Foreign residency does not invalidate a landlord’s bona fide residential requirement.

The property (N-197-A, Greater Kailash-I) was acquired by the Respondent’s mother in 1961 and leased to the Petitioner in 1976 at INR 1150/month

After the mother's death in 1991, the property devolved to the Respondent and his siblings

The Respondent, a Malaysian resident, filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act, 1958, claiming bona fide requirement for himself and his daughter, Ms. Sarita Sharma (a lawyer in Malaysia), who intended to settle in Delhi and set up a consultancy

The Petitioner contested the petition, alleging: (i) the daughter could not legally practice law in India as a foreign national; (ii) the Respondent had alternative accommodation in Jangpura and Kailash Colony; and (iii) the Petitioner had acquired ownership via adverse possession

The Senior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller (ARC) allowed the eviction petition on 27.04.2023

The Petitioner filed this revision under Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act.

The court applied Section 14(1)(e) of the DRC Act regarding eviction for bona fide requirement and Section 25B(8) regarding the High Court's limited revisional powers

It relied on the principle of estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prevents a tenant from denying the landlord's title

Precedents such as Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua established that the High Court cannot act as an appellate court to re-examine facts unless the lower court’s order is perverse

The court also referenced Hi-Bred (India) (P) Ltd. v. Ravi Kumar and Saroj Khemka v. Indu Sharma, holding that NRIs have a legitimate right to return to their roots and use their own property for stay during visits or permanent shifting

Finally, it noted the Bar Council of India Rules (2023) permitting foreign lawyers to render advisory/consultancy services in India

The Court observed that the Respondent’s desire to return to India and his daughter’s intent to establish a consultancy constitute a legitimate bona fide need

It dismissed the Petitioner's argument regarding the daughter's legal inability to practice, noting that BCI Rules now permit foreign lawyers to provide advisory services on international/foreign laws, which justified the need for an office-cum-residence

Regarding alternative accommodation, the Court found the Petitioner’s claims regarding properties in Jangpura and Kailash Colony to be "bald averments" unsupported by documentary evidence; conversely, the Respondent proved the Jangpura address was merely for correspondence

On adverse possession, the Court held that the Petitioner, having entered as a tenant, was legally barred from claiming hostile title against the landlord

Furthermore, a juristic entity cannot claim physical adverse possession in a manner hostile to the owner when the owner has been actively litigating for possession since 1997

The Court affirmed that the Respondent established a bona fide requirement and that the Petitioner failed to prove any alternative accommodation or legal title

The interim stay on eviction was vacated, and the Petitioner was directed to hand over vacant physical possession of the premises to the Respondent forthwith, as the statutory six-month grace period under Section 14(7) had already lapsed