Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, in a detailed judgment delivered by Justice Saurabh Banerjee, set aside the order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissing the landlord’s eviction petition and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within six months.
The Court held that a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRC Act), 1958, is not required to disclose the precise nature of the business he intends to start. It observed:
“It is not necessary for a landlord to plead or prove the specific business which he wishes to establish from the tenanted premises, as long as his requirement is genuine, honest, and conceived in good faith.”
The Court found the ARC’s reasoning to be fundamentally flawed, as it dismissed the eviction petition solely on the ground that the landlord had not specified the nature of the business he intended to start.
Facts
The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act before the ARC, seeking possession of a shop in Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, on the ground of bona fide requirement to start his own business. He stated that he was a senior citizen with no source of income and needed the shop to earn a livelihood.
The property was initially owned by one Smt. Shakuntala Devi, who had orally inducted the tenant. The landlord later purchased the property and became the owner-landlord. The tenant did not dispute the landlord-tenant relationship or ownership but contended that the landlord did not genuinely require the premises and already possessed several other commercial properties.
After a full trial, the ARC dismissed the petition on 03 November 2017, holding that the landlord’s statement—“I will decide about the nature of business after the premises is vacated”—showed lack of bona fide requirement. The landlord challenged this finding before the High Court through a revision petition.
Issues
- Whether the landlord is required under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act to disclose the precise nature of the business he intends to start.
- Whether the ARC erred in dismissing the eviction petition based solely on the alleged vagueness of the landlord’s proposed business.
- Whether the landlord had established a genuine bona fide requirement and absence of suitable alternative accommodation.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the landlord argued that the ARC committed a jurisdictional error by dismissing the petition merely for lack of details about the proposed business. It was submitted that the DRC Act does not require a landlord to disclose the nature of the business; the only condition is that the requirement must be genuine.
The landlord’s counsel relied on the Delhi High Court’s earlier decision in Noor Mohammad v. Kanta Aggarwal (RC.REV. 400/2017), where eviction was granted even though the landlord owned other shops. He also cited the Supreme Court decisions in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1998) 8 SCC 119] and Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan [(1996) 5 SCC 353], holding that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement, and courts should not dictate how he must use his property.
It was further argued that in an identical case involving an adjacent shop of the same building, the Delhi High Court, in H.S. Banka v. Hari Krishna Sharma (2025), had allowed the landlord’s petition under similar circumstances.
Respondent’s Arguments
The tenant’s counsel contended that the landlord’s failure to specify the nature of his proposed business proved that he lacked a genuine requirement. The landlord’s statement that he would decide what business to run “after the premises is vacated” showed absence of bona fides.
Relying on Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava [AIR 2001 SC 803], it was argued that the landlord’s need must continue from the filing of the petition until final disposal. The tenant also referred to Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] to argue that the burden of proving bona fides lies squarely on the landlord.
It was further claimed that the landlord had not disclosed ownership of other shops and that his demand for eviction was motivated by an intention to increase rent or sell the property rather than genuine personal use.
Analysis of the Law
The Court observed that Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act requires a landlord to prove two conditions—
- Bona fide requirement for occupation by the landlord for himself or his family; and
- Non-availability of any other suitable accommodation.
However, the Act does not require the landlord to disclose the exact business activity he proposes to undertake. The Court found the ARC’s conclusion legally unsustainable as it imposed an additional burden not envisaged under the statute.
Referring to Balwant Singh Chaudhary v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [(2004) 1 RCR (Rent) 487], the Court reiterated that the landlord need not set up or specify the business before seeking eviction, as long as the requirement is genuine.
The Court also emphasized that judicial interpretation has consistently held that bona fide requirement means a genuine, honest, and sincere need, and courts must not presume mala fides merely because the landlord is unable to articulate a specific business plan.
Precedent Analysis
- Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1998) 8 SCC 119] — The Supreme Court held that once the landlord establishes prima facie need, the Rent Controller should presume bona fide intention unless proven otherwise.
- Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan [(1996) 5 SCC 353] — The landlord is the best judge of his requirement, and courts cannot dictate how he should use his property.
- Balwant Singh Chaudhary v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. [(2004) 1 RCR (Rent) 487] — It is not necessary for the landlord to plead or prove the specific business to be conducted.
- H.S. Banka v. Hari Krishna Sharma (2025) — A coordinate Bench allowed eviction in an identical case concerning the adjacent shop of the same property, rejecting the argument of vagueness.
- Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava [AIR 2001 SC 803] and Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] — Cited by the tenant but distinguished as inapplicable since the landlord’s need in this case was continuous and genuine.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Banerjee held that the ARC’s reasoning was legally untenable as the Delhi Rent Control Act does not mandate disclosure of the precise nature of the proposed business. The finding that the landlord’s testimony was vague was termed “fundamentally wrong and without legal foundation.”
The Court clarified that the landlord had consistently maintained his bona fide requirement and had no suitable alternative commercial accommodation in Delhi. The tenant, despite alleging otherwise, had not produced any evidence to the contrary.
Citing Sarla Ahuja and Prativa Devi, the Court reiterated that it is not for the tenant to dictate how the landlord should manage his affairs. It also noted that the ARC ignored binding precedents and misapplied the law, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
Conclusion
Allowing the revision petition, the Delhi High Court set aside the ARC’s order dated 03 November 2017 and directed the tenant to vacate the premises within six months, granting protection under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act.
The Court held that all statutory conditions for eviction under Section 14(1)(e) were satisfied:
- The landlord’s need was bona fide;
- The tenant admitted the landlord-tenant relationship; and
- No suitable alternative accommodation existed.
Accordingly, the eviction order was granted in favour of the landlord.
Implications
This judgment clarifies that a landlord’s failure to disclose the specific business he intends to start cannot defeat a claim of bona fide requirement under the Delhi Rent Control Act. It reaffirms judicial consistency in protecting landlords’ legitimate rights while balancing tenants’ statutory safeguards.
The ruling also reinforces the principle that the court must assess the genuineness of intent, not the precision of plans, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not frustrate substantive justice in rent control matters.
FAQs
1. Is a landlord required to specify what business he intends to start in an eviction petition?
No. The Court clarified that under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, disclosure of the specific nature of business is unnecessary. The focus is on the genuineness of the landlord’s requirement.
2. What if the landlord owns other properties?
The tenant must prove that those properties are suitable for the stated need. Mere ownership of other premises does not bar eviction if they are unsuitable for the intended purpose.
3. How long does a tenant get to vacate the premises after an eviction order?
Under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, the tenant is entitled to a maximum of six months to vacate after the eviction order is passed.