Delhi HC Lets Tenant Contest Eviction Filed 100 Days After Shop Handover Under Family Settlement, Over Landlords’ Bona Fide Need

The subject premises formed part of property in which the family partnership firm held tenancy rights.

Following disputes between the two family branches, a settlement and bidding process resulted in the Petitioner acquiring the tenancy rights; possession was handed over to him on 28 August 2008.

The Respondents, who owned the premises, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”) on 5 December 2008, pleading a bona fide commercial requirement.

The Petitioner sought leave to defend, relying, among other matters, on the settlement, the consideration paid, the short interval before filing, and alleged alternative accommodation available to the Respondents.

The Rent Controller dismissed the leave application and ordered eviction on 16 September 2021.

The Petitioner challenged that order in revision.

Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act permits eviction where the landlord establishes a bona fide requirement and lacks reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.

Under Section 25-B(5), leave to defend must be granted where the tenant’s affidavit discloses facts which, if established, could disentitle the landlord from eviction; the tenant need raise a triable issue, not prove the defence at the leave stage.

Precision Steel & Engineering Works v. Prem Deva Niranjan Deva Tayal, Inderjeet Kaur v. Nirpal Singh, and Charan Dass Duggal v. Brahma Nand establish that disputed factual matters requiring evidence should not ordinarily be conclusively resolved on competing affidavits at that stage.

Under Section 25-B(8), the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate; interference is warranted where the Rent Controller applies the wrong legal test or its decision-making process discloses a material error.

Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua states that revision is not an occasion to substitute the High Court’s view for that of the Rent Controller.

The High Court found that the Rent Controller had effectively required the Petitioner to prove his defence conclusively, rather than asking whether the pleaded facts and supporting material raised genuine triable issues.

The Petitioner’s evidence and assertions concerning the settlement and bidding arrangement, substantial consideration, transfer of possession, and filing of the eviction petition approximately 100 days later could bear on whether the Respondents’ claimed shortage of commercial accommodation—and thus their pleaded requirement—was bona fide.

The Division Bench’s earlier ruling that the Petitioner acquired tenancy, not ownership, and that the Respondents retained a right to seek eviction did not determine whether the later-pleaded requirement satisfied Section 14(1)(e).

The alleged alternative premises and business use also raised factual matters that the Rent Controller had assessed by demanding proof at the leave stage.

Because these matters required fuller adjudication, the Rent Controller’s application of the leave-to-defend test was legally erroneous and warranted revision.

It expressed no final view on the bona fide requirement, alternative accommodation, or the merits of the parties’ claims, and directed the Rent Controller to proceed from the stage at which the impugned order had been passed, afford the parties an opportunity to lead evidence, and endeavour to dispose of the matter with reasonable dispatch.