Landlord’s sale of properties for financial needs or suitability doesn't negate bona fide requirement for eviction.

The Petitioner (tenant) challenged an order dated 25.04.2026 passed by the learned ARC, which dismissed his application for leave to defend in an eviction petition filed by the Respondent (landlord) under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control (DRC) Act.

The Respondent sought eviction to establish a restaurant.

The Petitioner contended that the requirement was not bona fide because the Respondent had sold two other portions of the same property: Shop No. II-40/3 (sold shortly before filing the petition) and Shop No. II-40/9A (sold during the pendency of the litigation).

The ARC rejected these contentions, holding that the sales did not negate the landlord's genuine need.

1. Whether the sale of Shop No. II-40/3 prior to the filing of the eviction petition constitutes a triable issue regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord.

2. Whether the sale of Shop No. II-40/9A during the pendency of the petition, allegedly due to financial constraints, creates a triable issue.

3. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 25B(8), can re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the Rent Controller.

The court primarily applied Section 25B(8) of the DRC Act, which provides for limited revisional jurisdiction rather than full appellate review.

It relied on Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022), which clarifies that the High Court’s role is supervisory and confined to the decision-making process to detect jurisdictional errors or manifest illegalities.

Regarding the sale of property, it applied the principle from Shyam Sunder Ahuja v. Sushil Kumar (2017) that past sales do not automatically disqualify a landlord from seeking eviction for self-requirement.

It further applied the principle that the landlord is the "best judge" of their requirement and suitability of premises, as established in Praveen v. Mulak Raj.

The Court observed that its jurisdiction is limited to ensuring the ARC's decision does not suffer from perversity or an error on the face of the record.

Regarding Shop No. II-40/3, the Court affirmed the ARC's finding that since the sale occurred prior to the petition and "time is not static," old needs may change.

The Court found the Petitioner’s claims regarding this shop contradictory, as he simultaneously alleged the shop was sold and later let out to new tenants.

Regarding Shop No. II-40/9A, the Court upheld the ARC's reasoning that the sale was justified by financial constraints during the COVID-19 pandemic and the need to raise capital for the proposed business.

The Court emphasized that a tenant cannot dictate how a landlord utilizes or disposes of their property, especially where the other shop was significantly smaller than the tenanted premises.

The High Court affirmed that the ARC’s decision-making process was sound and free from jurisdictional error and dismissed the petition and the application for stay.

The court maintained that the landlord’s prerogative to choose the most suitable premises for a business cannot be interfered with by the court or the tenant.