Delhi HC Upholds Eviction Of Najafgarh Shop Tenants For Landlord’s Son’s Business, Finding No Material To Back Tenants’ Will And Alternate-Shop Challenges

The respondent sought eviction under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (“DRC Act”), claiming that the tenanted commercial premises were required for his elder son to start a business.

He relied on a registered Will by which, he said, he had inherited the premises from his father.

The tenants disputed the landlord–tenant relationship and the respondent’s claim under the Will, and asserted that he had alternative accommodation.

The Rent Controller rejected their application for leave to defend and ordered eviction on 20 November 2024.

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

Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act permits eviction for a landlord’s bona fide requirement, subject to the statutory conditions; under the summary procedure in Section 25B, leave to defend is warranted where the tenant’s affidavit discloses facts that would disentitle the landlord to eviction or raise a triable issue.

For eviction proceedings, the landlord need not establish absolute and indefeasible title as in a civil title action; the relevant inquiry is whether the landlord has a better title or interest than the tenant and is entitled to maintain the proceedings.

A Will’s registration does not conclusively prove its due execution or genuineness, but a bare denial unsupported by particulars or material need not raise a triable issue.

The High Court’s jurisdiction under the proviso to Section 25B(8) is supervisory and revisional, not appellate; it may interfere for jurisdictional error, manifest illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or an error apparent in the decision-making process, but may not merely substitute its view for that of the Rent Controller (*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).

Applying the restricted revisional standard, the Court found no material error in the Rent Controller’s assessment of the landlord–tenant relationship: the respondent relied on the registered Will and the subsisting tenancy, while the tenants had produced no material substantiating forgery or otherwise showing that he could not maintain the eviction petition.

Express attornment was not essential in the circumstances.

The objections concerning the son’s need and capacity were not raised before the Rent Controller in the relevant manner and were unsupported by material; a proposed business need is not, by itself, merely a desire.

As to the two other shops, the tenants did not establish that they were legally and practically available or suitable for the pleaded requirement; the respondent referred to pending litigation and a status quo order.

The Court therefore found no basis for revisional intervention.

It clarified that the judgment did not determine the ultimate validity of the Will or the parties’ competing claims to absolute title, which remain matters for appropriate proceedings.