The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, has ruled that a tenant cannot dictate how a landlord should utilize their premises, affirming that the landlord remains the best judge of their residential or professional needs. Upholding an eviction order passed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the High Court dismissed a revision petition filed by a tenant and affirmed that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8) is supervisory in nature and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence or substitution of findings.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Naresh Kumar, approached the High Court challenging an eviction order dated April 7, 2026, passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in Eviction Petition RC ARC No. 510/2017.
The eviction proceedings were initiated by the landlords, Sunny Kashyap and another, seeking possession of the tenanted premises for their bona fide requirement to establish a law office. The tenant filed an application seeking leave to defend, which was dismissed by the ARC on finding that the tenant failed to raise any triable issue, resulting in the issuance of an eviction order.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Appearing for the petitioner, counsel challenged the order of the ARC on three specific grounds:
- Absence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship: The petitioner contended that he was originally a tenant under the ancestors of the respondents and had not attorned to the respondents. Consequently, it was argued that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between them and the ARC erred in holding otherwise.
- Shift in Bona Fide Requirement: It was submitted that the landlords originally pleaded that the tenanted premises were required to set up a confectionery shop, which was later amended to running a law office. The tenant argued that this amendment demonstrated that the claimed requirement was neither genuine nor bona fide.
- Availability of Alternate Accommodation: The tenant argued that the landlords possessed suitable alternate properties, specifically:
- Lawyer’s Chamber No. K-127 at the Tis Hazari Courts complex;
- A residential-cum-office premises measuring around 100 square yards at ground floor of House No. 1A, Pandit Park, Krishna Nagar, Delhi; and
- Two commercial shops (Shops No. 1 and 4) at Bhikam Singh Colony, Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara.
The respondents were not represented by counsel during the hearing, and the petitioner’s counsel confined her arguments strictly to these three grounds.
Court’s Analysis
Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction Under Section 25-B(8)
Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar began by underscoring the statutory ambit of the High Court’s revisional powers under the proviso to Section 25-B(8) of the DRC Act. Referring to the Supreme Court rulings in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, alongside Delhi High Court decisions in Pankaj Pahwa v. Prem Wati & Ors. and Sanjeev Hiranandani v. Sunny Grover, the Court noted that the legislature deliberately omitted an appellate remedy against an order of the Rent Controller.
Reiterating the observations in Abid-Ul-Islam, the Court noted:
“The proviso to Section 25-B(8) gives the High Court exclusive power of revision against an order of the learned Rent Controller, being in the nature of superintendence over an inferior court on the decision-making process, inclusive of procedural compliance. Thus, the High Court is not expected to substitute and supplant its views with that of the trial court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction.”
The High Court clarified that revisional scrutiny is confined to examining whether the impugned order suffers from a jurisdictional error, patent illegality, material irregularity, or perversity, and does not permit a fresh appreciation of facts.
Landlord-Tenant Relationship
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The record revealed that the petitioner had explicitly conceded in his leave-to-defend application that the premises were originally owned by the grandfather of the respondents, who was the landlord, and that rent was subsequently received by the respondents’ father.
The Court observed that under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act, a landlord is not required to establish absolute ownership as in a title suit, but merely needs to demonstrate a title superior to that of the tenant. Because the tenant did not claim ownership in himself or in any third party outside the respondents’ family, the plea of non-attornment or payment of rent to an uncle did not displace the respondents’ superior title.
Bona Fide Requirement and Change in Stated Purpose
Addressing the contention regarding the amendment of the requirement from a confectionery shop to a law office, the High Court held that a mere amendment or refinement of the intended use does not render the claim mala fide.
The Court noted that the tenant had admitted in his own pleadings that both respondents are practicing advocates. The ARC had rightly evaluated their requirement in the context of their profession, and no evidence was presented to show that the requirement for a law office was fanciful, whimsical, or a mere pretext for eviction.
Suitability of Alternate Accommodations
The Court examined the ARC’s property-wise evaluation of the three alternate accommodations alleged by the tenant:
- Tis Hazari Chamber (No. K-127): The landlords admitted the chamber’s existence but explained it belonged to their late father and was insufficient to accommodate three practicing advocates (the two respondents and the wife of respondent no. 1). The Court agreed with the ARC’s finding that a lawyer’s chamber in court premises is held only on a licensee basis and cannot be treated as owned property, nor did the tenant prove it was sufficient for three practitioners.
- Pandit Park Property: While the property existed, the landlords demonstrated it was used exclusively as a residence. The tenant offered no material to substantiate that it was ever used as an office. Furthermore, the Court accepted that this residence is farther from Karkardooma Courts, which is the landlords’ primary place of practice.
- Bhikam Singh Colony Shops (Nos. 1 and 4): The landlords established through a registered memorandum of family settlement dated October 21, 2016, that these two shops fell to the shares of their uncles. The tenant failed to produce any evidence or photographs showing that the respondents possessed or owned these shops.
Reaffirming the established legal principle and citing the Supreme Court decisions in Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co. and Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, the Court observed:
“It is settled that the landlord is the best judge of his or her requirement and that the tenant cannot dictate the manner in which the landlord ought to utilise the available accommodation.”
The Court held that a revisional court cannot re-evaluate the comparative suitability of premises or impose its own assessment over the landlord’s subjective choice.
The Decision
Finding no jurisdictional error, perversity, or material irregularity in the ARC’s order, the High Court concluded that the tenant failed to establish any triable issue that would justify granting leave to defend.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition along with all pending applications, affirming the eviction order passed against the petitioner.
Case Details:
Case Title: Naresh Kumar v. Sunny Kashyap & Anr.
Case No.: RC.REV. 330/2026, CM APPL. 60550/2026 (Stay) & CM APPL. 60551/2026
Bench: Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar
Date: September 8, 2026
