The Delhi High Court has set aside an eviction order passed against a commercial tenant under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, ruling that a landlord’s failure to specifically deny owning other commercial properties raised by the tenant constitutes a “triable issue” requiring a full trial.
In a revision petition (RC.REV. 69/2019) filed under Section 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, Justice Amit Sharma set aside the August 9, 2018 order of the Additional Rent Controller (ARC), Smt. Susheel Bala Dagar. The lower court had previously dismissed the tenants’ application for leave to defend and passed an eviction order. The High Court has now allowed the tenants’ petition, officially granting them leave to defend, and remanded the matter back to the ARC to be decided independently via trial.
Case Background
The dispute arose from an eviction petition (Eviction Case No. 851/17) filed under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) by the landlord, Ravi Chand Garg. Garg, an advocate practicing in Delhi for 24 years, sought the eviction of tenants Subhash Chand and Dinesh Chand from a ground-floor commercial shop measuring 9 x 7 feet located at Katra Hira Lal, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. (During the pendency of the revision petition, Subhash Chand passed away on May 10, 2020, and was substituted by his wife, three daughters, and son).
The landlord asserted a “bona fide requirement” for the shop, stating he faced severe space constraints at his Tis Hazari Court chamber (Chamber No. 194, Civil Wing) due to an accumulation of law treatises, journals, and client files. He claimed he had been storing his extra books, office furniture, and files in a 10 x 12 feet ground-floor room at 7/13 Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi, which belonged to his brother. He stated that his brother had retired and requested him to vacate this room by November 30, 2017. The landlord asserted he had no other suitable alternative accommodation, disclosing only four properties in his petition that were either sold or occupied by other tenants under active tenancies.
Historically, the tenancy was initiated under a rent note dated May 15, 1974, executed by the tenants in favor of Mahali Ram Lakshman Das (HUF). Ravi Chand Garg purchased the property from the HUF on October 4, 1997, and subsequently increased the rent by 10 percent under Section 6A of the DRCA. Prior litigation between the parties included a rent recovery suit (Suit No. 340/2002) filed by the landlord, which was decreed in his favor but later set aside on appeal by the Additional District Judge (ADJ) in 2010 on the ground that the landlord “had not approached the Court with clean hands.”
In response to the landlord’s eviction petition, the tenants filed an application for leave to defend, challenging the landlord-tenant relationship and asserting that the landlord owned multiple undisclosed properties. The ARC dismissed the application on August 9, 2018, leading to the current revision petition before the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners (Tenants)
Represented by Mr. Tanmaya Mehta, Mr. Anunaya Mehta, and Ms. Anandita Tayal, the tenants argued that the landlord had actively concealed several suitable alternative accommodations. They specifically pointed to Paragraph 48 of their leave to defend affidavit, which listed several properties allegedly under the landlord’s possession:
- Premises No. 31 and 32, second floor, Municipal No. 676 to 682, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
- Premises No. 29 and 30, Municipal No. 683, Nai Sarak, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
- Property No. 4304 (or 4303), Gali Bhairon Wali, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
- Property No. 7/13, Gali Makhan Lal, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi.
- Property No. 4764-70, Laxmi Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi.
The tenants also asserted that Property No. 3384, Bazar Sita Ram, Delhi, was completely vacant. To support this claim, they produced electricity bills from July 2016 to February 2017 showing negligible monthly power consumption (ranging from 0 to 57 units, with several months showing 3 units or less).
Furthermore, the tenants filed an application for additional documents (CM APPL. 5614/2019), submitting photographs to prove that Shop No. 681 (Private No. 43 1/2, measuring 11 x 7 feet) and Property No. 679 had remained closed for over ten to fifteen years, contradicting the landlord’s claim that they were occupied by active tenants. The tenants also argued that the rent receipts produced by the landlord to prove active tenancies in his other shops were self-serving, unsigned by the tenants, and filled with chronological and numerical discrepancies.
Respondent (Landlord)
Represented by Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Ms. Shruti Kapur, and Ms. Anju Agarwal, the landlord countered that the High Court’s revisionary jurisdiction under Section 25B(8) is strictly limited and supervisory, relying on the Supreme Court ruling in Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua to argue that alternative accommodation claims are merely “incidental.”
The landlord’s primary contentions were:
- The landlord-tenant relationship was established through prior litigation and rent deposits under Section 27 of the DRCA.
- The landlord is the “best judge” of his requirements and cannot be dictated to by the tenant (relying on Baldev Singh Bajwa v. Monish Saini and Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan).
- Property No. 3384, Bazar Sita Ram, is the landlord’s personal residence. Because he works long hours at his court chamber and only returns home to sleep, his electricity consumption was naturally minimal.
- The properties listed by the tenants in Paragraph 48 were either not owned by him, belonged to his brother, or were occupied by existing tenants.
- The court cannot evaluate subsequent events or documents that were not part of the record before the ARC.
Court’s Analysis and Citations
Justice Amit Sharma examined the records of the case (under file name 59821052026RCR692019_170055.pdf) and the lower court’s decision. The High Court observed that while Smt. Susheel Bala Dagar’s order noted the tenants’ list of properties, it failed to actually evaluate or make determinations on them.
The Court observed: “Perusal of the findings returned by learned ARC with respect to alternate suitable accommodation shows that the aforesaid properties mentioned by the petitioners in their application seeking leave to defend were just referred to but not dealt with in the impugned order, and nor any specific findings have been given regarding the said properties by learned ARC.”
The High Court further noted that in his reply to the leave to defend application, the landlord did not specifically deny owning or possessing the properties listed in Paragraph 48, but merely gave a general denial stating that he had filed all material documents. Justice Sharma held: “The respondent had also not made any averment with respect to the status of the said properties… In view of the vague response made on behalf of the respondent, [this] will be a triable issue.”
In delineating the boundaries of its revisional powers, the High Court cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta (1999) 6 SCC 222: “The revisional jurisdiction exercisable by the High Court under Section 25-B(8) is not so limited as is under Section 115 CPC nor so wide as that of an appellate court. The High Court cannot enter into appreciation or reappreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts. However, the High Court is obliged to test the order of the Rent Controller on the touchstone of ‘whether it is according to law’.”
Applying this legal standard, the Court held that the ARC’s failure to address the specific properties raised by the tenants constituted a departure from the law, rendering the eviction order unsustainable. The Court concluded that whether these alternate properties could satisfy the landlord’s storage needs is a “triable issue, which needs to be contested at the stage of trial by leading adequate evidence.”
Decision
The Delhi High Court allowed the revision petition and set aside the ARC’s eviction order dated August 9, 2018. Smt. Susheel Bala Dagar’s order was officially quashed, and the tenants’ application for leave to defend was granted.
Regarding the additional documents filed under CM APPL. 5614/2019, the High Court refrained from examining them directly but granted the tenants liberty to move an appropriate application before the ARC. The case has been remanded back to the ARC for trial. The Court clarified that the landlord remains free to lead evidence during the trial to rebut the tenants’ assertions, and directed the ARC to decide the matter independently, uninfluenced by any observations made in the High Court judgment.
Case Details
- Case Name: Subhash Chand (Deceased) through LRs & Anr. v. Ravi Chand Garg
- Case Number: RC.REV. 69/2019 & CM APPL. 5613-14/2019
- Bench:Justice Amit Sharma
- Date: May 21, 2026
