The High Court of Delhi has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss an eviction petition filed by a landlord seeking possession of a commercial shop in Kirti Nagar. The High Court affirmed that the landlord failed to prove a bona fide requirement for the premises, concluding that the asserted need was fabricated to evict the tenant.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Amit Sharma, dismissed the revision petition filed by the legal representatives of the original petitioner, Brij Mohan Batta, against the tenants, Tara Chand Garg and others. The court found no grounds to interfere with the July 8, 2024 judgment of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), West, Tis Hazari Courts, which had initially rejected the eviction plea.
Background of the Dispute
The legal dispute centered around a shop measuring 22’ x 10’ in Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, which had been rented to the respondents in 1970. The landlord filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming a bona fide requirement. He asserted that he needed the shop to help settle his two unemployed sons by starting a business for them, as he was unable to manage his own catering business alone.
The tenants contested the eviction, arguing that the landlord was already in possession of significant commercial space, including the adjoining shop and the entire first and second floors of the property. More critically, the tenants alleged that the landlord’s sons were already running an established business dealing in gift items and theme packaging under the name ‘Om Vaneesa Creations’ from a property in East Punjabi Bagh.
To support their claim, the tenants submitted photographs showing a banner for ‘Om Vaneesa Creations’ outside a shop, which displayed mobile numbers.
Proceedings and Analysis
During the trial before the ARC, the landlord initially denied the tenant’s claims but later admitted during cross-examination that one of the mobile numbers on the banner belonged to his son. He also admitted that the shop where the banner was hung belonged to his brother.
The ARC observed that the landlord failed to produce his brother as a witness to refute the claim that his sons were running the business from that location, nor did he lodge any complaint regarding the alleged misuse of his son’s phone number. The ARC concluded, “In view of the discussion above, I have no hesitation in holding that the need of the petitioner appears to be concocted and fabricated to evict the respondent from the tenanted premises.”
In his appeal to the High Court, the landlord’s counsel argued that the ARC dismissed the petition based on incorrect appreciation of evidence. They contended that merely because a son’s phone number was on a banner on a closed shop owned by the landlord’s brother did not prove the sons were running a business. The petitioner also argued that the first and second floors of the disputed property were not suitable for running a restaurant.
Justice Amit Sharma noted that the tenants had consistently raised the defense regarding the sons’ existing business since their initial leave to defend application. The Court observed, “In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to establish by way of documents or otherwise to show that the banner shown in the photograph(s) exhibited as Ex.PW-1/D2 did not belong to his sons.”
The High Court emphasized the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. Citing Supreme Court precedents in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, the Court noted that a revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own views unless the lower court’s order is arbitrary, perverse, or suffers from a jurisdictional error.
The Decision
Finding no such infirmities in the ARC’s judgment, the High Court concluded that the lower court had acted within its jurisdiction and that its findings were based on the material available on record.
The Court held, “In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, no grounds for interference with the impugned judgment… are made out, and the same is, accordingly, upheld.” The revision petition was subsequently dismissed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Sh. Brij Mohan Batta versus Sh. Tara Chand Garg & Anr.
Case No.: RC.REV. 235/2024 & CM APPL. 64052/2024
Bench: Justice Amit Sharma
Date: 6th July, 2026
