Delhi HC Upholds Eviction for Landlord’s Hardware Shop as Tenants Failed to Show Alternative Upper-Floor Shops Were Available and Suitable

In brief

The question

1. Whether the landlord’s past purchase and sale of portions of another property raised a triable issue as to the availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.

The court held

The Court rejected the challenge to the dismissal of leave to defend, holding that neither the past property transactions nor the landlord’s existing business established a triable issue or an error warranting revision.

It also directed

The revision petition was dismissed, and the pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

01Facts

The respondent-landlord sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming that he required the tenanted ground-floor premises to start a business selling hardware goods and tools.

pp. 1–2, 5–8

The petitioners-tenants sought leave to defend, relying on the landlord’s earlier purchase and sale of portions of another property and his existing real-estate development business.

pp. 1–2, 5–8

On 27 April 2026, the Additional Rent Controller dismissed the leave application and ordered eviction.

pp. 1–2, 5–8

The tenants challenged that order under Section 25-B(8) of the Act.

pp. 1–2, 5–8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the landlord’s past purchase and sale of portions of another property raised a triable issue as to the availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.

pp. 2, 9–11

ii.2. Whether the landlord’s engagement in real-estate development undermined the bona fides of his stated intention to start a hardware-goods business.

pp. 2, 11–12

iii.3. Whether the Rent Controller’s order disclosed an error warranting interference under the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8).

pp. 3–5, 12–13

03Law Applied

Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act permits eviction for a landlord’s bona fide requirement, subject to the statutory conditions, including the absence of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation.

pp. 6–8

A tenant seeking leave to defend must plead and support material facts which, if proved, could disentitle the landlord to eviction; a bare assertion of alternative accommodation is insufficient, and its availability and suitability must be shown.

pp. 6–8

Under the proviso to Section 25-B(8), the High Court exercises supervisory and revisional—not appellate—jurisdiction and does not reappreciate evidence or substitute its view merely because another view is possible.

pp. 3–5

Interference is confined to matters such as jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or an error apparent on the record.

pp. 3–5

The Court relied on Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (1998) 8 SCC 119; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, (2014) 9 SCC 78; Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, (2022) 6 SCC 30; and the Delhi High Court decisions cited in the impugned order concerning alternative accommodation and the suitability of ground-floor commercial premises.

pp. 3–8

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

delhi rent control act, 1958 Section 14

04Reasoning

The Rent Controller had considered the earlier property transactions and noted that the relevant portions were sold in 2010, more than a decade before the 2023 eviction petition.

pp. 5–8, 9–11

The tenants produced no material showing that any part of that property was vacant and available when the eviction petition was filed, or that it was reasonably suitable; the alleged alternatives were on upper floors, whereas the claimed business premises were on the ground floor.

pp. 5–8, 9–11

The landlord’s existing real-estate business did not, by itself, make his intention to start a different business implausible or establish a triable issue.

pp. 11–12

As the Rent Controller had considered the material contentions and the tenants showed no qualifying error in its decision-making process, revisional interference was not warranted.

pp. 12–13