A Co-owner is Competent to Maintain an Eviction Petition Without Joining Other Co-owners Under the DRC Act

The Petitioner (tenant) challenged the eviction order dated 21.07.2022 passed by the Learned ARC regarding two shops at Azad Market, Delhi.

The Respondent (landlord) claimed exclusive ownership via a family settlement following a partition suit.

The Petitioner contested the maintainability of the petition on the grounds that it was filed by only one co-owner without the consent of others, alleged non-disclosure of alternate suitable accommodations, and argued that the projected bona fide requirement for the landlord’s son was a mere desire rather than a necessity.

1. Whether an eviction petition instituted by a single co-owner/landlord is maintainable under the Delhi Rent Control Act?

2. Whether the Respondent possessed reasonably suitable alternate accommodation that was not disclosed or considered by the Trial Court?

3. Whether the requirement for the premises for the business of the landlord's son constitutes a genuine bona fide necessity?

The Court applied Section 14(1)(e) and Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, governing summary procedures for eviction on grounds of bona fide requirement.

It relied on Kanta Goel v. B.P. Pathak to affirm that a co-owner is competent to institute eviction proceedings.

Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding tenant estoppel.

Principles from Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, which establish that the High Court’s power under Section 25B(8) is supervisory/revisional and not appellate.

The Court found that the Petitioner’s challenge to the landlord's title failed as a co-owner is legally entitled to file for eviction, and the tenant is estopped from disputing the landlord's title once the relationship is acknowledged.

Regarding alternate accommodation, the Court noted that the Learned ARC had meticulously examined each of the seven alleged properties (commercial and residential) and provided cogent reasons why they were either occupied, dilapidated, or unsuitable.

The Court emphasized that the landlord is the "best judge" of their requirements and a tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should utilize their property.

The Court concluded that the Petitioner sought a re-appreciation of evidence, which is impermissible under the restrictive revisional scope of Section 25B(8).

The Court affirmed that the Respondent established a bona fide need for her son’s business and lacked suitable alternative accommodation. All pending applications were dismissed.