The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that in revision under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, its power is limited, and it cannot act like an appellate court and substitute its own factual view unless the Rent Controller’s order suffers from illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. The Court relied on the principles in Sarla Ahuja and Abid-Ul-Islam to hold that revisional scrutiny is confined to whether the order is “according to law” and does not permit a roving reappreciation of facts.
On merits, the Court held that where the landlord shows that the premises are required for expansion of an already running business, discloses the other space in its possession, and explains why that space is not reasonably suitable, the tenant cannot dictate that the landlord should use some other premises instead. The existence of other business premises does not by itself defeat a plea of bona fide requirement, especially where the landlord genuinely intends to use the tenanted premises for its own business and the chosen premises are commercially more suitable.
Accordingly, the High Court upheld the Rent Controller’s order, dismissed the tenants’ revision petition, and held that no interference was warranted. It directed the tenants to vacate and hand over vacant, peaceful and physical possession of the first-floor premises at 9-A, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi to the landlord forthwith
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Amit Sharma noted that the landlord had in fact disclosed the availability of space on the upper portions of the building and had explained why that space was not sufficient or suitable for the expanding art business. The Bench found that the landlord’s case was not based on a vague future plan. It had placed on record the trademark registration of “The Biv”, brochures of exhibitions, proposed site plan, and other material showing that the art business was already being run and that the first-floor premises were sought for its expansion.
On the tenants’ argument about 7,500 sq. ft. being available on the third floor and terrace, the Bench held that the material relied on by the tenants itself showed that the existing space was in the nature of working stations and offices. It accepted the landlord’s position that the co-working office was itself one of its business ventures, and the tenant could not insist that the landlord shut down that business and use that space for art exhibitions instead. The Bench agreed with the Rent Controller that the first-floor location, with access from the inner circle, offered greater visibility and footfall and was more suitable for the art business wing.
The Bench rejected the submission that this was a simple case of additional accommodation automatically requiring leave to defend. It distinguished the authorities cited by the tenants on facts and held that the present case involved expansion of an existing business, supported by material on record, and not a speculative or imagined need. The Bench specifically observed that the landlord had categorically explained why the premises already in its possession were not sufficient and why the tenanted premises were the suitable accommodation for its requirement.
The Bench also dealt with the objection regarding the challans. It held that the alleged mismatch in challan numbers and dates did not raise any real triable issue. On scrutiny, the Court found continuity in item serial numbers across challans issued on different dates, indicating purchases made in the same period though through separate challans. The Bench added that even apart from the challans, other documents on record showed that the landlord was indeed running an art business wing and had conducted exhibitions before filing the eviction petition.
Also Read No Mandatory Pre-Hearing Before Superseding Co-operative Bank Board Under Section 36AAA: Kerala HC
Briefly, a revision petition was filed by Shalimar Paints Ltd. and another tenant against an eviction order passed in favour of M/s Phelps and Company Pvt Ltd. in respect of premises at 9-A, First Floor, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The landlord had sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act on the ground of bona fide requirement. It said the premises were needed for expansion of its art business wing, operated under the trademark “The Biv”, for display of paintings, meetings with buyers and artists, storage, and allied business use. The landlord also said one of its directors was already operating from a single-room office adjacent to the tenanted premises and proposed to merge the spaces by removing the common wall.
The landlord further stated that it had been conducting exhibitions from the third floor and terrace of the building, but that arrangement was causing disruption and financial loss to its co-working business. According to the landlord, the first-floor tenanted premises were commercially more suitable because they had direct access from Connaught Place’s inner circle, which had better visibility and footfall than the third floor and terrace accessible from the middle circle. It also alleged that Shalimar Paints had stopped its own business from the premises and had parted with possession in favour of another entity.
The tenants, in their leave to defend application, argued that the landlord had concealed material facts and already had sufficient alternative accommodation. They relied on the landlord’s own case that “The Biv” was being run from the third floor and on website material showing a large commercial setup with reception area, library, workspace, cabin space, board room and terrace garden. They claimed the landlord had around 7,500 sq. ft. across two floors and that the real motive was to evict them and re-let the premises at higher rent. They also raised objections to certain challans filed by the landlord, calling them bogus or fabricated because of inconsistencies in serial numbers and dates.
The landlord denied these allegations and said no suitable alternative commercial accommodation was available in Delhi NCR. It clarified that the ground floor was occupied by ICICI Bank, only one room on the first floor was with one of its directors, and the third floor and terrace were already being used for co-working operations. It also said that the first floor was the only portion accessible from the inner circle and therefore best suited for the stated requirement.
