Mere bald assertions regarding a landlord's alternative accommodation or family employment status fail to raise triable issues.

The respondent (landlord) filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act (DRCA) for a shop in Fatehpuri, Delhi, purchased in 1989.

She sought the premises for the bona fide requirement of her husband and elder son (Siddharth) to start independent dry fruit businesses, claiming they were jobless and she lacked suitable alternative accommodation.

The petitioner (tenant) applied for leave to defend, alleging: (i) concealment of vacant shops (Nos. 3 and 5) in the same building; (ii) that the elder son was gainfully employed in an MNC; and (iii) that the husband owned an adjacent property (No. 42).

The Trial Court (ARC) dismissed the leave to defend application on 05.01.2023, leading to this revision petition.

1. Whether the tenant raised a triable issue regarding the availability of suitable alternative accommodation, specifically concerning alleged vacant shops and adjacent property.

2. Whether the landlord’s requirement was bona fide or if the alleged employment of the son constituted a triable issue.

3. Whether the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, should interfere with the ARC’s findings.

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

Procedurally, it followed Section 25-B(5), requiring the tenant to disclose facts that would disentitle the landlord from obtaining an eviction order to gain leave to defend.

Precedentially, it relied on Abid-Ul-Islam v. Inder Sain Dua (2022), establishing that a mere assertion is insufficient to rebut the presumption of bona fide need and that a "heavy burden" lies on the tenant to provide documentary evidence.

It further cited Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (1998) to define the restrictive scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 25-B(8), limiting interference to errors of law or patent unreasonableness.

The Court found the tenant’s claims regarding alternative accommodation to be unsubstantiated "bald averments." Regarding Shops 3 and 5, the landlord produced rent receipts and names of old tenants, whereas the tenant only provided photographs of closed shutters, which the Court ruled does not prove physical possession or vacancy.

The Court dismissed the challenge to the rent receipts' serial numbers, noting the tenant’s own receipts were similarly non-sequential.

On the son’s employment, the Court held that even if he had been previously employed, it does not foreclose his right to start a business, and the tenant failed to provide documentary proof of current employment.

Regarding the adjacent property (No. 42), the landlord produced a sale deed showing third-party ownership, which the tenant failed to rebut.

The Court emphasized that a landlord is the "best judge" of their requirements and need not utilize less suitable floors (like the 4th floor) over the ground floor.

The Court affirmed that revisional jurisdiction is not an appellate power to re-appreciate evidence unless the lower court's finding is perverse.

Consequently, the revision petition was dismissed, the order dated 05.01.2023 was upheld, and the interim stay on eviction was vacated.