In a significant ruling clarifying the dynamics of dependency and alternative accommodations within joint families under rent control laws, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a landlady’s revision petition challenging the rejection of her eviction plea. Presided over by Justice Amit Sharma, the court affirmed that a landlord cannot claim absolute dependency of a step-grandson for commercial space when the joint family unit holds multiple vacant, suitable alternative properties. The High Court upheld the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), which had dismissed the eviction petition filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Durga Devi Jain, is the owner of Property No. 90, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi. In 1985, she leased out a ground floor shop measuring 20 ft. x 20 ft. to the respondent, Dr. Harish Chander Banga, who has since operated his medical clinic from the premises. At the time of the eviction proceedings, the monthly rent was INR 1,925/-, excluding other charges. Smt. Durga Devi Jain initially sought eviction on the grounds that the tenant had occasionally opened the clinic and had sub-let a portion of it to M/s Lal Pathlabs without her written consent.
She subsequently amended her eviction petition to state that the tenanted shop was bona fidely required by her for her grandson, Mr. Rishabh Jain, who was unemployed and wished to start an independent diamond and jewellery business. She asserted that the tenanted shop was situated at a prime location and that no other suitable commercial accommodation was available in her grandson’s name in Delhi.
The tenant contested the petition on multiple grounds. He argued that Mr. Rishabh Jain was not the biological grandson of the petitioner. Instead, Rishabh was the son of Mr. Praveen Jain, who was the biological son of Smt. Kanta Devi (the sister and co-wife of the petitioner, both married to Sh. Ram Kumar Jain). The tenant further argued that the landlady had suppressed several properties owned by her and her joint family. Specifically, he pointed to commercial spaces in Property No. 87 and Property No. 88 in Hari Nagar Ashram, and existing family jewellery businesses operating in Bhogal, New Delhi.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner argued that she, her husband, her sister/co-wife Smt. Kanta Devi, and their children lived together as a single joint family unit under one roof. Citing previous rulings such as K.V. Muthu v. Angamuthu Ammal, Gobind Das v. Kuldip Singh, and Manju Devi v. Pratap Singh, her counsel argued that the term “family” under the Delhi Rent Control Act has a flexible meaning and includes step-grandsons.
Regarding alternative accommodations, the petitioner contended that the shops in Bhogal were occupied by Rishabh’s father and uncle for their respective jewellery businesses and were thus unsuitable for an independent venture. She claimed that Property No. 87, owned by Smt. Kanta Devi, was located in a narrow lane facing a busy vegetable market where a sophisticated diamond showroom could not be operated. She argued that Property No. 90, being on the main road, offered far superior footfall and parking. The landlady also contended that her non-disclosure of Property No. 88 was not fatal to the case, citing Vinod Gupta v. Kailash Aggarwal & Ors., Banwari Lal v. Mahender Pal Gupta, and Rajni Bahl v. Arun Kumar Nayyar, as the property was ultimately shown to be unsuitable.
Conversely, the respondent argued that the landlady had actively suppressed material facts concerning her family structure and available properties. He argued that while the petitioner claimed Praveen Jain was her biological son, Kanta Devi had described Praveen Jain as her own son in separate eviction filings.
The tenant further highlighted that during the pendency of the proceedings, Smt. Kanta Devi demolished and reconstructed Property No. 87 into a five-story building with vacant commercial shops on the ground floor. Additionally, the petitioner owned the ground floor and basement of Property No. 88, which lay vacant. Crucially, the tenant introduced a site plan demonstrating that the tenanted “Clinic” did not open onto the main Mathura Road as claimed by the landlady, but actually opened into a side lane (gali)—the very same alley where properties 87 and 88 were situated.
Court’s Analysis of Dependency and Alternative Accommodations
The High Court observed that the trial court had carefully analyzed the biological relationships. The ARC properly concluded that Praveen Jain was the step-son of Smt. Durga Devi Jain, making Mr. Rishabh Jain her step-grandson. The petitioner failed to produce any public documents, such as birth or matriculation certificates, to prove a biological relationship despite the tenant’s specific denials.
More significantly, the court identified a fundamental logical inconsistency in the petitioner’s claim. While she asserted that the family was a single joint unit to argue that a step-grandson could be dependent on her, she simultaneously sought to decouple the joint family’s properties when assessing alternative suitable accommodations.
The High Court approved the ARC’s interpretation of Section 14(1)(e) of the Act, which observed: “Consequently, it implies that dependency has to be absolute and not relative. Resultantly the alleged member of family cannot claim to be dependent on his step grand mother when number of properties are available to him through his real grand mother who is also part of same joint family.“
The court scrutinized the testimonies of the landlady and her step-son, Praveen Jain. Praveen Jain was found to have been highly evasive during his cross-examination on February 6, 2018, abruptly refusing to answer questions regarding the reconstructed five-story Property No. 87. The trial court had recorded this behavior in its observations. The evidence confirmed that the joint family had multiple vacant commercial spaces on the ground floor of the newly constructed Property No. 87, as well as a vacant shop and basement at Property No. 88.
The court also dismissed the landlady’s claim that the tenanted shop was uniquely suited due to its main-road location. A review of the site plan showed that the clinic sat at the backend of two other shops and opened directly into the side lane (gali). Since properties 87 and 88 were in the exact same lane, the petitioner’s assertions regarding the superior suitability of the tenanted shop were factually incorrect and contradictory.
The Scope of Revision and Final Decision
Addressing the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) of the Act, the court cited the Supreme Court judgments in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua. The court reiterated that its revisionary powers are restrictive and do not allow it to act as an appellate court to reappreciate facts unless the lower court’s findings are completely arbitrary or perverse. Quoting Abid-Ul-Islam, the court noted: “The scope of interference by the High Court is very restrictive and except in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which would only mean that in the absence of any adjudication per se, the High Court should not venture to disturb such a decision.“
Applying this standard, Justice Amit Sharma concluded: “This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned ARC had rightly dealt with the contention of the Respondent that Mr. Praveen Jain is not the real son of the Petitioner, and thus, Mr. Rishabh Jain is the step-grandson of the Petitioner. The impugned judgment further rightly records that the Petitioner had not approached the learned ARC with clean hands, as no material was placed on record to prove the alleged relationship of the Petitioner with Mr. Praveen Jain and Mr. Rishabh Jain.“
Holding that the petitioner and her joint family members had sufficient, vacant, and suitable commercial space available to satisfy the business requirements of Rishabh Jain, the High Court ruled that the petitioner failed to discharge her burden under Section 14(1)(e). Finding no jurisdictional error or perversity in the ARC’s order, the High Court dismissed the revision petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Smt. Durga Devi Jain versus Dr. Harish Chander Banga
Case No.: RC.REV. 30/2019
Bench: Justice Amit Sharma
Date: May 19, 2026
