that landlord’s bona fide requirement should be presumed genuine unless proved otherwise.
- Mohd. Inam v. Sanjay Kumar Singhal (2020) 7 SCC 327: Reiterated limited scope of revisional powers.
- Bharat Bhushan Vij v. Arti Teck Chandani (2008) 106 DRJ 24: Clarified that landlord must only prove better title than tenant, not absolute ownership.
- Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini (2005) 12 SCC 778: Presumption of bona fide requirement unless rebutted by concrete material.
- Balwant Singh v. Sudarshan Kumar (2021) 15 SCC 75: Held landlord is best judge of need.
- Deena Nath v. Pooran Lal (2001) 5 SCC 705: Bald assertions of alternative accommodation not enough.
- Sharad Jain v. Jayanti Jain Prasad (Delhi HC, 2025): Reiterated that tenant cannot dictate how landlord uses property.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Banerjee held that the tenant sought to convert the revision into an appeal by rearguing issues already decided by the ARC. Revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of facts.
The Court concluded that the landlords had established ownership and better title. The tenant’s reliance on the 1958 MCD notice was misplaced as it only indicated occupation, not ownership. His claims of alternative accommodation were unsubstantiated.
On bona fide requirement, the Court affirmed that landlords have autonomy in deciding their residential needs, and courts cannot impose standards of adequacy. The tenant’s objections did not create triable issues.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the ARC’s eviction order. The tenant was directed to vacate the premises by 21 September 2025, consistent with the six-month period granted under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.
The Court reaffirmed that eviction petitions cannot be defeated by vague assertions and that the law prioritizes the landlord’s genuine needs.
Implications
This ruling underscores the principle that landlords need only prove a better title than tenants and genuine need, not absolute ownership. It also highlights the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under the DRC Act, discouraging tenants from re-litigating issues. The judgment strengthens landlords’ rights in bona fide requirement cases while ensuring tenants cannot rely on speculative or bald allegations to stall eviction.
FAQs
1. Can a tenant deny landlord’s ownership in eviction proceedings?
No. The landlord need not prove absolute ownership, only a better title than the tenant.
2. How is bona fide requirement assessed?
Courts presume the landlord’s need to be genuine. The landlord is the best judge of his requirement, and tenants cannot dictate usage.
3. Can revisional jurisdiction under DRC Act reappreciate facts?
No. Revisional powers are limited to examining legality and jurisdictional errors, not reappreciating evidence.