The Delhi High Court has held that a landlady who already does tailoring work from home can still have a bona fide need for a commercial shop on the main road for the same business. The Court dismissed a revision petition filed by the tenants and upheld the eviction order for a shop at Nai Sarak, Delhi.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar found no illegality, material irregularity or perversity in the order of the Additional Rent Controller (Central), Tis Hazari Courts. That order had refused the tenants leave to defend and directed their eviction.
Background
The landlady owns the property at Municipal Nos. 5561–5564, Nai Sarak, which she bought under a registered Sale Deed dated 24.09.1999. She sought eviction of the tenants from Shop No. 5564, which measures about 16 ft × 6 ft. The shop had been let out to the tenants’ predecessor-in-interest.
Her case was that she does tailoring work from her residence and needs the ground-floor shop on the main road to run her own tailoring business and earn a livelihood. She had filed an earlier eviction petition in 2008, which covered her son’s needs as well as her own. During the revision proceedings in that case, she withdrew it because of technical mistakes, and the High Court permitted the withdrawal on 28.08.2019.
On 13.05.2024, the Rent Controller dismissed the tenants’ application for leave to defend, holding that it raised no triable issue.
Arguments
Advocates Jawahar Raja and Abhey Narula, appearing for the tenants, argued that the son’s need had already been met because he ran his musical-instrument business from a shop formed by combining Shop Nos. 5562 and 5563. They also argued that the landlady already did tailoring work from home. In their submission, a mere preference for a main-road shop could not settle whether her need was genuine. They pointed to other shops in the same building, the upper floors and municipal records of other properties as alternative accommodation.
Advocate O.P. Aggarwal, appearing for the landlady, argued that her present need was different from the one pleaded earlier. He submitted that she is the best judge of her requirements and that the tenants cannot dictate where she runs her business. He also argued that the other premises were either already in use or unsuitable.
Court’s Findings
The Court began with the limits of its revisional jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958. It noted that this jurisdiction “is supervisory in nature and does not permit a reappraisal of the material on record as in an appeal.”
On the earlier proceedings, the Court noted that the 2019 order had only permitted withdrawal and had not decided whether her need was satisfied. It held: “The withdrawal of the earlier proceedings, therefore, cannot, by themselves, furnish a basis to reject the distinct requirement pleaded by the Respondent No. 1 in the present Petition.”
The Court relied on Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava. It held that the use of the combined shop for another business, M/s Royal Sherwani, did not by itself show that the landlady’s need had ceased. Relying on Anil Bajaj v. Vinod Ahuja and Budh Singh & Sons v. Sangeeta Kedia, the Court observed that “The fact that she has been able to conduct tailoring work from her residence does not establish that the residential premises are reasonably suitable for the commercial purpose now pleaded.”
On alternative accommodation, the Court relied on Lalta Prasad Gupta v. Sita Ram. It held that a tenant must place material particulars on record showing that the other premises are both available and suitable. Referring to the other portions of the same building, the Court said: “The availability of other portions of the same property cannot be determined merely by counting the number of shops or floors.”
Citing Uday Shankar Upadhyay v. Naveen Maheshwari, the Court held that a need for a ground-floor shop on the main road cannot be rejected by assuming that an upper-floor portion will do. It found that the tenants had produced no photographs, site plans or other material showing that the shops they relied on were available. On the husband’s properties, the Court held that these could not count as alternative accommodation without material showing the landlady’s right or access to them.
Outcome
The High Court dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the eviction order for Shop No. 5564. The landlady may seek execution in accordance with law, subject to the statutory protection under Section 14(7) of the DRC Act, if still applicable.
Case Title: Sanjay Goel & Ors. v. Manju Suri & Ors.
Case No.: RC.REV. 254/2024
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date: 06.11.2026
