The Delhi High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by landlords seeking eviction of a tenant on the grounds of bona fide requirement, upholding the decision of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC). The Court observed that the landlords failed to establish a genuine need for the premises, noting their failure to occupy existing vacant rooms and the letting out of a newly constructed property during the pendency of a previous eviction petition.
Justice Saurabh Banerjee presided over the case and passed the judgment.
The High Court adjudicated a revision petition challenging the dismissal of an eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. The Court affirmed the lower court’s finding that the landlords’ requirement was not bona fide, primarily because they had let out a newly constructed property (Property No. 414) to other tenants while their previous eviction petition was pending and had failed to occupy five vacant rooms already in their possession.
Background of the Case
The petitioners (landlords) had filed an eviction petition (ARC No.5206/2016) against the respondent (tenant) regarding the premises at D-45, First Floor, Zakir Nagar (West), Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi. The petition was filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming that due to a large family, the landlords required the subject premises for bona fide residential purposes. They also contended that the property was in a “dilapidated condition” and required urgent repairs.
The tenant sought leave to defend under Section 25B of the Act, arguing that the landlords had not disclosed other available properties, specifically Property No. O-405 and Property No. 414. The tenant alleged that Property No. D-45 had five vacant rooms not occupied by the landlords and that the requirement was “vague, evasive and concocted.”
The learned Additional Rent Controller (ARC), South-East District, Saket Courts, dismissed the eviction petition via a judgment dated September 2, 2019. The ARC held that the landlords “failed to establish their bona fide requirement” as they could not substantiate reasons for not occupying the vacant rooms in Property No. D-45 or for letting out the newly constructed Property No. 414.
Arguments Raised
Petitioners’ Contentions: The petitioners challenged the ARC’s judgment, arguing that their family size had grown to more than 27 members, a fact admitted by the tenant during cross-examination. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the ARC failed to consider the structural report by a civil engineer regarding the dilapidated condition of the premises merely because the date of the photograph pre-dated the engineer’s visit.
Regarding Property No. 414, the petitioners argued that the tenant had not pressed this issue during arguments on the leave to defend application. They contended that evidence regarding the letting out of Property No. 414 during the previous petition should not discredit their case.
Respondent’s Contentions: Conversely, the counsel for the respondent submitted that the landlords had withdrawn a previous eviction petition in 2011 and filed the present one within five days, claiming a manifold increase in family size, despite never residing in the five vacant rooms available. The counsel pointed out that Landlord No. 1 (PW-1) admitted during cross-examination that after the construction of Property No. 414 in 2015, six flats were immediately let out shortly before the withdrawal of the earlier petition.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court observed that the landlord-tenant relationship was not disputed. The Court noted that the landlords withdrew their earlier eviction petition on August 1, 2016, and filed the fresh one on August 6, 2016.
On Vacant Possession: Justice Banerjee highlighted the inconsistency in the landlords’ claims regarding the space crunch. The Court observed:
“De hors the size of their family, admittedly, though there were five vacant rooms in property No.D-45, none of them ever occupied any of them… Also, the then newly constructed property No.414 was let out to other tenants during the pendency of the said earlier Eviction Petition.”
On Structural Condition: Regarding the condition of the property, the Court stated that the landlords “cannot agitate something beyond the very scope of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, more so, whence they never filed any petition under Section 14(1)(f) or (g) of the Act.”
On Letting Out Alternate Property: The Court placed significant weight on the letting out of Property No. 414. The judgment noted:
“Regarding letting out of property No.414, the same is of utmost relevance since construction thereof was admittedly completed in 2015, and six flats therein were immediately let out by the landlords, when their earlier Eviction Petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Act was still pending… The period of filing a fresh Eviction Petition, though with respect to another premises, within a short period of five days of withdrawal of the earlier one rings a bell.”
The Court found the landlords’ explanation for letting out the property—alleged loan repayments—to be insufficient as they were “without any particulars or evidence” and no rent receipts were produced.
Decision
The High Court held that the landlords failed to cross the threshold of proving a bona fide requirement and the absence of suitable alternative accommodation. Relying on the precedent set in B.R. Anand vs. Prem Sagar, the Court reiterated that “if a landlord is unable to stand on his legs, the Eviction Petition is liable to be dismissed.”
Concluding that “the whole case set up by the landlords casts a shadow of doubt,” the Court dismissed the revision petition, finding no infirmity in the ARC’s judgment.
The Court also referred to the Supreme Court judgments in Sarla Ahuja vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Abid-Ul-Islam vs. Inder Sain Dua regarding the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Mohd Akhtar & Ors. v. Abdul Rehan
- Case Number: RC.REV. 43/2020
- Coram: Justice Saurabh Banerjee
