The High Court of Delhi has dismissed a rent revision petition filed by a tenant, affirming that a landlady’s requirement of her premises to settle her unemployed husband and elder son in a dry fruits business constitutes a “bona fide” need. Justice Amit Sharma, presiding over the case, upheld the order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), noting that the tenant failed to raise any triable issues that would merit a leave to defend.
Background of the Case
The dispute pertains to Shop No. 4, Ground Floor, Property No. 43, Gandhi Gali, Fatehpuri, Delhi. The respondent-landlady, Smt. Babita Jain, purchased the property in 1989. The petitioner, Devender Kumar, had been a tenant in the premises for approximately 25 years.
In 2019, the landlady filed an eviction petition under the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA). She stated that she is a homemaker and resides with her husband, Dinesh Kumar Jain, and younger son, Arihant Jain, in Pitampura. She submitted that her husband and her elder son, Siddharth Jain, are jobless. While the younger son runs a dry fruits business from Shop No. 1 in the same building, the husband and elder son could not join him due to “acrimony” and “temperamental differences” between the elder son’s wife and the rest of the family. Consequently, she sought the demised premises to enable her husband and elder son to start their own independent dry fruits businesses.
Arguments of the Parties
The petitioner-tenant sought leave to defend, raising several contentions:
- Alternative Accommodation: The tenant alleged that the building was a five-storey structure and that the landlady had concealed several vacant shops on different floors.
- Employment Status: The tenant argued that the elder son was working as a software engineer in a multinational company with a handsome salary and was not dependent on his mother.
- Financial Status: It was argued that the landlady failed to disclose the financial status and properties owned by her husband, alleging he owned the adjacent property (No. 42).
- Concealment: The tenant claimed that shops No. 3 and 5 on the ground floor were vacant and in the landlady’s possession.
In response, the landlady produced registered sale deeds to show that various shops in the building had been sold years prior. Regarding shops No. 3 and 5, she produced rent receipts to demonstrate they were occupied by old tenants, albeit the shops were closed and in dilapidated condition. She categorically denied that her son or his wife were employed in an MNC.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Amit Sharma scrutinized the findings of the learned ARC and the records of the case.
Regarding the bona fide requirement, the Court observed that the need must be seen in presenti. The Court noted:
“Even assuming that son of the petitioner is/was working in an MNC and having a good salary, it does not foreclose his right to start his own independent business.”
Addressing the dependency of family members, the Court highlighted that merely living separately due to temperamental differences does not mean the landlady has no moral or social responsibility toward her son.
On the issue of alternative accommodation, the Court found that the landlady had sufficiently explained the status of every shop in the building through sale deeds and rent receipts. The Court rejected the tenant’s argument regarding discrepancies in the serial numbers of rent receipts for other shops, noting that the tenant’s own receipts were also issued with non-chronological serial numbers.
Regarding the fourth floor being vacant, the Court reiterated the settled legal position:
“It is trite that the landlord is the best judge of his own interest and he cannot be dictated by the tenants. There is no doubt that the ground floor is more suitable and profitable for business activity than the fourth floor.”
The Court also noted that the tenant failed to provide any documentary evidence to prove that the landlady or her husband owned the adjacent property No. 42.
Decision of the Court
Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua and Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the High Court emphasized that its revisional jurisdiction is “restrictive.” The Court stated:
“The High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction. Its role is to satisfy itself on the process adopted.”
Finding no “grave illegality” or “error apparent on the face of the record,” the High Court upheld the ARC’s order dated January 5, 2023, and dismissed the revision petition. The interim stay on eviction was vacated.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Devender Kumar vs. Smt. Babita Jain
- Case No.: RC.REV. 192/2023 & CM APPL. 36212/2023
- Bench: Justice Amit Sharma
- Date: 28th April, 2026
