Delhi HC Upholds Shop Tenant’s Eviction For Advocate Granddaughter’s Office, Says ₹65,000 Pagdi Claim Raised No Triable Issue

The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from a ground-floor shop under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, claiming it was bona fide required as an office for his practising-advocate granddaughter and that no reasonably suitable alternative accommodation was available

The tenant sought leave to defend, alleging that he had paid ₹65,000 as pagdi when the tenancy began in 1988 and that the landlord had other suitable premises, including other parts of the same building

The Rent Controller dismissed the leave-to-defend application and ordered eviction, finding the landlord–tenant relationship admitted, the bona fide requirement established, and the suggested alternatives unsuitable.

In revision, although notice had initially been limited to the time for vacating, the High Court also heard the tenant’s arguments on the merits

Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act confers a supervisory and revisional jurisdiction, not appellate jurisdiction: the High Court examines the legality and propriety of the Rent Controller’s decision-making process and does not substitute its view merely because another view is possible

This approach was supported by Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dilbahar Singh, Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, and the cited Delhi High Court decisions

In a bona fide-requirement eviction proceeding, the relevant matters include the landlord–tenant relationship, bona fide requirement, and availability of reasonably suitable alternative accommodation

A tenant ordinarily cannot dictate which premises the landlord should use, provided the premises sought are reasonably suited to the bona fide requirement.

Section 5(2)(a) prohibits receiving pagdi or a premium in consideration of the grant, renewal, or continuance of a tenancy; Section 19 provides a statutory remedy where premises obtained on a bona fide-requirement ground are subsequently dealt with contrary to the Act

The Court found that the tenant admitted the tenancy, the landlord’s ownership, and payment of rent; the pagdi allegation concerned only the amount of rent and did not undermine the admitted relationship or the landlord’s bona fide requirement

It also held that the Rent Controller had considered the suggested alternatives: the rear portion and upper floors were materially different from the ground-floor shop with direct access from the main road, while the tenant could not require the landlord to seek eviction of other shop tenants instead

The concern that the shop might be re-let at a higher rent was addressed by the safeguard in Section 19

The Court therefore found no material omission, manifest infirmity, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting revisional intervention

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