Facts
The Petitioner (landlord) filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA), 1958, seeking possession of a shop in Kirti Nagar.
Source reference: p.3, para 5He claimed a bonafide requirement to settle his two "unemployed" sons in a catering/restaurant business.
Source reference: p.4, para 6The Respondents (tenants) contested this, asserting that the sons were already gainfully employed in a business named "Om Vaneesa Creations" operating from a property in East Punjabi Bagh.
Source reference: p.5, para 8During the trial, the Petitioner admitted that a mobile number displayed on a business banner for "Om Vaneesa Creations" belonged to one of his sons.
Source reference: p.12, para 20The Additional Rent Controller (ARC) dismissed the eviction petition on 08.07.2024, finding the landlord's requirement to be fabricated.
Source reference: p.6, para 10Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner established a bonafide requirement for the demised premises under Section 14(1)(e) of the DRCA.
Source reference: p.10, para 152. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, should interfere with the finding of facts recorded by the Rent Controller regarding the employment status of the Petitioner's sons.
Source reference: p.16, para 18Law Applied
The court applied Section 14(1)(e) read with Section 25B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which governs eviction for bonafide personal need.
Source reference: p.1, para 1It relied on Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., which establishes that while a landlord is the best judge of their requirement, the court must ensure the need is not a pretext for eviction.
Source reference: p.10, para 15.1Regarding the scope of revision, the court cited Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua, holding that the High Court’s power under Section 25B(8) is restrictive, supervisory, and confined to ensuring the order is "according to law" without substituting its own factual findings for those of the trial court.
Source reference: p.17, para 19Reasoning
The court found no perversity in the ARC’s appreciation of evidence where Petitioner’s sons were claimed to be unemployed, yet the Respondent produced photographs [Ex. PW1/D2] and a visiting card [Ex. RW-1/1] showing a functional business ("Om Vaneesa Creations") associated with the Petitioner’s son's mobile number.
Source reference: p.12-16, paras 20, 15, 17The Petitioner failed to provide a credible explanation for these documents or examine his brother (the alleged owner of the Punjabi Bagh shop) to debunk the tenant's claim.
Source reference: p.12, para 21; p.15, para 16The court noted that the Petitioner had changed the stated nature of the intended business multiple times during the protracted litigation (from catering to denting/painting to a restaurant), which weakened the claim of bonafide need.
Source reference: p.11-12, paras 17-19Consequently, the court held that the ARC's conclusion—that the Petitioner had not come to the court with clean hands regarding his sons' employment—was a reasonable finding based on the material available.
Source reference: p.13, para 23; p.18, para 21Holding
The court concluded that its revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not permit the re-appreciation of evidence unless the lower court’s decision is arbitrary or perverse; hence the Petitioner failed to prove a bonafide requirement as evidence suggested his sons were already gainfully employed.
The High Court dismissed the revision petition, upheld the ARC's order dated 08.07.2024, and denied the relief of eviction.
Source reference: p.18, para 21-22Original Court PDF
Brij Mohan BattavsTara Chand Garg & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in