Material subsequent events affecting bona fide requirement warrant leave to defend in eviction proceedings.

The respondent-landlord instituted separate eviction petitions under Section 14(1)(e) read with the summary procedure under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, concerning shops and portions of property at Bhagat Singh Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi.

He claimed bona fide requirement of the premises for expanding and relocating his travel-agency business to the ground floor, and for accommodating the business involvement of his wife, children and grandchildren.

The tenants sought leave to defend, alleging, inter alia, concealment of alternate commercial accommodation, availability of other shops in the same locality, absence of dependency of the landlord’s married daughters and Canada-based son/grandchildren, incorrect site plans, and that the alleged requirement was merely for business expansion rather than a bona fide present need.

The Rent Controller dismissed the leave-to-defend applications in RC.REV. 507/2015 and RC.REV. 563/2015 on 2 July 2015, and in RC.REV. 99/2016 on 14 October 2015/2025 as recorded in the judgment.

During the revisions, the tenants placed subsequent events on record, including the landlord’s alleged acquisition of possession of several ground-floor shops, availability of Shop No. 1/6, ownership of commercial shops by the landlord’s daughter at Ashok Vihar, the settlement of grandson Rahul Aggarwal in Canada, and the landlord’s apparent connection with Canada.

Whether the tenants had disclosed facts constituting triable issues warranting grant of leave to defend under Section 25-B of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, particularly regarding bona fide requirement, dependency and availability of alternate suitable accommodation

Whether the alleged subsequent events materially altered or eclipsed the landlord’s claimed bona fide requirement and could be considered in revision proceedings

Whether the Rent Controller failed to properly consider material pleas and documents, including the alleged availability of Shop No. 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, and thereby rendered findings that were not “according to law”

Whether the High Court could interfere under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act despite the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction

The Court applied Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, which permits eviction where premises are bona fide required by the landlord for occupation by himself or a dependent family member and no other reasonably suitable accommodation is available, together with Section 25-B and Section 25-B(8), governing summary eviction proceedings and the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction.

At the leave-to-defend stage, the tenant need not establish a probable defence conclusively; disclosure of facts which, if proved, may disentitle the landlord to eviction is sufficient to raise a triable issue.

Under Shiv Sarup Gupta v. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta, the High Court may interfere where the Controller’s conclusion is unreasonable, based on a wrong legal premise, ignores material evidence, or otherwise constitutes a finding not according to law.

The Court further applied the rule from Pasupuleti Venkateswarlu v. Motor & General Traders, Kedar Nath Agrawal v. Dhanraji Devi, Om Prakash Gupta v. Ranbir B. Goyal and Maria Martins v. Noel Zuzarte that subsequent events may be considered where they materially affect the right to relief, render the original relief inappropriate, shorten litigation, or are necessary to do complete justice, provided the opposite party receives an opportunity to respond.

Bona fide requirement must continue to subsist until final adjudication and cannot be founded on a mere fanciful desire.

The Court held that the tenants had raised substantial triable issues rather than merely disputing the landlord’s factual case.

The landlord had not disclosed in the original eviction petitions or site plans that Shop No. 5, Bhagat Singh Marg, was allegedly occupied by Karachi Halwa House; this explanation emerged only in reply to the leave-to-defend applications, and no rent receipts or contemporaneous material were produced to substantiate it.

The Controller also incorrectly recorded that the tenants had not disputed the landlord’s assertion regarding that shop, despite the pleadings showing a specific dispute.

The subsequent possession of several ground-floor shops, including Shop No. 1/6, raised a material question whether reasonably suitable alternate accommodation had become available and whether the landlord’s original requirement remained genuine.

The landlord explained the use of some shops but failed to explain the status of Shop No. 1/6, which was alleged to have been vacant since 2022.

The Court also found triable issues concerning the landlord’s daughter’s two commercial shops at Ashok Vihar, the asserted dependency of the grandson who had allegedly settled in Canada, and the landlord’s own apparent relocation or residence in Canada.

The Court further noted that the landlord’s case was for expansion of an already-existing travel business and involved family members whose dependency and actual intention to join the business were disputed.

The son’s permanent residence and business in Canada, the grandson’s alleged settlement in Canada, and the daughter’s existing independent travel business created factual questions that could not properly be resolved summarily without evidence.

Since the Rent Controller had ignored or inadequately addressed these matters, the impugned orders were not conclusions “according to law” within the meaning of Section 25-B(8).

It held that the tenants had raised triable issues concerning bona fide requirement, dependency, concealment and availability of alternate accommodation, including the effect of subsequent events.

Leave to defend was granted; the parties were permitted to amend their pleadings regarding subsequent events and lead evidence.

The matters were remitted to the Rent Controller/ARC for fresh adjudication on the entire material record, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.