In a significant decision clarifying the evidentiary burden on landlords under rent control litigation, the High Court of Delhi has ruled that a landlord seeking summary eviction under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (DRCA) must clearly disclose all alternative properties in their possession and explain why they are not suitable. Presiding over the matter, Justice Amit Sharma dismissed a revision petition filed by a landlady challenging the trial court’s decision to grant her tenant leave to defend. The Court held that the landlady’s shifting and contradictory stands regarding the occupancy and ownership of alternative properties in the vicinity raised genuine triable issues that could only be decided through a full trial.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Smt. Yogeshwari Devi, filed an eviction petition (RC No. 423 of 2021) under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA before the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Tis Hazari Courts, seeking to recover possession of a commercial shop (bearing No. 5436, Gali No. 71, Raigarpura, Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi).
Smt. Yogeshwari Devi purchased the property in December 1991 from its previous owners. The tenancy itself dated back to 1958, originally established by the predecessor-in-interest with the respondent’s late father, Manohar Lal Aggarwal, at a monthly rent of Rs. 50.
The landlady pleaded that she bona fide required the tenanted shop, along with an adjoining shop occupied by another tenant, to establish an ophthalmic clinic and eye-lens showroom for her daughter, Geetanjali. The daughter, an experienced optometrist qualified from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), had reportedly lost her job during the Covid-19 pandemic and wished to start her independent practice. The landlady asserted in her petition that she had absolutely no other alternative accommodation in Delhi or the National Capital Region (NCR) to settle her daughter.
Arguments of the Parties
The tenant, Yogesh Raju, filed an application seeking leave to defend, contending that the landlady’s claim of having no alternative space was false and that she had deliberately concealed several available properties. The tenant claimed that:
- Two shops on the ground floor of the subject property were lying vacant and in the landlady’s possession.
- The entire first, second, third, and fourth floors of the property were vacant and available.
- The landlady owned another commercial property at No. 68-69/5361 (later identified as 5360/1), Regarpura, which had four vacant shops on the ground floor, a commercial basement, and four vacant floors. To substantiate this, the tenant submitted copies of three electricity bills from November 2021 issued in the landlady’s name for ground-floor shops at that address.
The landlady filed a reply denying the tenant’s claims:
- She denied that any ground-floor shops in the subject property were vacant.
- She claimed her husband, an advocate, was operating an office to provide free legal aid to underprivileged communities from a space on the first floor. This assertion, however, directly contradicted her initial eviction petition, which stated her husband occupied one of the ground-floor shops.
- She denied ownership of the other floors at the subject property.
- Regarding the second property (No. 5360/1), she argued that she only owned the first floor as her residence, while the other floors were owned or sold to third parties. She produced a copy of an undated, unsigned draft sale deed from 2010 to show that she had sold the ground-floor portion to one Ms. Kiran, claiming the electricity bills remained in her name because the buyer had failed to update the records.
The Court’s Analysis
On August 1, 2023, the Additional Rent Controller allowed the tenant’s leave to defend application, finding that multiple triable issues had been raised. The landlady subsequently challenged this order before the High Court.
Justice Amit Sharma analyzed the pleadings, the contradictory site plans, and the shifting stands of the landlady. The High Court noted that while the landlady’s initial site plan showed her husband occupying a ground-floor shop, her reply to the leave to defend application asserted he was on the first floor. This discrepancy left the status of the ground-floor shop completely unexplained, creating a triable issue as to whether a vacant shop was actually available.
Furthermore, the High Court observed that the landlady had taken highly inconsistent stands regarding the property at Gali No. 68-69 (No. 5360/1). Initially, she denied owning any portion of the ground floor or other floors of this property, relying on the unsigned draft sale deed. However, in the synopsis submitted before the High Court, she admitted that the basement and fourth floor had been let out to tenants, one shop on the ground floor had been sold, and the remaining three ground-floor shops had been let out.
The High Court cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, which held that at the stage of leave to defend, the tenant only needs to prima facie disclose facts that would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an eviction order.
The Court also referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in M.M. Quasim v. Manohar Lal Sharma, which established: “Undoubtedly, if it is shown by the tenant that the landlord has some other vacant premises in his possession, that by itself may not be sufficient to negative the landlord’s claim but in such a situation the Court would expect the landlord to establish that the premises which is vacant is not suitable for the purpose of his occupation or for the purpose for which he requires the premises in respect of which the action is commenced in the Court.”
Similarly, the High Court cited Gurdeep Singh v. Jitender Pal Singh Narang and Another, reinforcing that any material doubt raised on the availability of alternate accommodations becomes a triable issue requiring a full trial.
Addressing the scope of revision under Section 25B(8) of the DRCA, Justice Amit Sharma cited the Supreme Court decisions in Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, noting: “The Revisional Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view, unless the impugned order is shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or vitiated by material impropriety. In the absence of such infirmities, there remains narrow scope for interference with the impugned order.”
The Decision
The High Court concluded that the Additional Rent Controller had committed no jurisdictional error or illegality in granting leave to defend. It held that the landlady could not withhold information on alternate properties and then seek a summary eviction.
The Court observed: “Once confronted with such material the petitioner cannot take a completely different stand and contend that irrespective of such non-disclosure the leave to defend applicant should have been dismissed as the learned RC failed to appreciate that the demised premises is only suitable accommodation available to the petitioner for satisfying her bonafide requirement.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed Smt. Yogeshwari Devi’s revision petition and upheld the trial court’s order allowing the tenant to contest the eviction petition.
Case Details:
Case Title: Smt Yogeshwari Devi v. Yogesh Raju
Case No.: RC.REV. 288/2023
Bench: Justice Amit Sharma
Date: 30th June, 2026
