The High Court of Delhi has set aside an order from a Rent Controller that granted a tenant ‘leave to defend’ in an eviction proceeding. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, in a judgment pronounced on November 11, 2025, held that the tenant had failed to raise any triable issue to rebut the landlord’s case for bona fide requirement and consequently passed an eviction order under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
The legal issue before the High Court was a revision petition filed by a landlord challenging a Rent Controller’s order dated May 24, 2024, which had permitted the tenant to contest the eviction suit.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Mr. Hemant Gupta (landlord), had instituted an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRC Act). The petition, filed before the learned Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (ARC), Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, sought the eviction of the respondent, Mr. Ishwar Chand (tenant), from Shop No. 2, Ground Floor, Property No. 20-E/1, Babarpur Main Road, Shahdara, Delhi.
The landlord, who purchased the property vide a registered Sale Deed in 2006, claimed a bona fide requirement for the premises. The petition stated that his “unemployed married son, Yashasvi, intended to open a general store so as to earn his livelihood independently.”
The tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend under Section 25B(4) and (5) of the DRC Act. The tenant contested the petition on three main grounds: (i) the DRC Act was inapplicable to the area, (ii) there was no bona fide requirement as the landlord’s son was already employed, and (iii) the landlord had other sufficient alternative accommodations.
The learned ARC, vide the impugned order dated May 24, 2024, allowed the tenant’s application. The ARC held that the landlord had “……failed to make out a prima facie (case) qua his bona fide requirement…” and that it “would also have to be proved in trial whether the area of Babarpur is covered under the DRC Act.” Aggrieved by this, the landlord filed the present revision petition.
Arguments Before the High Court
Mr. V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-landlord, argued that the bona fide requirement for the married son was genuine and that the subject premises was the “only suitable commercial accommodation.” He further submitted that Babarpur village falls within the revenue estate of Maujpur, which has been urbanized via notification under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
Per contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Arya, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant, raised a preliminary objection that no revision petition is maintainable against an order allowing leave to defend. On merits, he argued that the tenant had raised a substantial triable issue, supported by photographs, showing the landlord’s son was “already gainfully employed since he was running a showroom/ shop of water filter and inverter batteries under the name of M/s. Akansha Generators.”
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, after hearing both parties, proceeded with a detailed analysis.
- On Maintainability: The Court rejected the tenant’s preliminary objection, citing several judgments including R.S. Bakshi vs. H.K. Malhari and Sanjay Mehra vs. Sunil Malhotra, and held that the revision petition was maintainable.
- On Bona Fide Requirement: The Court noted that the landlord-tenant relationship was undisputed. While acknowledging the tenant’s claim that the landlord’s son was employed, the Court found the evidence (photographs and a Process Server report) insufficient to establish a triable issue.
Justice Banerjee observed, “The aforesaid, even if they are assumed to be correct, at best, show that the unemployed son of the landlord was assisting/ helping his father in the shop. This, could not/ cannot be a ground to prevent the landlord for seeking eviction…”
The Court found the tenant had filed no “reliable and/ or substantive/ governmental documentary proof” of his claim. This finding was decisively supported by a GST registration certificate filed by the landlord (in compliance with a prior court order), which “clearly reflecting that he, and not his son, was the proprietor/ owner of the said M/s. Akansha Generators.”
The judgment held, “Therefore, the whole case established by the tenant qua the sole ground of there not being a bona fide requirement of the subject premises by the landlord falls flat…”
The Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Baldev Singh Bajwa vs. Monish Saini (2005), which held that a “heavy burden would lie on the tenant to prove that the requirement of the landlord is not genuine.” It also relied on Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua (2022), which stated, “A mere assertion per se would not suffice…” - On Applicability of DRC Act: The Court found the ARC had erred in finding this a triable issue. The judgment noted that the landlord’s Sale Deed records the property “as being situated in Village Maujpur, abadi of Babarpur, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi.” Furthermore, a reply from the PIO, SDM, Shahdara, confirmed that “Village Maujpur” is included in the list of urbanized villages under Section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. The Court observed, “Interestingly, this list has never been disputed by the tenant.”
- On Alternative Accommodation: The High Court concurred with the ARC’s finding on this point, stating, “…there is no such material that has been produced by the respondent to show the availability of any other reasonably suitable accommodation…”
- On Revisional Jurisdiction: The Court, citing Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014), affirmed that while its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) is not appellate, it is the “bounden duty” of the Court to invoke its powers upon finding “manifest errors” of “arbitrariness, perversity, illegality, or impropriety.”
Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held, “this Court is of the opinion that there is a manifest error in the impugned order dated 24.05.2024 passed by the learned ARC, particularly since the respondent was unable to raise any triable issue before the learned ARC thereby warranting grant of leave to defend.”
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the ARC’s order and passed an eviction order in favour of the landlord. However, the Court directed that in view of Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, “the order for recovery of possession of the subject premises shall not be executed before expiry of six months period from today.” The petition was disposed of in these terms.
