Landlord’s Choice of Superior Commercial Location Over Existing Higher-Floor Space Does Not Constitute Triable Issue

The Respondent (landlord), a family-run private company, sought the eviction of the Petitioners (tenants) from property No. 9-A, First Floor, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act.

The Respondent claimed a bona fide requirement for expanding its art business wing ("The Biv") to provide office space for two directors and a display/storage area.

The Petitioners filed a leave to defend application, contending that the Respondent possessed approximately 7,500 sq. ft. of alternate suitable accommodation on the third floor and terrace, which was already being used for the art business and a co-working space.

They further alleged that invoices/challans submitted by the landlord were fabricated.

The Rent Controller (ARC) dismissed the leave to defend application and passed an eviction order on 06.11.2025.

The court applied Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, which allows eviction for bona fide occupational requirement.

It relied on the principle from Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. that the landlord is the best judge of their requirement and a tenant cannot dictate how the landlord should utilize their property.

The court followed Anil Bajaj & Anr. v. Vinod Ahuja, establishing that carrying on business from other premises does not foreclose the right to seek eviction from a more suitable tenanted premises.

Regarding corporate landlords, the court applied the Division Bench ruling in K.S. Bhandari v. International Security Printers Pvt. Ltd., which held that a company has the choice to invoke either Section 14(1)(e) or Section 22 of the DRC Act.

The court observed that the Respondent had fully disclosed the existence of the third floor and terrace but justified the requirement for the first floor based on superior commercial visibility and footfall in the Inner Circle versus the Middle Circle.

The court rejected the Petitioners' argument that the existing 7,500 sq. ft. was sufficient, noting that the landlord’s existing co-working business need not be shut down to accommodate the art gallery expansion.

On the issue of forged challans, the court found that minor date inconsistencies did not create a triable issue as the landlord had provided GST details and objective evidence of running the art business.

Regarding Section 22, the court held that the legal position was settled by K.S. Bhandari, allowing companies to sue under Section 14(1)(e).

The court concluded that the Petitioners' pleas were mere assertions and did not meet the "triable issue" threshold required to grant leave to defend.

The court held that the ARC’s decision was "according to law" and did not suffer from jurisdictional error.

The Petitioners were directed to vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the premises to the Respondent-landlord forthwith, as the statutory six-month grace period under Section 14(7) had already expired.