Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of Landlord’s Eviction Petition, Says Bona Fide Need Not Proved When Sons Were Already Linked to Existing Business
Facts
The petitioner, Late Brij Mohan Batta, had filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 against the respondents in respect of Shop No. 3/14-A, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi, measuring approximately 22 x 10 feet.
The petitioner claimed that he was the owner/landlord of the premises and that the shop had been let out in 1970 to the respondents. He stated that he was running a catering business from the adjoining shop and required the tenanted premises for his two sons, who were allegedly unemployed and wanted to start/run business from the premises.
The respondents opposed the eviction petition and contended that the petitioner’s sons were already running a business under the name “Om Vaneesa Creations” from property No. 41/7, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. They also relied upon photographs of a banner bearing the name of the business and a mobile number allegedly belonging to one of the petitioner’s sons.
The learned Additional Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition on 8 July 2024, holding that the petitioner had failed to establish bona fide requirement. The landlord then filed the present revision petition before the Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the revision, the petitioner died and his legal heirs were brought on record. The respondents were served but proceeded ex parte before the High Court.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner had established bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for settling his sons.
- Whether the petitioner’s sons were unemployed or were already associated with/running business under the name Om Vaneesa Creations.
- Whether the learned Rent Controller erred in relying on the photographs/banner and mobile number connected with the petitioner’s son.
- Whether the High Court, in revision under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, could interfere with the factual findings of the Rent Controller.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the learned Rent Controller wrongly dismissed the eviction petition merely because the respondents had filed photographs of a banner of Om Vaneesa Creations.
It was submitted that the petitioner had admitted only that one mobile number on the banner belonged to one of his sons, but that admission did not prove that his sons were running the said business.
The petitioner further argued that the banner was hanging on a closed shop which belonged to his brother, and not to him or his sons. Therefore, no adverse inference could be drawn against him.
It was also submitted that the first and second floors of the Kirti Nagar property were not suitable for running a restaurant or food business because customers generally do not climb stairs for such businesses.
The petitioner further contended that one of his sons was working in a restaurant and the other was unemployed, and therefore the bona fide requirement continued to exist.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents’ case before the Rent Controller was that the petitioner had falsely claimed that his sons were unemployed.
They argued that the petitioner’s sons were already carrying on business under the name Om Vaneesa Creations, dealing in gift items and theme packaging, from property No. 41/7, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.
The respondents relied on photographs showing a banner of the said business, which included the mobile number of one of the petitioner’s sons.
They also argued that the petitioner had other available accommodation, including portions of the disputed property and shops at East Punjabi Bagh, and therefore the eviction petition was not based on genuine need.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the scope of eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
The Court noted that a landlord’s genuine requirement is generally presumed once a prima facie case is shown, but the tenant is entitled to rebut that presumption by showing facts which cast doubt on the alleged need.
The Court also emphasized that revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) is limited. The High Court cannot act like an appellate court and reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible.
The revisional court can interfere only if the Rent Controller’s order suffers from illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or a conclusion that no reasonable Rent Controller could have reached.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119, where the Supreme Court held that once the landlord shows a prima facie case, the Rent Controller may presume the requirement to be bona fide, and the tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should adjust himself.
However, the Court also applied the principle that bona fide need must be established on facts and may be displaced by material showing that the alleged dependent family members are already engaged elsewhere.
On the scope of revision, the Court relied on Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30, where the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s power under Section 25B(8) is supervisory and limited. The High Court cannot convert revision into a first appeal or conduct a roving reappreciation of facts.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the respondents had consistently taken the defence from the beginning that the petitioner’s sons were already running Om Vaneesa Creations.
The respondents had placed photographs of the banner on record. The petitioner first denied that the phone numbers on the banner belonged to his sons, but later admitted that mobile number 9212241784 belonged to one of his sons.
The Court held that, once this material was placed on record, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to prove that the business did not belong to his sons. However, he did not produce any complaint regarding alleged misuse of his son’s mobile number.
The petitioner also did not examine his brother, who according to him owned the shop on which the banner was hanging. This failure weakened the petitioner’s explanation.
The Court also noted that the respondents had placed on record a visiting card showing the same contact number as reflected on the banner. Therefore, the Rent Controller’s conclusion that the petitioner’s sons were linked with the said business could not be termed perverse.
The Court held that it could not reappreciate the evidence in revision. Since the Rent Controller’s finding was based on material available on record, there was no ground for interference.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court dismissed the landlord’s revision petition.
The Court upheld the Rent Controller’s judgment dated 8 July 2024, which had dismissed the eviction petition filed by Brij Mohan Batta.
The Court held that the petitioner failed to establish bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for his sons. It further held that the Rent Controller’s findings were based on evidence and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or material illegality.
Case Details
Case: Sh. Brij Mohan Batta v. Sh. Tara Chand Garg & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: RC.REV. 235/2024 & CM APPL. 64052/2024
Judge: Justice Amit Sharma
Date: 6 July 2026
Result: Revision petition dismissed; Rent Controller’s order dismissing eviction petition upheld.
