The Delhi High Court has strongly criticised the Delhi Rent Control Act, calling it an “anachronistic piece of legislation” that has led to “egregious misuse” by affluent tenants who continue to occupy properties for decades, paying meagre rents, while landlords are pushed into financial hardship.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambani made the observations while allowing eviction petitions filed by UK and Dubai-based owners of a commercial property in Sadar Bazar. The High Court set aside a 2013 order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) that had dismissed the landlords’ plea for eviction, ruling instead in favour of the tenants.
“This court is compelled to record that while manning the Rent Control Roster it has found that cases abound where very well-off tenants enjoying financial prosperity persist in unjustly occupying premises for decades on-end, paying pittance for rent, while in the process their landlords are forced into impecunious and desperate circumstances,” the judge noted.
The petitioners had sought eviction on the grounds of bona fide requirement, stating that they operate two restaurants in London and intended to expand their business to India using the Sadar Bazar premises.
The ARC had earlier rejected the eviction plea, reasoning that the petitioners were settled abroad and did not need the property for “subsistence or survival.” It also questioned whether the small size of the premises would allow the operation of a proper restaurant, and found the landlords’ requirement to be insufficiently pressing.
The High Court, however, overturned that decision, holding that the landlord’s financial position and the tenant’s economic status were irrelevant under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which governs eviction for bona fide requirement.
“It is entirely the landlord’s prerogative whether to run a sit-down restaurant or a takeaway service,” the court observed, reaffirming that genuine intent to use the property is sufficient, regardless of scale or format.
