The Delhi High Court has upheld the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25(B) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (the “Act”), and accordingly, the tenant was directed to hand over the premises to the landlord in terms of the Section 14(7) of the Act has already lapsed. The Court also held that the landlord was established to be honest and genuine, and ownership and the eviction did not amount to an impermissible partial eviction.
The eviction petition was filed by the respondent–landlord in respect of the ground floor front portion of property No. 4980/40, contending that the premises originally belonged to his grandfather and, after a chain of succession supported by a Will dated May 14, 1990, a civil court decree dated December 8, 1999, and subsequent Memorandum of Settlement dated July 16, 2012 and Memorandum of Understanding dated December 5, 2014, 75% share of the tenancy had fallen to his exclusive ownership. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement to start his own electronics business, asserting that he had no other suitable commercial premises.
The tenant opposed the eviction by seeking leave to defend, alleging that the landlord was seeking partial eviction without partition by metes and bounds, disputing the unregistered family arrangements, denying the landlord–tenant relationship, questioning the site plan, and claiming availability of alternative accommodation. The ARC, by order dated September 23, 2019, rejected the tenant’s contentions and issued an eviction order, which was subsequently stayed by the High Court pending the outcome of the revision.
While deciding the revision, Justice Saurabh Banerjee examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction and affirmed the findings of the ARC. The Court held that the severance of the estate was established by the Will and subsequent family arrangements, and that a co-owner is competent to maintain an eviction petition independently. The Court held that the eviction sought was not a case of impermissible partial eviction, as the tenancy was composite and the landlord had a definite share. The Court further held that bald denial of the site plan and unsubstantiated pleas regarding alternative accommodation did not raise any triable issue.
On bona fide requirement, the Court reiterated that the landlord is the best judge of his business needs, and once the requirement is shown to be honest and genuine, the tenant cannot dictate how or from where the landlord should conduct his business. The Court agreed with the ARC that upper floors and other properties cited by the tenant were not suitable alternatives for a ground-floor commercial business.
Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the eviction order, the High Court upheld the ARC’s order dated September 23, 2019, vacated the interim stay, directed payment of use and occupation charges as already fixed, and ordered the tenant to hand over peaceful possession, noting that the statutory protection period under Section 14(7) of the Act had expired.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner- Advocate Akhil Mittal, with Shayna Das Pattanayk, Archie Garg, and Riddhi Jain.
For the Respondent- Senior Advocate Deepika V. Marwah, with Advocates Abhinav Sharma, Mahender Shukla, Raunika Johar, and Tanishq Sharma.
